View Full Version : $3 billion proposed for National Parks
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap_travel/20070314/ap_tr_ge/travel_brief_national_parks
Interesting...i think.
Sounds good to me. Hope they spend it wisely.
freefall
03-19-2007, 06:05
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap_travel/20070314/ap_tr_ge/travel_brief_national_parks
Interesting...i think.
Sounds good to me. Hope they spend it wisely.
Yeah, I'm cautiously optimistic on this one. With this admin's track record on national parks and wilderness, you gotta wonder...what aren't they telling us?
It sounds good, let's just hope it's true.
At least half will go to pay salaries and perks.
Midway Sam
03-19-2007, 09:30
At least half will go to pay salaries and perks.
Doubtful. Most will be used for more roads.
Fiddleback
03-19-2007, 11:04
In 1916, Congress tasked the National Park Service to;
"promote and regulate the use of the Federal areas known as national parks, monuments and reservations hereinafter specified by such means and measures as conform to the fundamental purpose of the said parks, monuments, and reservations, which purpose is to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wild life therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations."
From the link at the beginning of this thread;
"The administration proposes a $258 million increase in national parks' funding in fiscal 2008 to $2.4 billion. Beyond that, the plan offers an additional $100 million for operations, including restoring some 3,000 seasonal park rangers, and $100 million in new federal money to match $100 million in new private giving for special centennial projects each year through 2016...
"The National Parks Conservation Association contends the national parks have been operating with an annual shortfall of more than $800 million, resulting in a long backlog of maintenance and preservation needs."
The past several years have been a bleak period for the NPS and the system has fallen way behind in funding virtually everything within the Parks. This shortfall continues despite continuing and growing reliance on private partners for money and volunteers. In at least one year, money from the NPS budget was diverted to 'homeland security' projects. In the Administration's early years, the number of NPS employees was severely cut as touched upon above. That funding which has been forthcoming has been heavy in 'infrastructure' projects; roads, bridges, visitor centers, etc. 'Biological' funding, i.e., species study, habitat protection, general preservation, etc., has come up short. I believe law enforcement resources; border enforcement, poaching, illegal snow mobile crossings, etc., have likewise been shorted.
Personal anecdote: In Glacier NP there was a walkway with stairs and observation points at one point along MacDonald Creek (Going to the Sun Road). The walkway was closed with a hand painted sign posted that read something like, 'Danger. Closed due to lack of maintenance funding.' When I was back two years later the sign was gone, the walkway et. al. was nicely repaired and spiffy'ed up. Coincindence or squeaky wheel?
FB
Or shiny new trucks. The park here cuts the hours of the guys that clean the bathrooms and empties trash cans, but spends wazoodles on "should we paint lines on the road" studies. The classic line told to me by a long-time employee: "Give 'em ten, they'll spend fifteen, and cry they don't have twentyfive." (million)
Eons ago, you could read the military markings through the paint of vehicles.
You should see the parking lots now. I bet they don't even know how many cars they have up there.
I must be snarky about gov waste... so sorry
Rain Man
03-19-2007, 12:16
With this admin's track record on national parks and wilderness, you gotta wonder...what aren't they telling us?
What they aren't telling us? That they are taking current credit while giving a huge future bill to the next Administration, whom they will then complain about for raising taxes (or increasing fees) to pay for the bill they were left. A bit like "using plastic" in someone else's name.
Rain Man
.
itll prolly gunna be used to "improve" access ie. build roads and facilities.Nature dosnt need more $, it needs more people to respect it.
The Bush administration is famous for "proposing" and "allocating", but never following through with actually "paying". Most people think that allocated and paid are the same thing. They are scrambling like mad, because the environment is finally in the top 5, as far as election issues are concerned. If we don't get a president in office who cares about the environment, the national parks are in real trouble. The public with think that the national parks are getting all this money, and won't want to help as much. The move could really hurt the NPS.
"The public (will) think..." and "(This) move could really...."
Sorry. I missed my coffee this morning. <sigh>
The Bush administration is famous for "proposing" and "allocating", but never following through with actually "paying". Most people think that allocated and paid are the same thing. They are scrambling like mad, because the environment is finally in the top 5, as far as election issues are concerned. If we don't get a president in office who cares about the environment, the national parks are in real trouble. The public with think that the national parks are getting all this money, and won't want to help as much. The move could really hurt the NPS.
If we don't get a president in office who cares about the environment, the national parks are in real trouble.
Which rules out just about every Republican. Their best, McCain, isn't very good. His rating by the League of Conservation Voters for the last 5 years.
109th, 2nd Session (2006) 29%
109th, 1st Session (2005) 45%
108th Congress (2003-2004) 56%
107th Congress (2001-2002) 36%
106th Congress (1999-2000) 6%