Granted, the National Park Service's budget is little more than a rounding error when it comes to the entire federal budget. But as the deficit continues to swell, and Republicans promise better budgeting in the coming Congress, the Park Service can be expected to identify some savings. But where?
* Should fewer rangers be hired, with the agency instead relying more on volunteers?
* Should the agency rely less on the federal budget for its appropriation and more on park users via higher entrance fees, higher camping fees, and higher backcountry fees?
* Should the fees tied to the America the Beautiful passes be revisited? After all, should retirees who visit the parks be able to land a life-time pass for just $10, while a young couple or family just getting starting in life have to pay $80 a year?
* Should facility hours be scaled back to save on salaries and operating costs?
If you were the director of the National Park Service, or a park superintendent, where would you look to save some money? And would you decide some programs are just too important to cut? If so, which ones?
Support Essential Coverage of Essential Places
Comments
File this one under "Never Gonna Happen" but I'd sure love to see Congress put some restraint on itself (ha!) and place a moratorium on establishing new park units. There are new parks established every five minutes, it seems, but when was the last time a park was abolished? The NPS timeline says 1981. Once a park is established, of course, it's near impossible to abolish. The more park units the NPS has to maintain, the more stretched the budget gets. Along with their supposed rejection of earmarks, members of Congress should also reject creating pet parks in their home districts.
I know Horace Albright was afraid of too many parks "diluting" the legacy of the Yellowstones, Yosemites, Sequoias, etc., and I think there are parks out there that clearly do not live up to the "national" name, or are duplicates of already existing parks. I think pruning the system (and avoiding new units unless truly nationally significant) would make for a healthier national park idea, and might save some money.
Charge an entrance fee at Great Smokey Mountains or consider giving maintenance, staffing and upkeep back to the state. Raise entrance fees at all parks. Time to trim parks not add parks, which could include Great Smokey if they do not submit to fees.
Under the terms of an agreement with the state of Tennessee, which funded construction of the park's main road (Hwy 441, Newfound Gap Rd.), the federal government cannot charge admission fees for Great Smoky Mountains National Park. The state of Tennessee insisted that motorists be able to drive on the state-funded Hwy 441 without charge.
We shouldn't be asking this question, because it further legitmates the narrative that the parks' budget should be cut. Instead, the narrative should be reframed to recognize the parks as inviolable--i.e. another "third rail" issue in American politics. There are plenty of other things that can and should be cut in the federal budget.
Maybe at Great Smokey N.P. you could make them buy a pass to be able to park or leave the hi-way in side the park. That way through motorist would not have to buy a permit.
A look at our local National Park (Redwood) shows outrageous expenditures for both facilities and staffing. This park is basically locked behind numerous gates. NPS has no campgrounds and very few trails to it's name here. In an unholy alliance with the State of California Parks this "Park" is the epitome of pork barrel projects and over staffing. So now we have NPS employees patrolling California State Parks and they are so numerous that they are falling over each other. One of the Taj Mahal facilities in Orick, California looks like a bad joke on the American Public and it is one of many. This building has enough office space so that each and every visitor actually on NPS land in the winter could have his own office. This park has such positions as Chief of Aviation Management (but no airplanes) and Chief of Interpretation (but no Interpretation facilities). This is the type of insanity in the NPS that should be cut to the bone! The USA can't afford to have near ten per cent of the population working for the Government! especially when you consider that there is probably another 10% working for the Government indirectly.