A point of order is necessary in light of D-2's comment. The above article is clearly marked as an Op-Ed, not a position taken by the Traveler.

As we point out in our "About" section (found under Departments), "The articles that appear on the Traveler are intended to educate, inform, and entertain readers, as well as to stimulate discussion and debate about how the National Park System is managed. (emphasis added)

Additionally, we accept guest columns that touch on any and all aspects of the national parks. As long as submissions are worded constructively they will be considered for publication on the Traveler."

With the centennial of the National Park Service soon upon us, a discussion revolving around the viability of the park system certainly seems apropos.

-- Dr. Butowsky you say again we have parks we cannot afford. But: you explain nothing, you counter nothing in just repeating this untrue statement.

You owe it to us and to the integrity of National Parks Traveler to explain how much money all the proposed cuts you list would save.
Go ahead. List your savings in each thing you propose, each park you cut or spin off.
Subtract the assistance you would give to the parks in spinning them off. Because if you use 'lack of money' as your justification to break the promise of America to preserve these parks forever, you should be able to support that your drastic recommendation will do something major for the budget ("SOS" indeed !) other than the whim of opposing parks you don't like. Even you admit it risks destabilization.
This is the most crucial, most fundamental of all the flaws of your papers. Please explain how much saving will result. I think, next to nothing.

-- Sorry, bad guess Dr. Butowsky, it isn't so that I use the name D-2 because of not wanting this debate or because of you. I have always used it. The site permits it, and for me it was actually a way to avoid conflicts with park leaders, or for friends I know who do work for the park service. I did many years ago. To Anonymous: I did not, do not work NOT as a park service leader - more mid-level about the same as Dr. Butowsky. I did work in parks, and central offices, and in Washington also like he did but not as a manager or a leader. Mid-level is the best way to describe the core of my work.

As I will explain later in answers to some of the better criticisms here, most of the leaders controlling the park service legislative and budget including OMB are closer to your position than to the pro-preservation view I support, and I have fought the "zero-sum" types most of my life.

But I must say their points deal more knowledgably with appropriations accounts, park studies, budget busting issues, etc. than these. Or at least were willing in public or in private to have this debate. Park service has repeatedly testified on such issues before Congress, has often called for moratoria, and has opposed many things only for the money. Mostly, I thought they were wrong whenever they called for sweeping, across-the-board "no to new parks" policies.

-- TO ecbuck: ecbuck is right that neither Democrats nor Republicans have stepped up very well recently.

Although, to generalize, Republicans a little worse, occasional a lot worse, but once in a while Republicans are much better than Democrats. Obviously McCain had a much stronger "National Park Platform" when he ran than Obama did.

Obviously the main thing hurting the parks now is the stupid trap Boehner and Obama created with the Sequestration, although you can argue that both men originally intended to solve the whole problem of taxes and entitlements and military in one stroke.

But it turned out Obama was naive about what chaos in the government and in the military the Members of Congress were willing to accept -- rather than solve a problem together. (and the Republican McCain said the whole thing was ruinous and a bad idea.) Whereas Boehner clearly could not even control his own membership, usually a fatal flaw for a House Leader. So that is the reason why the current budget caps are so severe. Not what Dr. Butowsky says at all.

-- TO ANONYMOUS: I've already said, pls see my answer to Dr. Bukowsky, I'm not a 'king,' but-- regarding your other point saying my attacks are personal:

I do not understand why asking Butowsky to address what he is missing or disguised in his piece about how the park study program actually works is an individual attack on him, or why confronting him with the truth that many of the places people try to make into parks - far and away the very large majority - NEVER become parks -- I think Dr. Butowsky owes us that, don't you? Or, why it is a personal attack to ask him how he confuses the different funding sources and appropriations? And, to ask him to acknowledge that basic flaw of different pots of money these new parks don't threaten really undercuts his argument? Or, why it is a personal attack to state, most of all, how the places he talks about shutting down or not establishing have very little to do with the real costs of the park service?

He doesn't but needs to answer these things.

Because he and the National Park Traveler have become the go-to source for the opponents of the National Parks or the Land and Water Conservation Fund, and they should back up their statements with just some actual numbers.

I asked this same question of him on the publication of a previous article, when he made some of the same mistakes before, and other than saying he disagrees, he never actually explains, he just repeats it. Is calling him on that 'personal?' Really? But if he is holding himself out for his 30 professional years, doesn't he owe us that? Or is it only Kurt who cites this as a qualification for running this with no corrections to the most obvious things? I have read many articles in Traveler. Once in a while, whatever the topic, you will see a little mistake, but not an entire piece wallpapered with them. What is the point of citing this as authoritative if there is not some effort to make the comments professional, and the logic consecutive?

Simply to keep saying that we can't afford to keep these places is disingenuous, isn't it, unless you acknowledge the actual costs of the places he cites for cutting, isn't it? And disingenuous, isn't it, unless you deal with the fact that the enormous road budget needs he cites within the backlog are, in fact, funded by an entire different, non-park service, transportation fund? This is significant, because NONE OF THE PARKS Dr. Butowsky mentions would affect that huge part of the 'backlog' either way. Which means his "solution" wouldn't solve it either way, right?

And isn't it an issue, if you do not acknowledge, as Dr. Butowsky does not, that park costs are not even a rounding error in the US Budget and the larger fight has nothing to do with parks?

-- But, Anonymous, the park service leadership, unlike me, are not asking for "more."

It is Congress in each and every case that has initiated each and every recent park. The last time the National Park Service had its own legislative program and new park initiative was with the new parks in Alaska, in 1980. So "more" does not in fact come from the NPS leadership. Wish that it did !

Sometimes some of the NPS people are more enthusiastic about some of these congressional proposals. But some people in the leadership are (as someone else said here) looking at what they've got, their fiefdom rather than their responsibility to also be preservationists as the law clearly expects.

OMB, in the Office of the White House, almost always instinctively opposes everything.

Some Secretaries of the Interior are far more able and willing to roll OMB and push them out of the way, than others.

We briefly until last year had a very strong White House chief of staff who helped, as did both Senate and House last year, to make sure that the Park Service actually got everything it asked for.

Asked for officially, that is, but that was an accomplishment after a few years of cuts.

Unfortunately he left to work on a political campaign so we will have to see how the NPS comes out of the Fiscal Year 2016 issue.

The Congress has supported releasing the military from the Sequester, thanks largely to John McCain.

The White House says the President would veto the military authorization bill if domestic programs (presumably including the NPS) are not ALSO released from those across-the-board-cuts.

The Republican Senator Murkowsky has shown more imagination than many in the Congress over the NPS Budget. She might be helpful, and has been in the past.

But a few months ago she said she had a confrontation with the Secretary about roads and oil and gas development, sounded like she wanted to get even, and that could bring on a meltdown if those two women have not figured out a way around it.

And we do not know how the House will behave, but it will be tough for either the House or the President to cave on this. So it does not look good for increases over last year. But it is possible the parks could be released from these arbitrary caps that is the current cause for the steep budget cuts.

But the bottom line is, someone with the NPS for 30 years owes us a more dynamic picture of the actual budget over the years, rather than this untrue assertion of flat and unimaginative unaffordability.

It is like complaining about the weather to write a piece like this one. Except, unlike the weather if we all who love parks found common ground we can do something about the budget because it is a moving target, not static as described by Dr. Butowsky.

I am sorry if it looks like I am attacking a man with such an inspiring record as Dr. Butowsky. He did a really good job in his history position, especially in getting historic documents and recent papers on line. when he left the Service they dropped the ball on this, yet on his own with his own money he is putting those things on line. This is a true service to America, to history and to parks. On a personal level he is almost the last person I would want to attack.

But the issue is so vital to break the promise to Americans that their parks will be preserved, that the phony arguments in this piece must be addressed.

In the Summer 1991 issue of Ranger: The Journal of the Association of
National Park Rangers, Robert Chan wrote:

"People visiting this grand old national park will find most of the
scenery, wildlife, and thermal wonders as spectacular as ever this
summer. The park's natural resources, says superintendent Bob Barbee,
are in better shape than they have been for years.

Like many of the managers and rangers throughout the National Park
System, however, Mr. Barbee worries about his staff's ability to protect
these resources, maintain facilities, and continue to give visitors the
kind of park tradition of the National Park Service.

Visitors will find 60 percent of the roads in bad condition, trails
needing maintenance, and fewer ranger talks and guided nature walks. A
ranger will not be handy to start a stalled car; responses to emergency
situations may be delayed. Yellowstone has not been able to keep up with
inflated operating costs, so the aging infrastructure deteriorates and
the well-being of its wildlife and natural resources becomes
increasingly precarious.

Most of the challenges that daily confront park managers involve lack of
money. Many of the 357 units of the National Park Service are starved
for enough funds and personnel to provide adequate maintenance and
protection and to help people experience nature firsthand and gain a
deeper understanding of the American past.

This year is supposed to be a time of celebration, commemorating 75
years since the birth of the National Park Service on August 25, 1916.
But among the park service managers and rangers, there is little
celebration. Instead, it is a time for hunkering down.

... In the past, a national parks advisory board reviewed plans for
expanding the system. The board's work was ended in the 1980s. At
present, proposals for new parks receive no independent review...

... Between 1950 and 1980, even with some areas being consolidated and a
few withdrawn, the number still grew by 138 areas..."

This article could very well be written today as the National Park
Service prepares to turn 100. Fundamentally, what has changed in the
intervening years, besides the addition of 50 more units?

To me, this goes to the root of this Op Ed piece -- we will be having
this exact same discussion in 2041, but with another 50+ units added to
the System; thus Dr. Butowsky's recommendation for a critical assessment
made by a Congressionally-mandated, external commission to re-evaluate
the make-up of the National Park System.

Running with tahoma's suggestion, why does the National Park
Service HAVE to manage NRAs? Take Whiskeytown-Shasta-Trinity
National Recreation Area--two-thirds of which is managed by
the U.S. Forest Service--why can't the Forest Service also manage
the Whiskeytown Unit? The Bureau of Reclamation already manages
over a hundred recreational facilities -- would Glen Canyon,
Lake Mead and Lake Meredith (to name just three) be seriously
degraded if BuRec assumed management of these NRAs?

A park "closing" commission would evaluate the merits of such
transfers. And, as suggested, these units would not have to
lose their designation (NHS, NHP, NB, etc.) but merely a
transfer of "ownership" (akin to the Canadian park system;
call them NPS "affiliated areas" if that term is more palatable).

Our "park" system today is already a hodge-podge of management agencies
with a plethora of national monuments also managed by the USFS, BLM,
USFWS, NOAA, State of Louisiana, Gila River Indian Community, etc. To
suggest that only the National Park Service can manage "parks" and
transferring responsibility to other federal, state, or city agencies or
non-profits would result in degraded units not only is an insult to
these other entities (and to the Canadian park model, which is working
quite well, thank you, given Parks Canada's similar budgetary woes) but
also ignores the age-old problem which the National Park Service simply
has not corrected, nor has an action plan to address.

Can anyone guess the cost savings? No, as it would depend upon the
recommendations of the commission. 2 units -- why bother? 22 units --
still a drop in the bucket, but for operational efficiencies it still
might be worth doing. 222 units -- now we're talking some serious coin;
which would also include some major regional office consolidations. Even
somewhere between 22 and 222 could result in noticeable cost savings, as
well as improve the overall quality of the System by shedding any
questionable units.

For those of us who truly care about the long-term integrity of
these units, we owe it to these properties to support such an
assessment.

RDPayne's comments this morning were excellent -- and, unfortunately, right on the mark. Thank you for posting it.

The supposed National Park Service $11.5 maintenance "backlog," and its temporarily less-than-optimal operating budget represent a phony "crisis," manufactured by anti-park and public land members of Congress. They have slashed the National Park Service budget, and then disingenuously lamented that, due to the "backlog" they created, we can no longer afford to establish new national parks and must privatize the existing ones. We should all reject this fraudulent meme.

The truth is that there is plenty of federal money available. The real problem is the misguided short-term budget priorities of Congress. There is good reason to believe that, if Americans knew the truth, they would demand that Congress shift funds from other wasteful programs that do not benefit them -- such as subsidies for destructive national forest logging and unneeded Cold War military hardware programs -- to the National Park System, which benefits all Americans.

Those who advocate offloading National Park System units to other public or private entities would relegate these areas to degradation or destruction. I have worked on public land issues for more than 30 years, and I have seen firsthand that, with few exceptions, the National Park System provides the strongest protection available for natural and historic treasures. Alternative types of conservation units are rarely as large, as strictly safeguarded, or as well known and supported by the public as the national parks they could have been. For example, the recently designated national monuments that were left under the administration of the Bureau of Land Management or U.S. Forest Service have significantly weaker protection than if they had been placed under National Park Service protection.

We need not only to keep our existing parks, but we also need to expand the park system. Hundreds of significant natural and historic treasures across America are urgently threatened by logging, livestock grazing, fracking, mining, intensive motorized recreation, and commercial development. Most potential national parks are already federal lands with their own budget, which can be transferred with the land. The most important thing is that park designation would ban destructive resource extraction and industrial development. Except for historic sites, infrastructure development, if appropriate, can wait until the funds are available.

As we approach the centennial of the National Park Service, we need a positive, forward-looking vision. We will need a far larger National Park System in the next hundred years than the one we have today, which encompasses less than 2 percent of the lower 48 states. Our population has grown. Climate change looms. Protected lands are not expansive enough to conserve biological diversity. We face an unprecedented extinction crisis. Rivers, coasts, and marine areas continue to be degraded. Numerous vital historic resources are unprotected.

We need new parks -- as many as possible, as soon as possible. We need new parks to sustain unlogged forests that store carbon and mitigate climate change; that preserve representative portions of imperiled ecosystems; that protect wild, free-flowing rivers; that conserve habitat for endangered wildlife; that heal degraded but recoverable lands and waters; that safeguard irreplaceable marine and coastal systems; that save threatened historic sites and cultural landscapes; that serve the millions of people in cities and regions that now have few or no national parks; that expand the boundaries of existing parks to prevent exploitation and development on adjacent lands.

Fortunately, the list of potentially qualified areas for addition to the National Park System is large. Grassroots groups and activists across the country have proposed new parks for their regions. Unfortunately, they are working individually, with inadequate resource, against entrenched anti-park interests. These individual park efforts need to be united in a nationwide campaign for new parks.

Another problem is that our current process for studying and designating national parks, usually one by one, is not adequate to the task. We need a fresh new approach that can survey, study, and designate dozens or hundreds of new parks in the next few years. And then we, the people, need to demand that Congress fund them. This entire project could be funded by shifting just a tiny portion of the federal budget to a new generation of parks for the people -- for example, the $20 billion a year we are now wasting on the obsolete F-35 Fighter program.

Future generations will not look kindly on us if we allow significant parts of their natural and historic heritage to be destroyed because of short-term budget priorities in Congress. They will not accept the excuse that we could not create new parks because there was political opposition from a loud and aggressive minority. However, just as we thank past generations of park advocates for Yellowstone, Big Bend, and Everglades national parks, they will thank us for having the audacity to not only protect, but also to expand the National Park System. Now is the time for action, before our imperiled special places are lost forever.