It’s spring, which means it’s time for the annual spate of articles asking: Are we loving the national parks to death? Journalists have tediously asked this question for at least thirty years. One article from a few days ago suggests we limit the number of visitors into the parks, perhaps by allowing only the first so many hundred cars in each day. For example, Grand Teton has proposed allowing only 200 cars on a popular road at any given time.
A small crowd of people watch the Lion Geyser erupt in Yellowstone.
On one hand, national park visitation is up, which is actually a relief as a few years ago it appeared that people were losing interest in the parks. Between 1999 and 2003, visitation dropped precipitously from 287 million to 266 million visits per year. It didn’t reach the 1999 level again until 2014, then jumped to 307 million visits in 2015.
On the other hand, only a handful of national parks are really crowded: the Blue Ridge Parkway, Grand Canyon, Grand Teton, Great Smoky Mountain, Yellowstone, Yosemite, and perhaps a few others. Moreover, it is likely that the surge in visitation is due to retired baby boomers taking advantage of their senior passes–a $10 lifetime pass good for free entry into almost all national parks.
But lowest priced tadalafil http://www.midwayfire.com/services-consolidation-update/ is normally not effective if one or both nerve bundles have been damaged. Remember not to self-medicate for those who fall into the riskier categories, making the decision to use viagra purchase on line it. Stew is made by boiling the oysters until they midwayfire.com tadalafil buy in usa are plump. Supplements for healthy erections- Beyond the line of erection-boosting medicines, males can now normalize their sexual health or suffer from any kind of sexual disorder may be reluctant to have a cosmetic procedure because they feel or others will argue about the need to accept tadalafil prices aging and to feel comfortable with wrinkles, dark spots and sagging jowls. Few park visitors venture more than a half mile away from a road, which means the real problem is traffic congestion, not human impacts on park resources. The seniors also disproportionately tend to visit parks in the fall, after young people are in school, which helps reduce congestion and impacts.
The Park Service’s real goal in talking about rationing is simple: it wants more money. “The biggest impediment to park health is the lack of funding,” says one official. “Only a fraction of 1 percent of the federal budget goes toward protecting the parks — a grave underestimation, considering the wild popularity of these places.” Okay, so the federal government funds national defense, social security for seniors, and welfare for the poor: which of these things does the official who said this thinks should be cut so he can have a bigger budget?
In cases of serious crowding, rationing entry to the first so many who show up is liable to lead to lines of people showing up early to get in the queue and resentment among those who don’t make it. A much better way is to use variable fees to smooth out demand: higher fees during the days of the week and hours of the day when demand is greatest, lower fees at other times.
My friends at the Property and Environment Research Center support the idea of increased user fees, but they fail to note that that increase should be coupled with some way to insure that the higher revenue doesn’t just become a slush fund. The best way would be to fund national parks completely out of their user fees, as the Antiplanner proposed two decades ago. That would insure that parks don’t spend more than they can afford on things that people don’t really want, such as park employee housing or fancy visitor centers in every tiny park.
Some people will say, “I pay for parks with my taxes. Why should I have to pay twice?” Part of the answer is that, under my proposal, no more taxes would go to parks. But the real answer is that paying for parks with taxes is what caused the problems in the first place, including overcrowding and $11.5 billion in deferred maintenance (which is probably somewhat exaggerated, but whatever the real number is will still be large). Besides, it’s ridiculous to think that people who spend tens of thousands of dollars on motor homes and recreation vehicles can’t afford to spend more than $10 to get into national parks.
In the long run, paying for parks out of taxes is unsustainable: at some point, Congress is going to have to choose between cutting defense, cutting social security, or cutting subsidies to public land users. I doubt it will take either of the first two options. That means those who truly love the parks should start working today to make them self-sufficient rather than remaining dependent on a fickle Congress.
Parks don’t need maintenance, Ecology’s don’t require extensive human maintenance. In nature these maintain themselves. Human infrastructure in parks do like bathrooms and campgrounds. The National Park Service’s maintenance backlog includes manmade structures as well, these are what consume the bulk of it’s finances. From Independence Hall, the Liberty Bell, the Gateway Arch, Thomas Jeffersons Monticello. The Jefferson Memorial needs a new roof (sad that in just 70 years it needs a new one. How did the romans ever devise structures that lasted the millennia). So does the Lincoln Memorial. Organizations like PERC have suggested outsourcing routine park operations to the private sector while maintaining public ownership and oversight which has been fought against for years, guess they don’t wanna see billboards. Just like Millennium Park in Chicago every venue and pavilion is named after the corporation that sponsored it. We don’t need Yosemite National Park; brought to you by our proud sponsors Apple Computer. It’s operating system is an insult to the name Yosemite.
“guess they don’t wanna see billboards” is total bleep argument unless you think the Feds too dumb to put a no billboards clause in the outsourcing contract.
“On the other hand, only a handful of national parks are really crowded: the Blue Ridge Parkway, Grand Canyon, Grand Teton, Great Smoky Mountain, Yellowstone, Yosemite, and perhaps a few others.”
A few others: Zion, Rainier, Sequoia, Rocky Mountain, Olympic, Glacier, Arches, etc.
Went to Rainier two summers ago and couldn’t find any parking at Paradise. Hardly a paradise at all. Then there’s this picture of an endless line of cars trying to get into Sunrise, the area opened because Paradise was too crowded—nearly a century ago. I was sure glad to be on the way out when I snapped this photo! My trip to Glacier a few years ago was equally frustrating. No parking at the pass, and a 17-mile backup on the main road.
Even though I won’t be able to go hiking this summer or walk normally for at least another nine months, I still echo Abbey’s call for no cars in the most highly visited national parks. I worked at Zion the first summer they instituted propane-powered shuttles to get into Zion Canyon. Before, it was impossible to find parking, and the entire valley reeked of exhaust. After, the valley was quiet, smelled natural, and it was very easy to get to a trailhead.
As for me, I’ll continue to avoid these parks, not only because I can’t walk well or hike, but because they are simply not fun to visit when they are so crowded. Look for me in National Forests instead; they’re far less crowded and far less restrictive.
“In the long run, paying for parks out of taxes is unsustainable: at some point, Congress is going to have to choose between cutting defense, cutting social security, or cutting subsidies to public land users.”
Except the NPS operating budget is about $3B, or 0.08% of the entire federal budget. But you’re right about a fickle Congress. Parks should be converted to conservation trusts and operated without tax revenue. These conservation trusts could decide how best to deal with the extreme traffic congestion found in the parks mentioned above.
“I pay for parks with my taxes. Why should I have to pay twice?”
Most ballparks, college football stadiums, concert halls, etc. have been built (at least partly) with tax $. And people often pay exceedingly large fees to use them.
So a reasonable fee to use someplace as special as a national park is not asking very much.
Yosemite, Grand Canyon, Yellowstone — they are all mostly empty and you have vast areas of the place to yourself — in the off season.
Each of the most-visited parks should set up high-density, highly interesting and entertaining one and two day visiting experiences. Sure it would impact an area of the park, but parks are there to be used and visited. Without visitors, there is no support, and without support, no parks.
Then the other 90% of the park can be managed differently and far better than what is done now.