tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5446829400048646421.post5431387829246573952..comments2023-07-29T05:35:38.710-04:00Comments on The Huckleberry Hiker: Are Threats of Budget Cuts Closing National Parks Overblown?The Smoky Mountain Hikerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05019731497259511008noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5446829400048646421.post-32083200320268979462012-11-26T22:45:49.231-05:002012-11-26T22:45:49.231-05:00River Mud - you make a valid point with regards to...River Mud - you make a valid point with regards to state budgets. What about some properties being sold to private entities to be run as for-profit entities? I think many federal and state properties (obviously not all) could survive using the Monticello model. If they can't, did they really deserve to be preserved? <br /><br />As it is right now, all fees, etc. collected at National Parks, etc., are funneled back to the treasury. Then, Congress decides how much to give back to the parks - regardless of how much revenue was generated. If each park were to stand on its own, whether publicly or privately held, they would be able to make much better decisions on how to keep themselves financially solvent. The Smoky Mountain Hikerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05019731497259511008noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5446829400048646421.post-10171366165829946712012-11-26T13:50:25.160-05:002012-11-26T13:50:25.160-05:00It's happened quite a bit in the USFWS refuge ...It's happened quite a bit in the USFWS refuge system over the last decade - they've taken double digit budget cuts in successive years sometimes - and you are right in that the changes occur mostly on properties that few have heard of. <br /><br />However, "being heard of" isn't a great metric for the importance of managing, policing, or protecting the resources on a piece of federal property. In USFWS' case, important habitat for endangered birds has been overtaken by thousands of acres of invasive plants....with no money and no staff to fight off the invaders. <br /><br />It's an interesting concept of a sell-off to state systems. Unfortunately, the states do not want the land - having to stretch their own resources to police and manage state parks, wildlife areas, etc. They simply do not want it unless it comes with an annual check from the Feds for maintenance.<br /><br />The easiest way to look at this is with the actual infrastructure on state parks - roads, plumbing, sewer/septic, visitor centers, campgrounds - stuff that costs millions of dollars to build and rebuild. <br /><br />You're right - these agencies HAVE overextended themselves. However, in my opinion, good solutions to that problem are not apparent - I'd offer one if I had it. Kirk Mantayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556560258304201823noreply@blogger.com