Get ready...

[faster_than_you]

Bush Cuts National Park Funding

By Chas Offutt, PEER

 

WASHINGTON, DC – The Bush administration has directed the National Park Service to substantially decrease its reliance on tax-supported funding, according to internal documents released today by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER). In a turnabout from the last two presidential campaigns when candidate Bush promised greater funding of parks, new “talking points” distributed last week to all park superintendents urge them to begin “honest and forthright” discussions with the public about smaller budgets, reduced visitor services and increased fees.

 

Using a new approach called Core Operations Analysis, each park is asked to develop budgets based on a 20 to 30% reduction in appropriation support. In this exercise, park superintendents decide which visitor services or other functions can be jettisoned (“staffing and funding alternatives based on realistic funding projections,” in the words of the Park Service). Whatever shortfalls in support for essential operations that remain must be made up for with fee hikes, cost shifting or increased reliance on volunteers.

 

Once the Core Operation Analysis is finalized, each park is then put on a “glide path” to implement the agreed upon reductions during the next five years.

 

In the talking points memo issued on April 11, 2006, park public affairs and budgetary staff provide coaching as to how individual parks should spin shrinking budgets and reduced visitor services, including:

 

“The National Park Service, like most agencies, is tightening its belt as our nation rebuilds from Katrina, continues the war on terrorism and strives to reduce the deficit” and “Our satisfaction rating is over 96 percent nationally, and has remained high for several years. That’s a clear indicator that budgets have not reduced visitor enjoyment.”

 

By contrast, prior to the 2004 election, park officials were ordered to avoid mention of cutbacks and instead use the euphemism “service level adjustments.” In talking points distributed on April 7, 2004, park managers were instructed to counter charges of lower budgets by declaring “NPS has fared well under President Bush.”

 

“Rather than being honest about planned budget cuts, the Bush administration once again makes stealth policy decisions cloaked by management reform mumbo jumbo,” stated PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch. “If our national parks are going to be reduced to performing only the bare minimum of ‘core operations’ the public ought to be given some say as to what is considered essential.”

[willstrickland]

The beatings will continue until morale improves.

[foraker]

Thus opening the way for the much anticipated corporate sponsorships:

 

e.g. Yellowstone NP -> Arctic Cat Terrain Park

[cj001f]

Turns out Patagonia is going to unveil a new lower priced Moab line of climbing clothing with a certain Delicate Arch as it's logo, as well as park sponsorship

[willstrickland]

Introducing the "North West South East Forest Pass". $1,631 for a year of access to all federal sites...excluding national monuments, BLM lands, and National Forests. But you can buy a "Let the Eagle Soar" John Ashcroft memorial pass that also allows access to these lands for an additional $857, and a $37 per day parking fee while accessing Your Public Lands!

 

Fuckin sweet babay!

[ScottP]

Type "national park fee increases" into Google...

You get a who's who list of proposed national park fee increases.

[plexus]

We should just follow Edward Abbey's outline in Desert Solitaire.

 

Starting with No. 1: Get rid of paved roads and sidewalks. Also get rangers out of the visitor center. They're called rangers, let them range.

[faster_than_you]

Parks learn to make do with less

 

By Tom Kenworthy, USA TODAY

 

At Gettysburg National Military Park in Pennsylvania, Superintendent John Latschar recalls an old TV commercial to illustrate the dangers of continued tight funding for the nation's park system.

In that 1971 Fram oil filter ad, a mechanic tells a customer, "You can pay me now" — by replacing the filter — or "You can pay me later" — by replacing the engine.

 

As park spending power is eroded by inflation and rising costs for salaries and other expenses, Latschar says he's not changing oil filters as much as he should at his Civil War battlefield park.

 

"So far we haven't had to replace an engine because of that. But if this trend isn't reversed within the next several years, we'll be in the engine-replacement business."

 

It's an apt description for what many managers are going through at the 390 national parks, monuments, historic sites, recreation areas and other facilities run by the National Park Service. The parks have an overall budget of about $2.2 billion, which includes both operating costs and funds for construction projects.

 

RELATED: National parks reduce services

 

The Bush administration has asked for a $23 million increase in basic park operation spending — not including projects like building construction.

 

That increase for the fiscal year starting in October would mean a total jump in basic park funding of 19% since fiscal 2001, Park Service Director Fran Mainella told a House subcommittee in March.

 

Last week, an Appropriations subcommittee in the House of Representatives added $18 million in operating funds, though final approval is uncertain.

 

Mandated pay and benefit increases and rising fuel and utility costs are forcing park superintendents to make sometimes painful decisions.

 

To keep a healthy number of seasonal employees during peak visitor months, Acadia National Park in Maine has not been filling full-time jobs that come vacant due to retirements and transfers, Deputy Superintendent Len Bobinchock says.

 

"I think we've done a very good job of keeping the impacts obscure so the general public doesn't notice," he says. "But internally we're feeling the impact."

 

An example of the pinch: Three years ago the park was running 120 interpretive programs for visitors per week. That was cut to 100, meaning fewer tourists get explanations about the park's history.

 

Subtle changes that visitors might not notice are also taking place at Gettysburg, where eight of the 13 full-time positions lost since 2001 have been in maintenance.

 

It's a key function at the Civil War battlefield, which has more than 100 historic buildings that require lots of care, Latschar says.

 

Also lost: positions for three seasonal workers who helped visitors find overflow parking lots in peak summer months. In the next few months, Latschar also expects to lose a law enforcement ranger.

 

At Yosemite National Park in California, the full range of traditional visitor services is still being offered, says park spokesman Scott Gediman, but volunteers are increasingly doing jobs once performed by regular Park Service employees.

 

For example, five years ago, the park had 45 seasonal rangers giving talks to visitors. Now, the park has just eight.

 

The gap has been filled by the Yosemite Association, a "friends of the park" group that supplements funding. In addition, the concession company that runs hotels and other private tourist facilities offers campfire talks and other visitor services.

 

The budget crunch has prompted the park service to take a hard look at what it calls its "core" operations, a system-wide review that has been completed at 53 parks.

 

The analyses, which will stretch through 2011, began in the Rocky Mountain region as "a way to restore some credibility" to how parks spend and ask for money, regional spokesman Rick Frost says.

 

At Rocky Mountain National Park in Colorado, the process led to the closing of one of six visitor centers, saving $36,000 annually. The Lily Lake center served just 35,000 of the 1.25 million tourists who use the park's visitor centers each year, says park spokeswoman Kyle Patterson.

 

Park officials say the review is a businesslike approach the private sector routinely uses.

 

"We've been criticized for making decisions by the seat of our pants," says Elaine Sevy, a Park Service spokeswoman in Washington.