Should we Put an End to National Parks?

Published on June 18, 2006 By Gideon MacLeish In Current Events

An article in today's Yahoo! News has me wondering if we should continue our national parks program or if we should explore the possibility of more effective means of preserving our national resources:

Link

The story is about the problems that Organ Pipe Cactus National Park is facing with illegal immigrants crossing, and conflicts with border patrol agents. And, while it would seem to be an isolated case, I know several stories from our brief time in Nevada that advised against visiting Lake Mead because it is considered the most dangerous national park in the country, with murders being rather routine in the confines of the park. These cases don't make plots for "CSI", though, because, frankly, it's bad for tourism.

It should be a concern to all of us when National Parks become havens for crime rather than places to enjoy the natural beauty of these great United States. Perhaps their very status as tourist destinations makes them prime targets; perhaps the fact that they are public lands and can be accessed easily is part of the problem. But whatever the problem, there IS a problem with our national parks system, and I'm inclined to think that the alternative is not making them militarized zones, but instead exploring ways that the land in these parks could be transferred to private conservation groups like the Nature Conservancy so that we could preserve it for future generations. Certainly the saved cost of park ranger and summer employee salaries could help reduce the federal budget, and, who knows? A private group managing these parks might be more efficient and provide better security for these parks. And because they ARE private groups, they would have greater authority in expelling known troublemakers, whereas the federal government is limited in that authority because of its interest in making the parks accessible to all.

While I don't think I can conclusively determine that privatizing the national parks is in our best interests, I certainly believe debate on the topic is long overdue. After all, taking a vacation should not be "high risk" behaviour.

Comments

Texas Wahine

on Jun 18, 2006

Nature can't really be "preserved". It is constantly changing, with or without human influence. We're just choosing at which point in its history nature was most appealing and "natural" and trying our damdest to maintain that.

terpfan1980

on Jun 18, 2006

Doesn't much matter who we put in charge of the land, the wrong elements will still do business there.

Some people are just ignorant of what the land should be for, and how it should be used and treated. It wouldn't matter if the Sierra club was in charge, if the Nature Conservancy was in charge, or if the National Guard was in charge (well, maybe not if the National Guard was really in charge, but still...)

All sorts of bad acts take place in public areas every day. It's a sign of society and it's problems and perhaps that we don't do enough to lock away (permanently!) those that cause these problems. Maybe it's a sign of the people not paying enough for security at these places, but then where would all of the money come from for improvements? Do we take it out of the tax payers hands, or do we implement more user fees to help cover the costs so that only those that use the facilities are paying the freight?

Either way, I don't think privatization is the answer. Perhaps allow for more private donations (and more user fees) to help cover costs, maybe install more automated surveillance and such, but at some point we have to either assume that users of the facilities know how to behave, or we have to shut down the facilities completely and refuse to allow anyone to use them. I don't believe that shutting them down is the answer, and hope it never gets that bad.

MasonM

on Jun 18, 2006

It wouldn't solve the core problem which is societal. I am against handing over public preserves to private interests. It's MY land, as well as yours and everyone else's. Let's keep it that way and hire more security if needed.

Gideon MacLeish

on Jun 19, 2006

Let's keep it that way and hire more security if needed.

The thing is, I'm not willing to pay for more security. We're taxed to death, Mason; paying more taxes for upkeep is not the answer.

If it's your land and my land, Mason, why can't we live off the fruits of the land? Why can't we harvest the bounty of the herbs growing there? Why can't we move there if we are homeless? The reason is, it is NOT our land, at least in the way the government has been operating. It belongs to the esoteric entity, "the government", which has forgotten that it is the servant of the people, and appropriates terms of use at its own whim.

I don't know that turning it over to private interests is the answer, frankly. But I DO know that the current way of operating is simply not working, and that throwing money at it is an idea that NEVER works. But the 100% failure rate of throwing money at the problem, oddly enough, doesn't stop us from trying that over and over.

MasonM

on Jun 20, 2006

You can't harvest or live on it because it isn't solely yours. It belongs to all citizens as a group and as such isn't intended for selfish use.

I agree that simply throwing money at a problem doesn't solve it, and the "hire more security" was a facetious remark on my part. But handing over public prserves to private interests is certainly not an acceptable alternative.

Perhaps the best thing would simply be to reuire all visitors to carry loaded weapons at all times. That might cause the cowardly scum to look elsewhere.

ParaTed2k

on Jun 20, 2006

The fact is, the minute they decided to charge admission to National Parks, they ceased to be public lands. They aren't anymore "public" than a grocery store or bar.

They are already "owned" by someone other than the public... privatizing is merely changing the nametag on the people at the box office.

Gideon MacLeish

on Jun 21, 2006

They are already "owned" by someone other than the public... privatizing is merely changing the nametag on the people at the box office.

Have to tag you with an "insightful" for that one, para.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!