Sad state of our National Parks-II

This is completely political, and those problems have been going on for many years. If that diversion occurred it is hardly the cause of the trouble. What needs to happen is that the parks need to deal with maintenance issues and put new land acquisition on hold until that is dealt with. They also need to slash regulations that make fixing problems stupidly expensive.

Yosemite Sam1 wrote:
distorted priorities or even hostility towards the environment (area around Sequoia National Park are set to be opened for oil explorations).

That is so depressing it's hard to put it into words.

Not meant to be controversially......Our elected politicians, both parties, are not taking care of these problems. They devote all their efforts to getting re-elected.

To be political normally means to use something to an advantage, such as shutting down facilities. That's not currently happening, and has not recently.
Moving huge amounts of land into the NPS and then not increasing funding to support their care was not intended to be political, but it was equally damaging in that it just stretched limited funds even further.

Better to start using some potential income streams to specifically help the systems, but even then, a Politician will reduce funds coming from the federal general fund by the amount coming from the side funding method.
Getting rid of the scum suckers in DC and new people in place is the fix.

It doesnt matter the party, they have all continued to damage the parks and the systems in place meant to care for them.

No Senator or Congressperson will turn down an opportunity to get a little cherrypicked project for their state or district, even if it does harm a National Park. And any who have been in place for more than a year or two have done it.

User fees that actually cover operational cost, granting drilling or mining in some areas to fund protecting others, and giving the agencies, not the Congress the power to manage the funds will be the biggest help.

Tom N wrote:
Not meant to be controversially......Our elected politicians, both parties, are not taking care of these problems. They devote all their efforts to getting re-elected.

I think there are differences in philosophy as to the environment between parties.

The previous administration restored funding for national parks that were cut due to the Great Depression and economic crisis.

California included increased funding for state parks as a result of its economic recovery and 4 years of surplus. Washington state and Oregon have excellent well-maintained state parks with topnotch camping facilities.

And before anyone accuses me of belonging to a party, I am an small "I" independent.

wanderingaimlessly wrote:
... giving the agencies, not the Congress the power to manage the funds will be the biggest help.

Seems they've actually put the fox (head of agencies) to guard the henhouse.

The head of agencies and secretaries appointed were the ones who used to work for the companies they are supposed to regulate. How many secretaries have resigned for embarrassing scandals and corruptions.

Yosemite Sam1 wrote:

wanderingaimlessly wrote:
... giving the agencies, not the Congress the power to manage the funds will be the biggest help.

Seems they've actually put the fox (head of agencies) to guard the henhouse.

The head of agencies and secretaries appointed were the ones who used to work for the companies they are supposed to regulate. How many secretaries have resigned for embarrassing scandals and corruptions.

Better to have a supposed Green expert who has never actually lived off a patch of blacktop run them?
Agency heads, who are known to actually be running the agencies and funding, who are screened by the Congress is about the best you can hope for, otherwise you get a greenpeace activist with money and power attempting to feed tourist to the bears in Katmai National Park. Or a mining engineer that wants to look for the next Kimberly Pipe under Yellowstone.

If the Department heads are selected with the idea being preservation of the Parks, and they are directly accountable for explaining their actions most problems will work out.

The nature those parks are protecting will do just fine without any visitors. Lock the gates for the majority, abandoned the infrastructure nature will reclaim.

Move staff to a few of the true gems and implement a lottery system for access.

Expecting access from a personal vehicle vs shuttles bus or in park camping is nothing short of selfish towards future generations that may never experienced the park.

GordonThree wrote:
The nature those parks are protecting will do just fine without any visitors. Lock the gates for the majority, abandoned the infrastructure nature will reclaim.

Move staff to a few of the true gems and implement a lottery system for access.

Expecting access from a personal vehicle vs shuttles bus or in park camping is nothing short of selfish towards future generations that may never experienced the park.

So Edward Abbey lives on

Yosemite Sam1 wrote:

Tom N wrote:
Not meant to be controversially......Our elected politicians, both parties, are not taking care of these problems. They devote all their efforts to getting re-elected.

I think there are differences in philosophy as to the environment between parties.

The previous administration restored funding for national parks that were cut due to the Great Depression and economic crisis.

California included increased funding for state parks as a result of its economic recovery and 4 years of surplus. Washington state and Oregon have excellent well-maintained state parks with topnotch camping facilities.

And before anyone accuses me of belonging to a party, I am an small "I" independent.

Michigan also has nice, well maintained state parks and campgrounds. Don't use them but I do fish the Muskegon River from one of them.