Case Study: The National Park Service

The economic worth of the NPS landmarks far outweighs the amount of funding they receive from the federal government. Cutting funds, as it has been done in recent years, reduce the high economic value of the parks, despite the population supporting more funding for the parks. Linda Bilmes and John Loomis state that “Americans put a total value of US$92 billion per year on our national parks”(1 ). This amount is based on a questionnaire asking people how much they would pay in taxes to preserve the parks. People are willing to pay more money than what the government funds the NPS with, which according to the same source, it only amounts to $3 billion yearly. It is unjust to fund the NPS with this kind of money because of the value on the whole of it, but lawmakers are not willing to

The Biodiversity Treaty sanctioned that countries whose biological resources are exploited by bioprospecting companies have a right to share the financial benefits resulting from the sale of these resources (Adair, 1997). National parklands are owned by the federal government. Therefore, our national parks have the legal right to share in the financial benefits that

The national parks of the United States are a part of the few remaining regions in the country where nature is relatively untouched and natural beauty can be observed. For over a century, national parks been popular vacation destinations for citizens and international tourists alike. Regulation and conservation of these areas is necessary to allow for continued visitation and enjoyment. The National Parks Service of the Department of the Interior was created with The National Park Service Organic Act (“The Organic Act”) to maintain the nation’s parks and ensure preservation of the land while encouraging use by the general public. Whether or not conservation and recreational use are independent of each has been argued within the government as well as among the general public for decades. Vague language used by The Organic Act’s authors has allowed for manipulation of the phrasing of the fundamental mission statement of the National Park Service to support or oppose a variety of decisions that will environmentally impact the parks. Personal opinions and conflicting priorities lead to much ambiguity in the long-term implementation of the National Park Service Organic Act.

In 2016, the National Park Service (NPS) celebrated 100 years of preservation and conservation of our nation’s parks, monuments, and historical sites. Currently, the federal government has proposed significant proposed budget cuts to the National Park Service. If the government makes these cuts, then Americans could lose the national parks along with the beauty, culture, and history that comes with them. This would happen because the NPS would lose most of its funding that is needed in order to keep the national parks well­preserved. Investing in the NPS should be a priority in our nation because it provides educational programs, unites all ages and races, and preserves and conserves the national parks.

The policy 16 U.S.C§1; National Park Service was created in the Organic Act of 1916. This was a new agency whose mission was to “conserve the scenery and national and historic objects and the wildlife therein and to provide enjoyment of the same in such a manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of the future generations.”

the role the national park will play into the future to provide benefit and relevant services to Canadians and a commitment to work with communities, organizations and individuals for a sustainable future and to sustain or improve the ecological integrity of the park.

National parks are a government institution meant to preserve the natural wonders of America’s landscapes. Established as the first national park in the U.S. by Congress in 1872, Yellowstone National Park was intended as “a public park or pleasuring ground for the benefit and enjoyment of the people.” The Secretary of the Interior, along with other governmental departments like the War Department and the Forest Service of the Department of Agriculture later worked to authorize additional national parks and monuments throughout much of the West. President Woodrow Wilson created the National Park Service in 1916, which was responsible for protecting and managing the national parks already created, as well as those yet to be established. Once

The park has been threatened by logging as well as non-native species. The NPS has gone to large lengths to keep this park protected, pushing for further legislation for protection to goto a federal authority. Making this a priority has had many payoffs and has been a big factor on the result that the park is in today. This park has suffered from budget cuts and actively tries to raise awareness and increase public interest. The NPS is partnering with other organizations to provide better service such as transit and educational opportunities to visitors. Making these promises has make their approval rating go up. The NPS also has one of the highest approval ratings of all government agencies.

Parks are “crumbling, with pothole­pocked roads and outdated visitors centers” (Egan and Egan). In addition, due to a lack of funds, there is not enough money to “purchase private properties within parks...to prevent development by private buyers” (Bilmes and Loomis). Steadily, Americans will lose these treasured lands and their artifacts. What is now preserved for a glimpse into the past, will soon be “ravaged by wholesale oil and gas development” if no more funds are provided (Thompson). If Americans wish for their posterity to witness these natural doorways to the past, if Americans wish for the future to not forget the wonders of the past, then a boost in funding is imperative.

connected with the outside world should always be emphasized and important to a human. Arguing whether National Park Services strategies spark an interest in our country’s youth includes why kids are more drawn to social media, how to embrace technology instead of vilifying it, and why parks are a strange new world for kids. Does NPS do this?

By allowing visitors into the parks, the National Park Service plays a vital part in educating the world about its wildlife. The Service has a Junior Ranger program that teaches children all over to “Explore, Learn, and Protect”. This program teaches the next generation of our planet to appreciate the wild, untamed regions of the Earth and explains why and how we need to preserve them (United, “Junior”). By making and managing trails and signs that will keep both humans and wildlife safe, the National Park

The Issue of National Park conservation has become a widely controversial issue today. With the National debt reaching 17 trillion dollars some politicians think it is alright to either sell off national park land to commercial foresters, miners, and even foreign nations or to just close some parks entirely to make up some of the national debt. They are completely unaware that the parks arent just a “pretty area of land for tourists”. Many cities depend on the parks for their well-being. A quote from a local newspaper in California supports this “National parks don’t boast concession stands or charge tax, but data indicates they bring in millions of dollars to local economies each year”(Tree). Supporters of cutting the parks include big CEO’s of major companies and some of them not even in this country.

The parks constantly need updates for features that are used by visitors. The National Parks Service needs maintenance projects like trying to prevent raw sewage from spilling and damaging the park's rivers and fixing electrical failures. The parks reported these maintenance projects to roughly cost around 12 billion dollars. "The idea behind national parks was preservation, not degradation in the name subsidized access. And preservation is not free."(Watson) People want to visit the national parks and enjoy it knowing their safe and surrounded in natural beauty, but everything comes at a price. Some people would argue that it unfairly excludes poor families." But more park visitors are relatively healthy and live near parks-travel cost, not entrance fees, keep low income families from visiting." This proves how entrance fees wouldn’t be unfair to low income families, and wouldn’t affect if they came to visit the park or not. I understand why some people want the national park to be free, because it allows many people to come and visit but also bring their business to the local businesses near the parks as well. What goes unacknowledged is how the heavy travel traffic causes roads to crumble and over used toilet systems wastes extreme amounts of water. These problems are

The website for the national and state park systems helps to enlighten the public on the subject of impending changes in policy and regulations, as well as new developments in different parks. Due to this, the parks and recreation districts judge that individuals and families will be more agreeable to the idea of traveling to parks in different states because of the easy accessibility of directions and information about the parks. Owing to the latest rise in interest of campgrounds and recreation areas, there has been an increase in funds. This new revenue has made possible the purchase of more parkland throughout the United States. Without prevailing use of the Internet, this most likely would not have been possible. The East Bay Park District has been able to purchase 1,476 of land. This is the single largest acquisition that the Park has made in over twenty years. The York Center Park District been able to purchase and protect a 20-acre area in the last five years. This is the largest area they manage. With the acquisition of supplementary parkland, it is more likely that this land will continue in its natural condition and not be converted into an urbanized region.

This is an academic article that details the effects of Hurricane Katrina on the parks systems of various cities on the gulf coast. For example, the writer examines the state of the parks in Jackson, Mississippi. An interview with the parks director for the area reveals that the parks have been ravaged, and that the winds from Katrina caused $600,000 in fallen tree damage alone to the parks facilities. This information is important because it examines the monetary costs of the damage to the parks facilities of various places affected by Hurricane Katrina.