Public Parks And National Parks

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

-‘National Parks management objective is to identify, protect, conserve, present and transmit a place’s values’ (Boer & Wiffen, 2006).

This article was meant to provide Canadian’s insight into the struggle of preserving Canada’s national parks, and how quickly they are being consumed for commercial purposes. The article was also mean’t to provide as a warning for Canadians to take a stand to preserve the parks before they are entirely eradicated by the tourism and commercial industry. The CPAWS is currently taking action against developers since they feel that the parks are endangered and they are the only one’s willing to fight for the protection of the

It is extremely fascinating that “general science and space (NASA) accounts for thirty-one billion dollars as opposed to national park service which only gets three billion dollars” (Document E). Thusly, funds from general science and space should be designated to national park service because national parks provide for the domestic tranquility with their relaxing and tranquil sites and serene environment. To continue, there are “fifty-eight national parks, 123 historic sites, and seventy-four national monuments” that have to be maintained and renovated so how can three million dollars be enough for all of these pieces and memorials of history (Document E)? General science and space would survive a cut in funds considering that America is no longer in the space race with Russia and it is not all that often that NASA sends new satellites into orbit or rovers to different planets. General science and space is not as useful as it used to be due to a growing number of private companies that are starting to take over the science and space industry. For these reasons, national park service needs to make up more than “just greater than .1 percent” of the budget (Document E). In conclusion, there are changes that need to be made to all three major clusters of the federal

In the United States, there are millions of acres of land dedicated to our national parks. Over half of the states in our country have land dedicated to national parks, and according to Linda J. Bilmes and John Loomis, the National Parks Service protects 412 of these places. The amount of land dedicated to these parks is quite a considerable amount and it has drawn the attention of the federal government. The government believes there should be cut backs on the amount of land dedicated to places such as Yellowstone and Ellis Island. However, if these parks, monuments, etc. were to be reduced in size, the United States would lose protection of a magnitude of important things such as areas of land and water, animal habitats, historical sites, monuments, and areas sacred 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

All around the world we have National Parks that are protected areas by the government. John Muir was enraptured by it and Ansell Adame immortalized it, while Teddy Roosevelt created the National Park Service to protect these National Parks. These nationals parks are very important to keep for the environment, we all need to work together to keep these parks as nature as possible.

National parks are part of the foundation and history of the beginning of America. The NPS is an organization that fights for the national parks and is trying to preserve them. Although the national parks may seem like land with no meaning taking up space that could be used for more construction and modernization, they deserve to be a priority because of the history they hold from the beginning of our great nation and because of the recreational value they provide to the public.

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.

Starting in the 1800s, many Americans wanted to preserve the beauty of scenic natural wonders. They went to the government and asked them to create something called “national parks.” Responding to these calls, Congress and President Abraham Lincoln put California in charge of taking care of Yosemite during the civil war. The world’s first official national park was Yellowstone when it was created in 1872. Many more parks soon followed. National parks were created “For the benefit and enjoyment of the people” (Theodore Roosevelt). This is true because they have been protected and untouched by humans for anybody to see. There are rules about the use, creation, and conservation of national parks because they should be continued for future

treatment of natural resources the evolution of the National Parks. He examines what the parks

Proponents of protection of public lands have argued that the restrictions on the use of public lands would lead to economic growth by enhancing the amenity value of the locality. For example, protection of public lands provides a variety of natural amenities that can allow local residents and visitors to easily access to recreational opportunities (Cline et al, 2011). Consequently, these characteristics of public lands increase seasonal home ownership and visitors’ expenditures, and thus enhance economic growth in the gateway communities. In contrast, opponents of protection of public lands have argued that

The main economic impact that the national parks have on America is tourism. National parks tend to draw many visitors in, but they also attract many companies, which brings in a great influx of money. Data from Headwaters Economics shows that in 2015 national park visitors spent over $493,620,000. Through this spending, over 7,700 jobs were created (Rasker, page 1). National parks have positively impacted many Americans lives, and this could not have been possible without the Sierra Club. Through all of their actions, the Sierra Club drew attention to themselves, and more people became invested in the protection of nature. By 1970, over 100,000 people belonged to the Sierra Club, which showed the growing support from the nation for the protection of the

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 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.