High Sierra Topix

Here are the words used to set up National Parks in the late 1800's.

This "Organic Act" states that "the Service thus established shall promote and regulate the use of the Federal areas known as national parks, monuments and reservations…by such means and measures as conform to the fundamental purpose of the said parks, monuments and reservations, which purpose is to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wild life therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations."

More words.

By the Act of March 1, 1872, Congress established Yellowstone National Park in the Territories of Montana and Wyoming "as a public park or pleasuring-ground for the benefit and enjoyment of the people" and placed it "under exclusive control of the Secretary of the Interior." The founding of Yellowstone National Park began a worldwide national park movement. Today more than 100 nations contain some 1,200 national parks or equivalent preserves.

I can tell you this. Having served in and worked in government for over 35 years they couldn’t manage their way out of a wet paper bag! I would much rather give privatization a shot. I’m sure most anyone on this board could manage the park a hundred times better.

Faith in the private sector? It has one agenda and one agenda alone. And it's not about you.
The beauty of our federal government system is how it tends towards gridlock.

But if you're looking for an alternative, make me King of Yosemite. I have some ideas.

k9mark wrote:I can tell you this. Having served in and worked in government for over 35 years they couldn’t manage their way out of a wet paper bag! I would much rather give privatization a shot. I’m sure most anyone on this board could manage the park a hundred times better.

You are not the only one here who has worked for government. And I disagree.

My experience is nearly all government employees are dedicated professionals who take their public trust seriously, especially senior managers. Staffers see their mission through the filter of their own specialty (wildlife biology, forestry, recreation, fire, et al) and line managers try to balance all the competing demands, but the serving the people and the land is the focus of each.
Ignore what the think tanks claim, government salaries for experienced people are way below the private sector counterparts. Many top government managers stay in their careers because they believe in what they are doing and derive personal satisfaction from public service, despite lucrative job offers from the private sector.

I also worked in the private sector for a time. There is at least as much waste and mismanagement in private sector, and slackers more interested in their careers than their jobs, in the private as there is in government.

OTOH: There is a great difference between agencies. I one worked with a buildings and facilities engineer who transferred from the NPS to the USFS. After working for the FS for several months, he noted a great cultural divide between the two. He said the corporate culture in the NPS makes everything bigger than needed and more costly than the FS. When more office space is needed the FS just trailers in a couple modular buildings and attaches them them to the rear of the existing building, where the NPS designs a new Taj Mahal. FS campground restrooms tend to be basic wood or brick toilet enclosures where NPS builds lounges more suited to the executive suite at Trump Towers. He may have been exaggerating a bit, but not by much. So I wonder how much of the maintenance backlog in the NPS is design overkill.

I agree mostly with Dave. I do have to note that after working with the the NPS, Forest Service, and BLM that I encountered individuals in each that somehow just didn't get that they were public servants. And many of the problems the agencies had were due to individual decisions and ways of working and not departmental policy.

As to privatizing management of parks thinking you will get better service just ask people who have extensive experience with many of the concessionaires operating in the national parks. Not likely to improve service when focus is on profits!

True, Mike

Look at the FS campgrounds. They went concessionaire run a couple decades ago. Fees went up, amenities and maintenance went down. After public complaints the FS is slowly taking back campground operations and running them from in house as contracts expire. Getting maintained better once the FS takes them back.

I am the only one with a perfect solution to to all the issues. Unfortunately it's a secret, sorry.

I studiously avoid engagement when the subjective uses of 'could, should & would' start to become pre-dominant. Discussions about the merits/faults of dedicated professionals, the (implicit) moral authority to distinguish between citizens and foreigners, the original intent of specific legislation, etc all tend to miss the big picture.

My suggestion is, if you want to properly view the large(r) macro perspective, to observe the long(er) arc of history, then all you have to do is (a) understand the exponential function aka the doubling rate; and (b) study US/global population charts. Once you have a good grasp of where we've been and where we're going, it's much easier to become more sanguine about certain prospects. Not only that, this knowledge provides a ready guideline to at least to try and carve out a portion of financial independence by capitalizing on this glimpse into the future.

US Population - millions
1850 23
1900 63
1950 151
2000 281
2050 525 +-

http://www.census-charts.com/Population ... -2000.html

World-wide global population has been following a similar growth pattern. What we are currently experiencing today - with many reminiscing about conditions only 10 years ago - will seem positively idyllic each and every subsequent year going forward. With improved sanitation, medical care and HMO foods, there appears at present no natural force that can slow, curtail or reduce these projected numbers.

So, what does this tell a reasonably astute person when the cards are essentially laid upon the table before the game begins? One, don't complain as they are flipped during play; you already (should have) known the outcome. Two, if you didn't take preemptive measures to protect yourself, then you have only yourself to blame.

There are two keys to this game: (1) find and figure out where growth is not allowed (hint: LA aqueduct watershed); and (2) never, ever sell California property. Buy it, rent it, but don't ever sell it.

Check out, have fun, don't worry. It is what it is, and there ain't nothing anybody can do about what is coming down the pike.

I do not think anyone in this discussion argues that parks are becoming over-used. The question is how to handle the inevitable visitor limits- price entrance to shut out the average citizen, or institute other limitations. We are a democracy so we debate, argue, write letters and engage in the discussion. To say that globalization and population explosion will prevent our ability to manage our national resources is really defeatist. I think most Americans, even those who do not use public lands, feel public lands are our birth-right and come hell or high water, we will protect them and our ability to use them. This will mean changing some of our behaviors, but we are not going to just lie down and get thrown under the bus.