Granted, the National Park Service's budget is little more than a rounding error when it comes to the entire federal budget. But as the deficit continues to swell, and Republicans promise better budgeting in the coming Congress, the Park Service can be expected to identify some savings. But where?
* Should fewer rangers be hired, with the agency instead relying more on volunteers?
* Should the agency rely less on the federal budget for its appropriation and more on park users via higher entrance fees, higher camping fees, and higher backcountry fees?
* Should the fees tied to the America the Beautiful passes be revisited? After all, should retirees who visit the parks be able to land a life-time pass for just $10, while a young couple or family just getting starting in life have to pay $80 a year?
* Should facility hours be scaled back to save on salaries and operating costs?
If you were the director of the National Park Service, or a park superintendent, where would you look to save some money? And would you decide some programs are just too important to cut? If so, which ones?
Comments
Take a look at the fees.
It costs money to run these parks, to keep the visitors safe, to protect & preserve (or even restore) the environment and historical buildings & artifacts, and to provide interpretation & guides.
Nothing is free. We need to acknowledge that fact and act responsibly by paying equitable fees to access these national treasures.
Note I did say "equitable", they should be in-line with other forms of entertainment. The law of diminishing return applies as well. Raise them too high and people will stop going altogether, obviously reducing revenues.
But to date, I haven't been to a park that had outlandish fees, and some that seemed far too cheap.
Agreed, I don't mind the fees. People pay $70/day per person for Disney World, a few bucks for a park shouldn't hurt most of us. If the parks had weekly free days, as many museums do, they'd remain open to those people for whom money is tight.
The senior pass is outrageously cheap, especially since seniors are the wealthiest segment of American society and among the heaviest park users.
Having some flat rate royalty on all park concessions (5%?) that goes to each park would be another good revenue source. Charging fees for other commercial uses like movie filming would also be appropriate.
I'd rather find revenue than cut spending.
Saying that it's inappropriate to reduce park entrance fees for seniors because seniors are "the wealthiest segment of American society" is a troublesome statement on several counts. For one thing, the incidence of poverty among the elderly is only slightly lower than in younger age groups. For another, the wealth measure for the elderly is cockeyed because it ascribes inordinately high value to non-household income factors (especially government-provided medical benefits and private health insurance).
(Purely as an aside, your blanket statement, taken at face value, is demonstrably untrue regardless of how you define wealth. The wealthiest segment of society consists of the super-rich. The 400 wealthiest Americans possess a combined net worth of at least $1.8 trillion. The two richest men in America -- Bill Gates and Warren Buffett -- have a combined net worth of nearly one-tenth of a trillion dollars. Now that's wealth!)
For raising fees to have any significant impact, the law regarding fee revenue utilization would need to be changed. Currently fee revenues can only be used to cover the costs related to collecting the fees and specific types of maintenance and resource projects. By law, fee revenue can not currently be used to cover day to day operational costs such as salaries of non-fee staff, utilities, supplies and materials, vehicle fleet costs, etc. which make up the vast majority of operational costs.
JLA is right. Currently NPS has to rely on donations and partners for "extra" revenue. Staff can help educate the public about the difference and encourage participation. But only if there is staff.
In many respects, the NPS' budget has already hit rock bottom. Perhaps a better question is not how to cut more, but at what point will further cuts warrant closing a park because reduced staff cannot provide the needed services to protect and preserve park resources? I look forward to a time of peace and a recovered economy.
I would start with charge backs for search and rescues.
Hate to say it but i little better marketing wouldnt hurt.. cant rely on pbs to do it all.