There are a surprising number of units in the National Park System that are visited by scant few folks. Should visitation be the gauge against which a park's continued existence in the system is justified? Or, should parks be measured by what they protect?
That question arises in light of 2010 visitation data from the National Park System. According to those numbers, 23 units -- nearly 6 percent of the system's 394 units -- attracted fewer than 10,000 visitors last year. The total attendance of this bottom tier was 77,825.
Are such numbers justification for keeping the involved units up and running, or should serious consideration be given to shuttering them?
Comments
Looking at it from another direction, I like to adopt as an axiom that there was a thorough vetting and discussion process prior to the establishment of a national park unit.
Given that, there should be standard funding which is above the "irreduceable minimum". Also, there should be additional funding as justified by larger numbers of visitors and demonstrated need. The size of the museum collection in a park should dictate how many curatorial personnel there are, not how many people see the artifacts. The size of the back country and the number of visitors should both help to drive how many additional rangers may be needed beyond the standard.
And, in my perfect world, the NPS would never be the low hanging fruit for whatever yahoo decides to decimate the budget as a stepping stone to political office.
Cost per visitor is really just one (very small) factor in the equation. BTW, does anyone know the cost pervisitor at the White House? I'll bet it tops the list.
I'm one of those 700,000 fortunate residents within the Pinelands National Reserve (http://www.nps.gov/pine/index.htm). By the numbers (http://www.nps.gov/state/nj/index.htm?program=parks) says the state NPS units overall got just under 6 million visitors in 2010. If they all visited Pinelands, that would be about 6 people per acre. Three times that many visited North Carolina, home of the most-visited NP, Great Smoky Mountains. They also claim 7-times the economic benefit over NJ. No matter that the website also states (correctly) that three major toll roads run through the Pinelands. Most people have heard of the NJ Turnpike. The other roads collectively fall in the classification of the Northeast Corridor, the most heavily travelled roadway in the country. This system endures over 235-million vehicles each year. That's over six-hundred thousand cars a day. How many of them are visitors to the Reserve (not counting those glorious turnpike rest stops)? What is their economic impact to the Reserve? To me, the environmental impact is the real question. Very few visitors but a huge carbon footprint roaring through every day. How much longer will the Pinelands survive with this kind of detrimental encroachment on its pristine water, sensitive ecology, and threatened/endangered species? Maybe people would wake up to the wonders and draw of this land if the NPS did a better job of promoting it besides this sparse quote, "Sightseeing, bird watching and photography are pursuits available throughout the Reserve."
There is a way to preserve National Parks that are proving to be too costly as well as low visitation: allow them to revert to National Monument status. Or something like the Artic Wilderness Reserve. Fewer staff, low operating expenses and a good deal for freedom to roam about on wild and scenic lands.
Not sure about the Muir Woods example as truly describing their budget situation. They are part of Golden Gate NRA, so I would think their budgets would be better described they were merged.
I don't believe that they're a particularly high maintenance NPS unit. They have no picnic areas (although they did during the snack bar renovation when tables were set up outside the main entrance), have a paved or boardwalk trail, and only employ a few Muir Woods specific rangers and maintenance crew. They've got a total of two sets of bathrooms. The entrance is almost always staffed by volunteers.
They don't get their own law enforcement rangers. Their LE protection is under the Golden Gate NRA umbrella.
Honestly, I believe their actual budget cost per visitor is higher. It's just that those expenses are accounted for in the Golden Gate NRA budget. How much higher, I don't know.
Do you actually have to step foot into a park for a visit to count? If you drive up Highway 1 to enjoy the scenery north of San Francisco, aren't you essentially "visiting" Point Reyes National Seashore? What about the millions of people in New York and New Jersey catch a glimpse of the Statue of Liberty every single day?
Visitation statistics have questionable value, and are difficult to calculate.
Does Low Visitation Justify [Closing] A National Park? No. Not ever.
Let me give you an example from Bob's quiz:
(Q). The largest natural open space in America's most populous city is in a national park. Identify the national park and the natural open space.
(A). The 9,155-acre Jamaica Bay Wildlife Refuge, a component of Gateway National Recreation Area, is the largest natural open space in New York City.
I don't imagine the Refuge gets many visitors. Should we close it for that reason?
There are some places that we preserve despite and because they are rarely visited by humans. There are some places that we preserve because they are important parts of our national heritage, whether the public at large is aware of them or not.
We preserve places for future generations to be able to enjoy our natural wonder and to appreciate our history and achievements, not necessarily to entertain crowds of visitors. We have Disney World for that.
"95% of government would shut down"
Is that a bad thing?