$3 billion proposed for national parks

[Jonny5]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap_travel/20...national_parks

$3 billion proposed for National Parks
By DUNCAN MANSFIELD, Associated Press Writer Wed Mar 14, 9:11 AM ET

GATLINBURG, Tenn. - Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne came to the country's most-visited national park — the Great Smoky Mountains — on Tuesday to promote a Bush administration plan to give the national park system a $3 billion gift for its 100th birthday in 2016.

"The president has been very clear that he would like to use these 10 years as the time of preparation" for special projects tied to the centennial, Kempthorne told The Associated Press in an interview.

"It is not simply to roll out a master plan in 10 years. But instead it is to roll up our sleeves right now and get to work."

The goal is to have "actual projects on the ground, new programs that have been implemented, that are in place" by 2016, the former Idaho governor said.

Kempthorne and National Park Service Director Mary Bomar were to hold a public listening session Tuesday evening with park supporters to begin generating ideas — the first of 17 such sessions scheduled through the end of the month from Anchorage to Los Angeles. A session is set for March 27 in Albuquerque.

The administration proposes a $258 million increase in national parks' funding in fiscal 2008 to $2.4 billion. Beyond that, the plan offers an additional $100 million for operations, including restoring some 3,000 seasonal park rangers, and $100 million in new federal money to match $100 million in new private giving for special centennial projects each year through 2016.

Kempthorne came to the Smokies for this initial session because the park is so popular — some 9.4 million visitors came to the 520,000-acre preserve on the Tennessee-North Carolina border in 2006, more than double the second-most visited park — the Grand Canyon.

But he said good projects can happen anywhere.

"We have 390 national park units. Any of the 390 over the course of these 10 years can be a viable candidate for a signature project," he said. "The opportunity here is to inspire and to involve the American public in our parks."

Tennessee Sen. Lamar Alexander (news, bio, voting record), a Republican with a home near the Smokies and membership on the Senate appropriations subcommittee overseeing the parks, is a supporter. So is Rep. Norm Dicks, D-Wash., chairman of the House Interior Appropriations subcommittee.

Kempthorne said Dicks called him at home after the parks proposal was announced to say "this is the budget he had hoped to see for a number of years."

The National Parks Conservation Association contends the national parks have been operating with an annual shortfall of more than $800 million, resulting in a long backlog of maintenance and preservation needs.

Support groups like the Friends of Great Smoky Mountains, which has raised more than $17 million for Smokies projects since 1995, and the Great Smoky Mountains Association, which has raised $15 million since 1953, have helped fill those needs.

Kempthorne said he hopes the possibility of matching federal money will do even more.

"We have 144 different friends organizations at the respective parks. And they have said, 'We are willing to step up and be the margin of excellence. We just don't want to be the margin of survival. (But) we need to see that the federal government will do its part,'" he said.

"Well, with this operations budget, we have stepped up," Kempthorne said.

___

National Park Service: http://www.nps.gov/2016

Great Smoky Mountains: http://www.nps.gov/grsm/

National Parks Conservation Association: http://www.npca.org/nationalpriority

[Jonny5]

this is pretty rad. and it's good to see the bush administration have a role in this. best thing they've done in a while?

[Jonny5]

hmm this is a thread i think could've gone in general chat.

[JokeyLoki]

Yay, let's waste some more money!

[sppunk]

Yeah, investing in national parks is a waste of money.

Go away, BeautifulLoser.

[phaedrus]

i realize that it takes a lot of resources to maintain some of these parks, but as a proponent of conservation, i'd rather see the parks expanded than maintain more rigourously. sometimes money poured into parks just goes into developing them further, when the fact is that the ecosystems within are already stressed to the point that the most sensitive species (often large mammals such as bears, caribou, etc.) are struggling. i guess i'm just saying that the money needs to allocated responsibly.

[Jonny5]

Originally Posted by JokeyLoki

Yay, let's waste some more money!

this is why i dont really like the title of the article. it asks for some cynicism with the BILLION as the first word

[Jonny5]

Originally Posted by phaedrus

i realize that it takes a lot of resources to maintain some of these parks, but as a proponent of conservation, i'd rather see the parks expanded than maintain more rigourously. sometimes money poured into parks just goes into developing them further, when the fact is that the ecosystems within are already stressed to the point that the most sensitive species (often large mammals such as bears, caribou, etc.) are struggling. i guess i'm just saying that the money needs to allocated responsibly.

yeah. i agree that we need more progressive approaches to conservation, but I'm thinking something different from the same old reservation ecology which has been so popular. i read an article which proposed the strategy of "reconciliation ecology", which should aim to develop the co-existance of both people and the rest of nature. people use most of the land, so lets create habitats that support the environment in order to allow biodiversity to adapt to us. and this way we wouldn't need to move people and all their stuff to set aside more preserved land.

national parks have a lot of partnerships with other organizations that could help them work outside of the reservation bubble. more funding could go a long way for the parks to evolve.

[phaedrus]

do you have a link to this article? it sounds interesting.

[Jonny5]

haha whoops. the "article" i referred to was actually the first chapter of a book.

this is a good website on the subject. there's a page about the book there too. check it out http://winwinecology.com/

[Nimrod's Son]

Time to privatize

[Trotskilicious]

yes lets turn our national parks into six flags over Yosemite that would be sweet

we need more national preserves that aren't tourist attractions, and less national parks. I'd like to see large swaths of the west shut off from the stampeding feet of ecologically unappreciative tourists.

[smurfing]

yeah i was going to ask how the money was goign to be spent

not sure if i support this. it just seems like bush wanted to prove he was environment friendly without backing down in any other arena

[Trotskilicious]

national parks have nothing to do with the environment

[Kanan Road]

Originally Posted by Trotskilicious

I'd like to see large swaths of the west shut off from the stampeding feet of ecologically unappreciative tourists.

your fuckin' money baby