With Congress struggling to come to terms on a federal budget, should the politicians extend the Continuing Resolution to keep the national parks and the federal government operating beyond March 4, or should they let the government shut down?
Concern has been growing that a government shutdown is looming due to the differences between the House Republican majority, the Senate's Democratic majority, and the White House over spending levels.
If a solution is not reached, or the Continuing Resolution not extended, the government could shut down after March 4. Exactly what that means remains to be seen. In 1995 federal agencies adopted plans to deal with a shutdown that November. According to a Washington Post story published Tuesday, Interior Department staffing levels during that shutdown were just above 50 percent of normal, although the story did not specify how the shutdown affected the National Park Service.
On Tuesday the Park Service's chief spokesman, David Barna, told the Traveler that officials were reviewing the 1995 plan and that there was no immediate word on how the Park Service would respond to a shutdown if one arrived early next month.
With that background, today's bottom-line question is this:
Is a possible shutdown of national parks and other government operations a reasonable solution if Congress fails to agree on a budget?
Comments
At 87yrs old and retired for 25+ yrs I've seen and hiked in most of them --- so I'm done with 'em ! !! !!! !!!!
How selfish can one get ???? More seriously -- I think they are over developed, over visited, and the private
industries are over profiting on park land . However I'm sure glad that I do not have to solve these mixed problems ----- I hope future generations can see them all as I did.
It was an interesting discussion when Governor Schwarzenegger was threatening to close the California States Parks system due to budget shortfalls. The suggestion was that they would lock all gates, shut down all public facilities (including bathrooms) and perhaps keep a skeleton crew of law enforcement to keep people out. That wouldn't necessarily have kept people off trails though.
It might get interesting in the San Francisco Bay Area. Some NPS sites are public/private partnerships or public/public partnerships. The Presidio of San Francisco has active businesses and Golden Gate NRA includes heavily used roads. I would think something like the Rosie the Riveter memorial in a city park would stay open. Point Reyes NS doesn't charge admission and only has a few gates. They couldn't practically keep people out, and some park roads are the only ways to get to private residences and ranches within PRNS.
Yosemite NP has some private inholdings at Foresta and Wawona. Park roads are the only practical means to get to the private Yosemite West community. That could get interesting.
OK, here's my side. I am a 3rd year seasonal in maintenance for Kings Canyon National Park. I have a son in college, pay half of his costs, have my own household, and love the fact that I literally "Preserve and Protect" a wonderful treasure. I'M BROKE!!!! This job choice is not and never has been about the money. Perhaps if the "powers that be" came and watched the wonder and amazement in a young childs eyes when they see these things they might value our Parks a little more. Another note: If I were to do my job as poorly as our government is doing with balancing their budjet, I would rightously deserve to be thrown out on my butt!!!