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
Nope. Not if you can shoehorn into the remaining 5% the Postal Service, FAA, Medicaid, Air Force, CPSC, Social Security, Amtrak, EPA, Department of Labor, Coast Guard, OSHA, garbage collection, CDC, Navy, FDA, Department of Motor Vehicles, 911 Emergency, court system, Fire Department, Interstate Highway System, FDIC, snow plowing, National Mint, SEC, Department of Health, Police, EPA, Marines, HUD, Federal Reserve, NOAA, Department of Social Services, TSA, Medicare, Pension Guarantee Corporation, USDA, oh, and the National Park Service! Whaddaya think, can do? ;-)
I love hiking at Muir Woods National Monument in spite of the crowds. I support preserving low visitation parks, but their staffing and facilities budgets need to be kept within reasonable limits.