It could be dark days ahead for the National Park Service if the House's budget passes/Rebecca Latson file
Republicans in the House of Representatives are pushing for double-digit budget cuts for the National Park Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and U.S. Bureau of Land Management.
While the cuts won't get past the Senate, the appropriations contained in the FY24 budget for the Interior Department could force a government shutdown on November 17 if the two chambers can't reach a compromise.
As narrowly passed by the House on Friday, 213-203, the Park Service budget would be cut 13 percent, or roughly half-a-billion dollars, according to Democrats on the House Natural Resources Committee. The Fish and Wildlife Service budget is facing a 13.6 percent ($237 million) cut; the BLM a 17.5 percent ($255 million) cut; and the U.S. Forest Service an 8 percent ($255 million) cut, according to the Democrats.
The legislation also cuts Endangered Species Act protections for the gray wolf, sage-grouse, and lesser-prairie chicken, eliminates funding for the Presidio, and cuts the Environmental Protection Agency's budget by 39 percent.
Comments
So the BLM is closing areas to the public "for no good reasona' eh? You obviously haven't been to those areas where mounatins of trash have been dumped, fragile soil and vegation trampled beyond repair, and hundreds of vagrants homesteading in prime areas keeping the responsible camper away. I've been to areas which look like town dumps, a disgrace and which BLM has not the resources to clean up or patrol properly.
Well, your cooments are mostly based on assumptions that the NPS willy nilly comes along and buys up land to make into a park. Nope. In many cases Congress directs the NPS to create a park, monument, or recreation area, but then frequently fails to provide the agency with adequate funding to build or maintain it properly. For those lands which the NPS buys without direct Congressional approval, the money comes from a special fund within the agency which Congress authroizes yearly. And in every case all of the stakeholders are able to contribute their input. And let's not overlook the fact that whether you personally like or approve of any particular park is totally irrelevant. You may love a park which others find a waste, and vice versa. Too many
That's not typical of how NPS has been acquiring properties.
As I stated, here's the story of how NPS acquired Stonewall:
http://npshistory.com/publications/ston/reconnaissance-survey.pdf
At no point did I claim I love or hate any NPS property--it is irrelevant to this discussion. What IS relevant is whether the NPS can AFFORD to acquire more properties to manage.
No. It doesn't need be cut. Funding needs to increased for the EPA, IRS, and other regulatory groups. It could be easily done if the wealthy paid their fare share in taxes.