Fact is, government organizations are very inefficient at running anything.
One glaring example …
Here’s the road sign millions see each year driving from Las Vegas to Lake Mead National Recreation Area.
It’s different than other road signs in Nevada, not listing the highways by number nor name. Drivers assume the turn-off to the National Recreation Area is yet to come, and continue towards the dam.
WRONG.
Every day hundreds of confused drivers complain to both nearby information stations, as I did. The answer was the same at both:
“The National Parks Service is responsible for that signage. And despite years of complaints, they won’t fix it.”
National Parks Traveler is an excellent site advocating for the U.S. National Parks, but perhaps they’ve got it wrong.
Instead of trying to better fund and improve the American National Parks Service. perhaps we’d better start turning them over to local management.
“Friends of Lake Mead National Recreation Area” might do a better job than the NPS.
Though governor Arnold Schwarzenegger keeps threatening to cut California State Park funding, he held off on those cuts (for some reason) in his May 2010 budget proposal.
What do you think?
Should the actual users of Parks, including hikers, wrest control away from governments?
Leave a comment if you agree, or disagree.
besthike.com 
It’s nice that you like to use your *hiking blog* to talk about your politics, but I tend to appreciate hiking blogs for, well, reading about hikes. It’s also interesting that you use road signage as your evidence for the government’s inability to do anything efficiently.
Maybe if the NPS was funded like it should be you wouldn’t be so bitter about it. Leaving the private sector in control of parks is the worst idea ever. It’s nice to romanticize the idea about hikers taking control, but it wouldn’t be long before we’d be reading advertisements on the side of rock faces.
Come visit Oregon and see how the evil, evil government can EFFICIENTLY run many, many beautiful parks and forests.
Thanks, Jim.
Actually, I was just hiking Oregon (posts to come) and was very impressed with the State Parks. And there are so many !!
Eel Creek campground was closed for renovations, unfortunately. Would have loved to stay there.
Canadian government run Parks are pretty good too.
But I stand by what I said. Ultimately private libraries would be better than public libraries. The same, long term, with Parks.
Hmmm… re-reading my post I sounded pretty bitter. Not intentional! 🙂
Libraries? Really? How would privatization of libraries keep access free? Would these be non-profit libraries run privately? Hmmm…
I find it so interesting, in a literal, non-sarcastic way, that you, such an avid hiker and lover of the outdoors, are so profoundly against the very institution that is responsible for its protection. We need people like you helping to keep an eye on government and making sure it’s doing it’s job… not calling for its removal!
Government is the one institution that is not motivated by profit. Add the profit motive and you immediately lose the motive to provide for all, but rather to provide for yourself. My main concern about your ideas, like John Santos, is losing access for everyone, whether it’s libraries or state, provincial, and national parks. Government is not the only institution that can take away liberty and freedom… there are plenty of private organizations that do just that, and it would surely happen if we send parks and libraries to the private sector.
I want people bitter about the government to stand up and demand better services! Sign up with watchdog groups who keep and eye on the government. I truly believe the source of all inefficient, bad government (of which there is a lot, make no mistake) is lack of accountability. Redirect your passion!
🙂 This is an interesting discussion… thanks for starting it.
– I think the main issue with private ownership of wilderness is access. Will they limit access to certain people (memebers only)? Will the fee be unreasonably high? Will there be limits to what you can do inside the park depending on what you pay? You say, “ultimately private libraries would be better than public libraries.” True, that private collections such as universities have more resources to take car of their collection. But by its very nature it is limited to those granted access to them, defeating the purpose of preserving and perpetuating knowledge, which is the main purpose of a library.
– Other than the sign, what other aspects of national parks do you see as examples of government inefficiency? I have to agree, a street sign is by no means indicative of an entire faulty system. How does the government fail natural parks? In what way can local control make the enjoyment of parks better? Do local parks have any claim to federal money to be better preserved? If not, are we putting parks in less affluent localities in grave danger of being neglected? If they are controlled locally, do fans from other places have any say on the future of the land if, say, the local government or owner decided to allow development on the land? (I think this is true especially in the Carribbean, where the last “unspoiled” stretches of beach are those lands under the control of the US federal government)
I think these days it is much too in vogue to ignore the positives of centralized government. But this shouldn’t stop us from considering the good things that come out of central control, and the bad things that could come from the lack of uniformity in governance.
Despite all this, great blog!
I live in a Socialist country, John. Canada.
We suffer all sorts of inefficiencies due to top down decision making.
Our Parks, I have to say, are still quite good.
But, like the USA, we are running massive deficits. How much longer can governments afford to pay for Parks?
Perhaps a phase in could work. The NPS keeps control, but turns over more of the cost and management to the actual users: “Friends of _____ Park”.
If Communism worked, I’d be for it. But it doesn’t.
Government is inefficient. In most cases, the less government the better, but in the case of public lands:
Note calamitous oil spill in the Gulf; privatization is not a great plan either.
Localization sounds like a good middle ground. But some of the best Parks have no locals, from ANWR to Great Basin, and some – Denali – have local politics that would love to manage it for commerce. Think of pitched battles in Wyo if Yellowstone was managed by locals … show up at a town hall meeting, and better bring your firearm.
Each Park is managed for the common good of the entire country. This is extremely ambitious, so it sometimes fails, sometimes is brilliant. See Ken Burns documentary.
Best idea I’ve thought of, is to have each Park keep 100% of it’s entry fees. A small step, but that way money is proportionally allocated to impacts.
Hey. I like that, Buzz.
Keep all your revenue. Some will spend it efficiently, some not.
Perhaps the remote parks could be somehow subsidized …