This Huffington Post article makes a hysterical case that the government shutdown is causing deaths in national parks to be reported one week after they occur.
First, the article itself says that the response time in Yosemite National Park was about one hour which, for a wilderness area, is fairly good. That means the shutdown didn't actually impact the National Park Service response to the emergency in any substantial way; it may have impacted only reporting that an emergency occurred and that the person recovered after suffering an injury ultimately died from the injury. That is not something justifying the dramatic headline that the government shutdown caused a death to be reported one week after it happened. Those involved in the incident were handling it immediately and there was no indication that next of kin had any delay in receiving information about the injury and passing away of their family member.
Second, if individual parks were privately owned and operated, a government shutdown would not affect their operation at all. The parks could be supported by memberships, usage fees, concessions, and donations without any government financial support or management. In that case, government funding deadlocks would have no impact on how the parks are operated. Those who want pristine parks for their own purposes such as recreation or just feeling good about paying to have parks available would be able to run the parks without government interference. Those willing to share their recreation areas with the lumber and mining industries as well as hunters could have their privately owned parks catering to their needs and preferences which might result in lower recreation fees because of mining and lumber revenue. It is even possible that having industry in a park would have very minimal impact on recreational value while improving safety because of improved infrastructure in the park that would speed medical evacuation and reduce the likelihood and severity of wild fires.
Of course, this could be applied to other national land such national forests managed by the National Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management properties.
Even if the land itself is not sold, management and operation of the land could be privatized by having the government sell long term leases to private organizations.
If the Sierra Club wants to keep everything pristine, it (or its members) could submit winning bids for the land rather than force all taxpayers to pay for their desire for pristine land. Most Americans want pristine landscapes and areas, but most are unwilling to pay the steep price for the amount of pristine land that extremist environmentalists want. Many Americans will tolerate some commercial development in the land they want to use for recreation in exchange for a lower price.
Ultimately, reducing the government role in our recreation and commercial matters will be generally beneficial for everyone. It will facilitate sensible recreational and commercial use of the land and not subject the facilities to the vagaries of government policies and funding. Radical Environmentalists can put their money where their mouths are and pay for land they want totally undeveloped and pristine rather than force all American taxpayers to subsidize them. Others might want the parks less pristine and more developed in order to better enjoy them or might just want to avoid them because they prefer cities.
Land management by owners who have a personal stake in the value of the property will almost always be better than management by political processes using government decrees and tax dollars. And when it isn't, the owners rather than all taxpayers will bear the cost.
Privatization of vast national lands such as National Parks and National Forests would provide the right balance of development that people really want and would keep the facilities functioning even in the midst of a government shutdown.
First, the article itself says that the response time in Yosemite National Park was about one hour which, for a wilderness area, is fairly good. That means the shutdown didn't actually impact the National Park Service response to the emergency in any substantial way; it may have impacted only reporting that an emergency occurred and that the person recovered after suffering an injury ultimately died from the injury. That is not something justifying the dramatic headline that the government shutdown caused a death to be reported one week after it happened. Those involved in the incident were handling it immediately and there was no indication that next of kin had any delay in receiving information about the injury and passing away of their family member.
Second, if individual parks were privately owned and operated, a government shutdown would not affect their operation at all. The parks could be supported by memberships, usage fees, concessions, and donations without any government financial support or management. In that case, government funding deadlocks would have no impact on how the parks are operated. Those who want pristine parks for their own purposes such as recreation or just feeling good about paying to have parks available would be able to run the parks without government interference. Those willing to share their recreation areas with the lumber and mining industries as well as hunters could have their privately owned parks catering to their needs and preferences which might result in lower recreation fees because of mining and lumber revenue. It is even possible that having industry in a park would have very minimal impact on recreational value while improving safety because of improved infrastructure in the park that would speed medical evacuation and reduce the likelihood and severity of wild fires.
Of course, this could be applied to other national land such national forests managed by the National Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management properties.
Even if the land itself is not sold, management and operation of the land could be privatized by having the government sell long term leases to private organizations.
If the Sierra Club wants to keep everything pristine, it (or its members) could submit winning bids for the land rather than force all taxpayers to pay for their desire for pristine land. Most Americans want pristine landscapes and areas, but most are unwilling to pay the steep price for the amount of pristine land that extremist environmentalists want. Many Americans will tolerate some commercial development in the land they want to use for recreation in exchange for a lower price.
Ultimately, reducing the government role in our recreation and commercial matters will be generally beneficial for everyone. It will facilitate sensible recreational and commercial use of the land and not subject the facilities to the vagaries of government policies and funding. Radical Environmentalists can put their money where their mouths are and pay for land they want totally undeveloped and pristine rather than force all American taxpayers to subsidize them. Others might want the parks less pristine and more developed in order to better enjoy them or might just want to avoid them because they prefer cities.
Land management by owners who have a personal stake in the value of the property will almost always be better than management by political processes using government decrees and tax dollars. And when it isn't, the owners rather than all taxpayers will bear the cost.
Privatization of vast national lands such as National Parks and National Forests would provide the right balance of development that people really want and would keep the facilities functioning even in the midst of a government shutdown.
Comments