*First appeared in the June 4 edition of the Laurel Chronicle newspaper
During the Memorial Day weekend, I took a rather unexpected trip to Grand Teton and Yellowstone National Parks. You know the ones over yonder in the western part of the continental United States? The ones where, if you go, you’re certain death will find you in the form of a momma bear protecting her cubs? The one where the scalding water gushes out of the ground on such a regular schedule it’s referred to as “faithful?”
My spontaneous trip can be traced back to standing in a line at Walgreen’s, where I spotted one of those National Geographic magazines with the bright yellow outline. This particular volume had “World’s Greatest Parks” written across it in big, bold letters. Yellowstone was prominently featured in the magazine, heralded as America’s first and one of the world’s finest national parks. I thought it would be fun to visit this park, and so I did.
Mine was a whirlwind visit, but I stayed long enough to appreciate the uniqueness of the Yellowstone and Grand Teton area. The mountains are magnificent. They are not only breathtakingly beautiful, but tended to take my breath away during various hiking ascents. I wasn’t prepared for the vastness of Yellowstone. Even the crisp photos in the NatGeo magazine did not convey the Park’s dynamic landscape which, at one minute, is littered with herds of bison and moose across a rolling green prairie; the next minute, the scene is an icy lake adjacent to a pit of broiling mud.
Yellowstone is a park of wonders. To quote an old explorer who traveled in the area in the late 1800s: “Language is inadequate to convey a just conception of the grandeur and sublimity of this masterpiece of nature’s handiwork.”
My visit to this exceptional region made me think a lot about public parks: Is land preservation a core function of government? Is park upkeep a proper expenditure of taxpayer dollars? How do national parks fit into Republican ideals?
In my opinion, there aren’t many “core functions” of government. I won’t tell you in this column that land preservation is a core function of your government.
However, I do believe that land preservation is important and a worthwhile endeavor. I am pleased we have the national park system, just as I am pleased we have state parks here in Mississippi. There are countless reasons I support public parks – promotion of natural resources, cultural and educational experiences, ecotourism, preservation of lands for future generations – but I also believe public parks should exist as a partnership between private and public funding sources.
In 1967, Congress chartered the National Park Foundation, which helps steer private support (be it land, natural resources, or monetary) to the national park system. According to their 2013 annual report, the Foundation raised $23 million for the nation’s park system. That’s a step in the right direction, but the ratio of private support should be much higher considering the amount of taxpayer funding appropriated to the National Park Service by Congress (more than $2 billion in federal fiscal year 2014).
Despite the work left to do to increase private sector support of our parks, I admit that I don’t mind my taxes being used to pay for park upkeep – as long as the money is spent effectively and with much accountability.
But how do national parks fit into Republican ideals? Great question, and one I’ve been pondering since last week.
As a child of the Piney Woods region, I always enjoyed exploring the woods with my brother; as an adult, I still love exploration of woods and especially waters (kayaking and canoeing). I hope that future children of Mississippi have access to the same clean rivers and densely forested areas that I did, but that requires a good deal of responsibility.
The Republican Party is nothing if not an entity for promoting personal responsibility. As a conservative Republican, I agree with our GOP platform that proclaims a fundamental belief in “individual freedom” and “personal responsibility,” as well as “the responsible management of our natural resources and incentives for private conservation.”
Individual choice will always be a better driver of personal responsibility than government mandates, though I recognize that the incentive to act responsibly – such as a high dollar fine for littering – can help spur proper conservation efforts.
I often think the kind of people targeted by those types of laws – you know the people who throw trash out of their car with no regard for its impact on our environment – are not bound by one political party. They tend to be the people who treat others poorly, who aren’t bound by commitments, and who weren’t taught responsibility in the home. But I digress.
This Republican believes her views of public parks square nicely with the tenets of the GOP. I’m proud of our national parks and have no problem with my taxes being used to pay for their preservation and upkeep – so long as my money is coupled with private sector dollars and high degree of accountability.
The national parks truly are a national treasure – and I’d like to see us keep them that way for generations to come.
No comments:
Post a Comment