Wisconsin was one of the first states to have a State Park by setting aside thousands of acres of land in the late 1800s. Ironically now under the funding policy imposed by Governor Walker, we may be the State likely to dismantle the Park system as we know it. To most people, a Park is a Park. Ownership is not that important. However, the method of funding and supporting a park can significantly influence people's use and enjoyment of the Park. We are in uncharted waters for our parks with the Walker proposed policy for our State Parks that they shall receive no tax support and instead be sustained by fees and other revenues. In essence this creates an unusual and untried "pay to play" funding model.
Under this mandate, the DNR is treating the Parks system as a commodity to be managed with no tax dollars, and relying on fees and other as yet undetermined revenue sources. This is unsound public policy and will eventually lead to a significantly deteriorated State Park System. There is nothing inherently wrong with using fees to augment public tax support but it is unwise for fees to be the sole source of park support and can lead to disastrous consequences. One has to wonder whether this isn't the first step toward privatizing the Parks. The state's approach is ill conceived for several reasons. Here's why.
1- Parks are long-term natural resource assets. Parks are not simply a recreational commodity that can be managed through the funds raised by fees to balance annual budgets. That approach will most likely ignore any future park planning for either land or stewardship needs, including infrastructure, invasives and wildlife management, and erosion control just to name a few. That is particularly important because management of parks and natural resources must be viewed in a multi-generational continuum. There is a sacred trust to conserve those resources for future generations. Aldo Leopold said it well "We abuse land because we regard it as a commodity belonging to us. When we see land as a community to which we belong, we may begin to use it with love and respect.”
2- Not all people can or will pay the increased fees. The benefits that Parks play in our quality of life for all people will be jeopardized. Not all people can or will pay the fee for entry. It will be more difficult to enjoy the health benefits both physical and mental of parks as well as the benefit of community with nature. Education about and understanding of natural environments will not be as readily available to everyone but only those who choose to pay.
3- Contributes to Nature Deficit Disorder. By limiting access we add to the risk of losing a generation or more of young people who will have less access to the beauty of nature and thus appreciation for it and understanding of why it must be preserved. The impact long-term will be very significant. It is difficult enough now to compete for young people's attention in the new computer world and this just exacerbates that. As Richard Louv notes in his book, "In nature a child finds freedom, fantasy, and privacy, a place distant from the adult world, a separate peace" He continues that ... "Nature is often overlooked as a haling balm for the emotional hardships in a child's life."
4- Unproven Model. Wisconsin will rely on a new and unproven model of self-sufficiency for the state's sprawling state parks system. National information indicates that other state parks haven't been able to fund their entire operations with money collected from campers, hikers and other users. Moreover, among the State's neighbors Wisconsin's fees are the highest with two neighbors having no admission fees (Iowa and Illinois). Nearly 30% of parks operations are currently funded from the state's general fund, according to the nonpartisan Legislative Fiscal Bureau. Replacing that with other revenue is a very high bar to overcome and probably insurmountable without more cuts into the budget.
5- Impact on Tourism and Local Economies. Overall, the impact of state parks on the state and local economies is enormous. Every travel dollar spent changes hands several times before leaving the locality in which it is spent. This money is paid to private businesses for gas, food, lodging and other goods. As the Park admission fees will be at the highest among Wisconsin's neighboring states, it is evident that the Walker policy will negatively impact overall attendance and tourism dollars. Local economies rely on attendees at their State Park to sustain their business and a drop in attendance will not be good. For some local businesses, state parks are the very basis for their sustenance.
6- Uncertain Revenue Picture. Parks are important locales for native plants and animals. It is unclear how infrastructure maintenance and improvements will be funded and additional lands managed to insure survival of critical plant and animal species. Also it is also unclear about the critical need to manage invasive species in land and water systems. Without that management and stewardship the parks will eventually deteriorate. As President Theodore Roosevelt noted, "A nation behaves well if it treats its natural resources as assets to turn over to the next generations increased in value not impaired."
7- Competition with Other Recreational Options. Part of the competitive attraction of a public park is cost and availability. It is difficult for Parks to compete successfully with higher leveraged private commercial recreational options designed to advertise and attract people to their businesses, like water parks, theme parks. The Parks are not staffed for that competition either.
Failing to support the Parks financially under this new structure may well give the political ammunition to privatization.
For those reasons the Approach by the Governor and some legislators is risky at best and very likely will lead to the deterioration of our 100 year old State Parks system over time.
"Today we take our Parks for granted; tomorrow they may not be here in the same way we knew them if at all. " WGLunney
But there are other ways to pay for and support parks which I will explore in a subsequent post.
Under this mandate, the DNR is treating the Parks system as a commodity to be managed with no tax dollars, and relying on fees and other as yet undetermined revenue sources. This is unsound public policy and will eventually lead to a significantly deteriorated State Park System. There is nothing inherently wrong with using fees to augment public tax support but it is unwise for fees to be the sole source of park support and can lead to disastrous consequences. One has to wonder whether this isn't the first step toward privatizing the Parks. The state's approach is ill conceived for several reasons. Here's why.
1- Parks are long-term natural resource assets. Parks are not simply a recreational commodity that can be managed through the funds raised by fees to balance annual budgets. That approach will most likely ignore any future park planning for either land or stewardship needs, including infrastructure, invasives and wildlife management, and erosion control just to name a few. That is particularly important because management of parks and natural resources must be viewed in a multi-generational continuum. There is a sacred trust to conserve those resources for future generations. Aldo Leopold said it well "We abuse land because we regard it as a commodity belonging to us. When we see land as a community to which we belong, we may begin to use it with love and respect.”
2- Not all people can or will pay the increased fees. The benefits that Parks play in our quality of life for all people will be jeopardized. Not all people can or will pay the fee for entry. It will be more difficult to enjoy the health benefits both physical and mental of parks as well as the benefit of community with nature. Education about and understanding of natural environments will not be as readily available to everyone but only those who choose to pay.
3- Contributes to Nature Deficit Disorder. By limiting access we add to the risk of losing a generation or more of young people who will have less access to the beauty of nature and thus appreciation for it and understanding of why it must be preserved. The impact long-term will be very significant. It is difficult enough now to compete for young people's attention in the new computer world and this just exacerbates that. As Richard Louv notes in his book, "In nature a child finds freedom, fantasy, and privacy, a place distant from the adult world, a separate peace" He continues that ... "Nature is often overlooked as a haling balm for the emotional hardships in a child's life."
4- Unproven Model. Wisconsin will rely on a new and unproven model of self-sufficiency for the state's sprawling state parks system. National information indicates that other state parks haven't been able to fund their entire operations with money collected from campers, hikers and other users. Moreover, among the State's neighbors Wisconsin's fees are the highest with two neighbors having no admission fees (Iowa and Illinois). Nearly 30% of parks operations are currently funded from the state's general fund, according to the nonpartisan Legislative Fiscal Bureau. Replacing that with other revenue is a very high bar to overcome and probably insurmountable without more cuts into the budget.
5- Impact on Tourism and Local Economies. Overall, the impact of state parks on the state and local economies is enormous. Every travel dollar spent changes hands several times before leaving the locality in which it is spent. This money is paid to private businesses for gas, food, lodging and other goods. As the Park admission fees will be at the highest among Wisconsin's neighboring states, it is evident that the Walker policy will negatively impact overall attendance and tourism dollars. Local economies rely on attendees at their State Park to sustain their business and a drop in attendance will not be good. For some local businesses, state parks are the very basis for their sustenance.
6- Uncertain Revenue Picture. Parks are important locales for native plants and animals. It is unclear how infrastructure maintenance and improvements will be funded and additional lands managed to insure survival of critical plant and animal species. Also it is also unclear about the critical need to manage invasive species in land and water systems. Without that management and stewardship the parks will eventually deteriorate. As President Theodore Roosevelt noted, "A nation behaves well if it treats its natural resources as assets to turn over to the next generations increased in value not impaired."
7- Competition with Other Recreational Options. Part of the competitive attraction of a public park is cost and availability. It is difficult for Parks to compete successfully with higher leveraged private commercial recreational options designed to advertise and attract people to their businesses, like water parks, theme parks. The Parks are not staffed for that competition either.
Failing to support the Parks financially under this new structure may well give the political ammunition to privatization.
For those reasons the Approach by the Governor and some legislators is risky at best and very likely will lead to the deterioration of our 100 year old State Parks system over time.
"Today we take our Parks for granted; tomorrow they may not be here in the same way we knew them if at all. " WGLunney
But there are other ways to pay for and support parks which I will explore in a subsequent post.
RSS Feed