“National Parks have user fees. You’re not amenable to raising those fees, provided we aren’t smart enough to hand the parks down to the states or eliminate them? After all, raising the fees to keep up w/inflation, in return for ELIMINATING taxpayer funding of the parks, sounds mighty pleasing to me.”
The parks need to be self-sufficient, ideally that should not be hard cause wild land should require zero maintenance. But in practice we have to secure the land from poachers, harvesters, and homesteaders. That means the larger the track of land the more men and/or equipment is needed to secure the land.
This is certainly do able by most every State Government, but the question at hand is how much of theses costs can be recouped by visitor fees for any given park?
While clearly all the Federal parks must be handed off to their host State(who can then do with them whatever they want). I would be interested in hearing from some of the smaller States like Wyoming in how they plan to secure their disproportionally large parks.
I beleive they can solve the problem as No state should spend a dime of their Tax payer money on the maintenance of any State park.
Your post is nonsense.
State parks are set up by states, and managed by states.
National parks are funded by the federal government, and there is upkeep for roads, lodging, etc. in each national park.
I happen to think that privatizing some national parks would be a good idea, but then again, that would mean turning some of those parks into Disneyland.