[cogitator]

So there isn't enough money to properly maintain the National Parks. Then why is the Federal Government creating more National Monuments, which cost money to administer and maintain, and purchasing more private land?

As I understand it, there's a lot more to a National Park than a National Monument, so they cost considerably more to maintain (the infrastructure requirements for NMs are lower). I don't know how much private land the Feds are purchasing to create NMs: I seem to remember that the most recently-created NMs were converted in name from BLM lands that were already federally-owned. (I'm probably only remembering some cases and not other cases where the government did purchase private land.)

[.38sw]

You are correct that the national monuments cost less than national parks to administer and maintain, and they were converted from primarily BLM lands. However, national monuments usually have visitor centers, which cost money to build and staff, and there is usually an increased visitor load after designation as a monument (not that i'm advocating keeping people away from their public lands). There are also puchases going on with other federal agencies, like the Forest Service, to consolidate lands that are mixed ownership, and for other things. In fact, I have recently read about the Forest Service buying a couple of ranches adjacent to the forests on the Central California coast to convert to recreational uses. That is taking private lands out of production and off the tax rolls. It all costs mo money. Just gives me the heebee jeebies.