[.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.

[cogitator]

Thanks for the answer. I didn't think that land acquisition was taking a big bite out of the NPS budget, but I'm sure that it has some cost. And I know that new facilities at new NM will also cost money. However, I think that the real problem being faced by the National Parks is maintenance of existing infrastructure, which is becoming a problem due both to aging facilities and increased usage. That's why I think that they should raise user fees a bit at popular parks (without pricing people out of them -- in most cases they could probably double gate admission and still be about 25-50% of a Disneyworld ticket) and spread these fees around the NPS.