“But our buying power is still shrinking,” said Chas Cartwright, superintendent at Glacier National Park.
Today's full-time employee can cost well over $70,000 a year, once you add salary and benefits - and benefits alone can eat up 50 percent or more of that total.
Fortunately, Cartwright isn't solely dependent upon Congress for park funding. In recent years, private contributions from nonprofits such as the Glacier National Park Fund have provided close to 10 percent of the cash on hand - several hundred thousand dollars a year at Glacier.
“And in the next decade,” Cartwright predicted, “that could hit 15 to 20 percent.”
If he's right, it represents a fundamental change in how the nation funds its parks.
Lately, private park partners “have been assisting us in doing things that some might perceive to be meat and potatoes,” Cartwright said, despite their initial goal of only putting the frosting on the cake.
“But they understand that if you don't have a cake, then it's just a pile of frosting,” he said.
With an annual budget shortfall of nearly $1 billion, and a maintenance backlog reckoned in the many billions, frosting simply isn't enough to sweeten the pot.
So this year, the Glacier Fund paid for bear-resistant storage lockers, as well as wildlife management, endangered species protections and equipment upgrades for park rangers.
A plan to encourage even more philanthropy, by providing hundreds of millions in matching federal funds, now may be cut back as lawmakers struggle with a tighter economy.
“The Park Service is embracing philanthropy as never before, and some say that's good and some say that's bad,” Cartwright said. “But it doesn't really matter what we think about it. The reality is, this is the new way of doing business.”
So while he doesn't expect the Glacier Fund to buy toilet paper for park offices, he is wondering whether a local outdoors club, for instance, might take care of some backcountry trail maintenance.
“Granted, the economy has taken a bad turn, a really bad turn, but I think the private dollars will be there,” Cartwright said. “People love the parks, and they value them. We absolutely need our partners more than ever.”
|
 |
 |
Add your comment now! Write your comment in the form below.
(Email address is for verification only. If you'd like to email a story, look for the link above)
Ray Nelson wrote on Nov 24, 2008 6:36 PM:
Office of the Secretary
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
February 4, 2008
“President Bush’s $10.7 billion budget for the Department of the Interior in FY2009 maintains high levels of support for conservation and natural resource stewardship programs, advances national park, healthy lands, safe Indian community, and Indian education initiatives launched last year and proposes new strategic investments to address emerging environmental and resource management challenges…"
The press release goes on to say:
"…The FY 2009 budget calls for a landmark request of $2.1 billion for park operations, an increase of $161 million over the FY 2008 enacted amount. Combined with the 2008 enacted budget, this totals a two-year increase of $282 million, or 15 percent, for park operations."
I sense a huge disconnect here. How much of the $2.1 Billion gets siphoned off in DC for senior executive management and social engineering initiatives. I suggest the NPS re-examine how they intend to spend their $2.1 Billion and start with back country trail maintenance and park operations first. Work the budget back through the organization rather than from DC out. Focus on actual work first, and see how far the money goes. You might be surprised where a measly $2.1 Billion will get you when managed with the slightest degree of fiscal responsibility. "