I don't believe the federal government makes the best trustee for the park system because they don't have the best interests in mind. They want to revise a policy to satisfy the enjoyment and commercial needs for a hand full of people. For years, the majority of visitors and the park service employees has been happy with the basic management policies of the parks and has seen no reason to revise anything. Then people like Paul Hoffman come along and want to change everything these parks are supposed to stand for. The enjoyment of parks shouldn't be based ...view middle of the document...
I think the states may be less likely to change policies. State parks are sometimes a reflection on the state. Why would a state want to destroy their park by letting snowmobiles and off-road vehicles tear it up instead of take pride in it and continue to conserve and protect it for many more generations to come? On the other hand, the state could make bad decisions based on their financial needs. If they are financially vulnerable, groups could present themselves and offer a way out in exchange for changes in the park system.
I don't believe the commercial nature of the parks should be left to a national consensus, the major reason being the reintroduction of wolves in Yellowstone National Park. I don't believe there should even be a commercial presence in parks. Why is there always a need to commercialize and exploit every aspect of life? I do agree with the banning of snowmobiles in Yellowstone though. But with the wolf issue, those people don't live in Wyoming and they aren't ranchers or farmers. Of course someone from California is going to be in favor of putting wolves in Yellowstone, it doesn't affect them. It's all about politics. That's where ridiculous revisions come from; that's where the commercialization comes from; and that's where the exploitation comes from.
