National parks versus national forests?
President Bush will give a speech today in Shenandoah National Park about his National Park Centennial Initiative. Finally, he’s getting the picture: our national parks need help. The new budget features the most money he’s ever proposed for the National Park Service and its governmental parent, the Department of the Interior. Bush’s forward vision will ready our national parks for the 100th anniversary in 2016.
Strange, then, that Bush’s budget also proposes selling national forest land to fund rural schools. More than 5,600 acres in North Carolina would be auctioned off. Now, we’re not opposed to funding rural schools, but this shouldn’t be done at the expense of our public lands.
National forest sales run counter to what Dirk Kempthorne told Citizen-Times reporter Lindsay Nash. In an audio clip posted online, Kempthorne wrung his hands over the need to get more people outdoors to fight childhood obesity. Providing opportunities for recreation, instead of having to pay for healthcare down the road, is “a very positive equation,” he said.
But how many people go to national parks on a regular basis to exercise? Very few. Most people in the United States don’t live near any public land, much less national parks. Residents of Western North Carolina move here so they can be close to the national forests; so we can go trail running, ride our mountain bikes and take the dogs for walks in Pisgah National Forest.
If President Bush’s administration really wants to stave off future healthcare expenses by investing in public land, the idea of selling public land must be dropped. In fact, we’d like to see a proposal to increase public land, connecting the isolated islands proposed for sale with city parks, greenways, and the rest of the national public land system.
