That is, save our ability to hike in them?
Is it enough to send pleadings to lawmakers or should we take more direct action?
I’d like to hear other people’s suggestions before throwing any ideas of my own out into the ether.
That is, save our ability to hike in them?
Is it enough to send pleadings to lawmakers or should we take more direct action?
I’d like to hear other people’s suggestions before throwing any ideas of my own out into the ether.
First and foremost, the best thing you can do, I think, is to support the organizations who are already involved in the issue and have deep knowledge and contact the decision-makers and influence change. The most important of those, I would say, are the individual interpretive associations for the parks, such as the Pine Ridge Association for Henry Coe S.P.
There is also a larger umbrella organization that supports lobbies for all of the state parks called the California State Parks Foundation. Show them your support as well.
Finally, making your own opinion known to any elected official you’re in the jurisdiction to vote for never, ever hurts.
I’ve sent out letters to my state reps and I’m a bit behind on reading my paper but maybe if the editorial board at the Mercury weighed in with an editorial on it urging people to speak up. I don’t know what sort of effect that would have, I’m just grasping for straws. I gather the local hiking clubs at least are up in arms about it though.
I did go hiking at the Hunting Hollow entrance to Coe this past Saturday and it was like ecstasy being out there up on Steer Ridge Road near Willson Peak eating lunch while listening to the birds sing and enjoying the views. I still feel the endorphins just thinking about it. No other park does that for me like Henry Coe because it is so peaceful there. I’d sure hate to see Henry Coe have the traffic of say Big Basin. I would be willing to pay more at Coe just to keep it open. It’s like a fine wine!
Please excuse my ignorance, but I’m from Canada and not sure of how the parks system works in the US.
What would happen to the areas if they are closed? I understand they would be inaccessible for recreation, but over time would they be reopened? Would they be turned into a sort of wildlife retreat? Is there a chance they would lose their park “status” and be developed in some way?
Again, I’m sorry if these are simple questions, I’m just trying to grasp the long-term effects of closures.
Thanks
Michelle: what they’re saying so far is they’ll just close the gates, not let anybody in, and supposedly have some patrols to keep vandals and vagrants out.
I can’t help wondering, though, if all these announced closings is mainly a ploy to get people to understand the seriousness of the budget deficit.
There doesn’t seem to be a lot of sense, from a practical standpoint, in closing all these parks, but politically, it does make a statement by threatening to close them.
I’ve been speaking with Don Perata’s office as well as sending them e – mail. Ditto for Guy Houston, who’s office apparently doesn’t answer their phones nor return calls. I e – mailed the Governor.
I also e – mailed the Tri Valley Sierra Club, and will work on Save Mt. Diablo and others tonight or tomorrow. If we can mobilize membership of these kinds of groups, as Steve said, our influence will increase exponentially.
The other thing – try to offer a solution. It’s not enough to complain about cuts in a few programs. How, from a citizen’s point of view, can less hurtful cuts be instituted elsewhere. Believe me, there’s a lot of politicking and needless expense built into a state’s budget. Don’t mince words, either – if, like me, you consider the park system untouchable, let ’em know this is an elect – or not – elect point as you peruse your ballot.
In the face of public land being sold off and developed by private, out of state interests, we can’t budge from a firm position on this – accept no compromises!
How about direct action in the form of mass donations from park users to specifically be allocated to the $14M deficit. . .oh, yes, sounds like pie in the sky, this pollyanna-ish idea. . .but WHAT IF? WHAT IF every person who plans to hike in a state park, state recreational area, or state historical site, contributed a minimum of $100- that’s only 140,000 of us – and there’s your $14M shortfall. WHY can’t this be done? Can anyone give me a good reason, other than “fugggedaboutit”? (I work for UC Berkeley, so believe me, I understand layers and layers of obfuscating and thwarting bureaucracy to get “out of the box” things accomplished.)
Gambolin Man Says: “How about direct action in the form of mass donations from park users to specifically be allocated to the $14M deficit.”
Hmmm. There is a chance that could solve the short-term problem.
What I fear it that it could possibly exacerbate a larger, looming problem: The desire of certain interests to see all public properties privatized. The first step in privatizing public properties is to starve them of funds so that they look ineffective and inefficient. Once that happens, they can say that these public resources, these “commons”, should be supported strictly by the “customers”, rather that by society for the general good of society. The next step would be to argue that private business could manage the parks better than a government agency. Finally, the next thing you know, we’ll have Casa de Fruita’s Wild West Park (formerly Henry Coe), Pacific Lumber’s Portola Creek Redwoods, or Marriott’s Great Yosemite.
Those in favor of privatization would love to see the public prove that the parks can be operated without tax money.
And I have the exact same fear as Steve.
We need to convince the governor and other state officials that the parks are a far greater benefit than whatever revenue they thing they will save by closing them. In terms of value vs. cost, parks like Henry Coe are an unbeatable investment. For hard working taxpayers who endeavor to live a healthy lifestyle they are essential. They provide wholesome positive activity choices for young and old alike, and for families. They provide open space to enhance livability. They provide a place where wildlife can coexist without danger of encroachment form urban sprawl, and for nature to thrive to enhance the quality of the air. Parks are a benefit in so many subtle ways.
The California State Parks Foundation has opened up a web page which allows you to sign a letter and have it automatically sent to your Assemblymember and Senator based on your address.
http://ga3.org/campaign/KeepStateParksOpen