California Will Close Up To 70 State Parks To Save Money

In an attempt to reduce California’s severe budget problems, officials will be closing 70 state parks across California, eliminating 220 jobs and closing redwood forests, historic sites and coastal woodlands. This move will save California $33 million, as part of a larger plan to close a deficit of roughly $15 billion. All together, the parks that are scheduled to be closed attract 5.6 million visitors a year.

Environmental activists are understandably upset about the decision. “This is a pretty devastating list,” said Elizabeth Goldstein, executive director of the California State Parks Foundation. “It represents 25 percent of the park system and, for the Bay Area, it’s a big hit.”

Resources Secretary John Laird, however, blamed Republicans who are stalling the Democrats’ attempts to extend tax increases that expire this summer. “Hopefully, Republicans in the legislature will agree to allow California voters to decide whether we extend currently existing taxes or make deeper cuts to our parks,” said Laird. He warned that without more revenue, more cuts will have to be made.

Parks officials, meanwhile, are saying, rather ambitiously, that they want to keep “92 percent of the state park system’s attendance and 94 percent of its revenue.” This is in spite of the fact that while not all parks will be closed completely, over half of the state’s 278 state parks have suffered budget cuts, putting park staffing at the level that it was at in 1979, with 10 million more visitors a year.

The state historic parks are the hardest hit. But the question of how officials will effectively close the parks is also unclear. According to the San Francisco Chronicle, people have continued to use the partially closed parks, and the most officials can do is put up roadblocks and signs. The parks might also be available for special events if people are willing to pay. And officials added that parks could be saved if nonprofits or local governments take over administration and funding.

“At a time when we want to encourage more people to get out and recreate and enjoy the outdoors, we are closing down opportunities,” said Ruskin Hartley, executive director of San Francisco’s Save the Redwoods League. “What is California without its redwoods and its beaches and its mountains?”

Photo from Flickr.

quick poll

vote now!

Loading poll...

no!
leaning no
leaning yes
yes!

no!
leaning no
leaning yes
yes!

Disclaimer: The views expressed above are solely those of the author and may not reflect those of
Care2, Inc., its employees or advertisers.

Janine H.

7:20AM PDT on Jul 23, 2011

This is a very sad story. Other animals and plants have to go only because "we" humans do not want to share the world with other life forms, these life forms "we" would not eat (vegetarian food is not a bad idea, or eating with conscience as the so called primitive cultures did and still do, if they still exist. No meat/fish every day). "We" destroy everything around us and "we" forget, that everything is important to survive, too.

As little child i thought that rain is when God and the angels cry - because "we" humans have forgotten that we need this "intelligence", someone who could help... if "we" hadn't turned away for many centuries ago...

"Only when the last tree has been cut down; Only when the last river has been poisoned; Only when the last fish has been caught; Only then will you find that money cannot be eaten."
(Native American proverb)

"We have learned to fly the air like birds and swim the sea like fish, but we have not yet learned the simple art of living together as brothers." (Martin Luther King)

send a green star

Beckie M.

12:07AM PDT on May 22, 2011

If California would get rid of welfare, they wouldn't have to close the parks.

Georgia L.

5:24PM PDT on May 19, 2011

The Heritage foundation wants a lot of federal land and mineral rights sold to their rich buddies. This is the beginning of the biggest heist in history. Just wait.

caterina c.

9:34AM PDT on May 19, 2011

********** IT'S INCREDIBLE .........!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Vanessa B.

1:42PM PDT on May 18, 2011

I'd agree to extend some tax cuts if they could GUARANTEE they'd only be used for the Parks. But we know they won't use it for the State Parks. It's very sad.

Arielle B.

9:05PM PDT on May 17, 2011

This is really sad.

Marilyn L.

4:50PM PDT on May 17, 2011

Why can't people see the Republicans for what they are? They don't care about the American people or American. Actions speak louder than words.

Joy M.

3:31PM PDT on May 17, 2011

You need visitors money to keep the parks going.. Gosh, why don't you see that?

Past Member .

2:23PM PDT on May 17, 2011

true, you can't keep determined people out of the parks. They won't be able to keep out the vandals, and the taggers, and destructive element, or the locals who can't afford to travel in this economy and count on parks to entertain the kids and take a breather. All those employees fired and bathrooms closed unfortunately just mean that there will be a slew of human waste scattered about, garbage uncollected blowing in the breeze, and no police presence to run off looters and the like. And when the parks are re-opened it will take a boatload of millions to put it back together, repave parking lots, repair septic systems, clean and scrub facilities and bushwhack trails. The longer things are closed the more expensive it will be to reopen. Incredibly short-sighted. But someone actually suggested allowing hunting in parks for natives in exchange for caring for the land and allowing them to harvest timber and such. I appreciate the natives getting back to their roots on their lands, but hunting and cutting trees in parks just doesn't work. Unfortunately, she has a point, because we can also look forward to just such things in the parks if they close...illegal hunting and destruction of ecosystems.

Mary B.

12:21PM PDT on May 17, 2011

How about turning the parks over to the local tribal people to steward? They could charge what they needed to keep the facitities up, and pay themselves a living wage, in exchange for hunting and fishing rights,selective harvesting of timber, ect. They could also set up camps and do education on traditional Native ways. Who better to care for this public land than the original Public?And if this is successful, it could be used as a model for the rest of the state parks to fallow. And absolutely no 'developers' allowed.