Cutting parks short-sighted
Last year, general fund support for Idaho Department of Parks and Recreation was reduced from $6 million to $1.3 million. Twenty-five full-time employees were cut, fees raised and programs reduced.
Obviously, given the state of the economy, we can no longer expect the same level of government services. However, in states where parks have been closed, but later reopened, statistics show that many of those places are more popular than ever. Spending time at a less exotic park within driving distance of home becomes more attractive than a trip to Disneyland for families that are obligated to cut expenses.
When hard times are on residents and unemployment is high, both Idaho and Washington would seem to have a great opportunity to assist their citizens to access safe, reasonably priced and alternative recreation resources. As a retiree, this is particularly important to me and my family.
Also, the economic impact of state parks is substantial and results in an infusion of much-needed monies by travelers into local economies.
Any consideration of cuts to state parks should be carefully weighed, have citizen input and be reasonable to the reality of recreation trends today.
Harvey Hughett
Moscow, Idaho