As a result of President Trump’s attempt to reduce government spending, the National Park Service, which researches and protects America’s natural wonders, is facing extreme budget cuts. Over 4,000 National Park Service and U.S. Forest Service employees were fired on Feb. 14. This caused some parks to temporarily close due to under staffing.
These cuts impacted National Parks across the country, including the National Park closest to Santa Barbara, the Channel Islands National Park. Lyndal Laughrin, the director of UCSB’s Santa Cruz Island reserve, has been living and working on Santa Cruz Island since 1970. He has dedicated 55 years of his life to learning about the island and preserving its natural beauty. Laughrin noticed significant changes immediately after Trump introduced his budget cuts.
“When they were first instigated, it looked like the biggest impact was loss of staff, which was major for a few days. Luckily, most staff have been reinstated, and things are mostly back to normal, but some programs could still be at risk as the political situation is currently so unstable and volatile,” Laughrin said.
This is not the first time that the National Parks have closed down because of federal funding issues. In 2019, during a brief government shutdown, senior Serena de Ponce visited Yosemite National Park. Her memories of the trip illustrate the struggles that the National Parks face when they are understaffed.
“The trash was overflowing, a lot of the bathrooms were closed, and many people were confused in the visitor’s center, “ Serena said. “It definitely wasn’t a great experience, and it was a lot more difficult to explore the park.
To Spanish Instructor Michelle Finck, the benefits of the National Park Service are so evident that it is hard for her to imagine why anybody would want to cut the funding for it.
“I am very perplexed by it. I understand that there is an argument for efficiency in the way we allocate government resources, but I was always under the impression that national parks were a bipartisan issue, and I was surprised to see that so many people have a negative view of them,” Finck said.
Finck was especially mystified to hear about this argument, considering how important National Parks are for mental and physical well-being.
“There are a lot of studies that show it’s really good for your mental health and that it regulates your nervous system to spend time in nature. On a societal level, it’s important to have these [National Parks] to maintain a strong environment and for conservation purposes.”
Laughrin agreed that National Parks are extremely important for people, emphasizing that they also hold substantial scientific and environmental value.
“Parks are important reservoirs of biodiversity as well as places for millions of people to learn about and appreciate our planet, and hopefully to help ensure its future. They are really not all about recreation,” Laughrin said.
Without government funding, the National Park Service will likely not survive. Optimistic park fans posed the idea that the National Park Service could continue to run on private funding, but this would, unfortunately, be impossible.
“The National Park Service gets most of its budget from federal funds. Research funds and non-profit support are a minimal part of its funding,” Laughrin said.
In other words, the National Park Service can only exist with government funding and will be unable to continue without it, especially considering the fact that the money given from the government does not just fund the maintenance and tourist attractions of the parks, but the preservation and research as well.
The potential shutdown of the National Park Service would be a major economic, environmental, and moral loss for America.
“With losing National Parks, a lot of people would be less likely to go out and explore new places,” Serena said. “National Parks are a great and accessible way for people to see different landmarks and learn more about the history of the land.”
Finck agreed that this loss would hinder our curiosity and availability surrounding nature, but she also pointed out that it would have a great financial impact as well.
“It is a sad moral loss because I consider it a patriotic value to care for a national environment, but it’s also a loss because it will affect people’s jobs and the industries that surround these National Parks,” Finck said.
The closing of National Parks would cause the country to lose decades of environmental and scientific progress. Advocates for the parks, like Finck and Laughrin, encourage everybody to do their part in keeping them alive. They emphasize that the only way to make a change this large is through protest and resilience from each individual.
“It’s the same thing as every time there’s a public resource that is important to you,” Finck said. “You should be using it and creating a demand for it, so even though the parks are going to be less well-resourced, going to them and respecting their rules and caring for them and being a good steward of the park is a way that you can make a difference even though they’re being defunded.”
“Speak out. Write to congressmen–senators and representatives–and encourage your friends and their parents to also do that. Support Park Service non-profit organizations financially,” Laughrin said.
The National Park Service was created over a century ago by people hoping that generations that followed them would be able to enjoy and learn from the beautiful lands that America has to offer. As the inheritors of this creation, we now have the responsibility of preserving it so that generations of people not yet born can continue to benefit from this incredible and unique gift.
