Here's a quick snapshot from around the country:
Iowa park visitors complain about litter, dirty bathrooms and overgrown grass after the state cut its park maintenance budget. New Jersey cut its park ranger workforce by 10 percent. Arizona closed four of its parks, while cuttings hours of operation for several others.
Pennsylvania is prepping its own park closures, and New York tried to close 41, only to quickly reopen them amid public outcry.
Times are certainly tough everywhere these days. And states looking to keep spending in line with low tax revenues understandably are looking at the nation's 6,624 state parks.
But wouldn't it be better if the states, rather than making brain-dead cuts in operations, used the economic slump as opportunity for new and better ways to manage their vast array of parklands?
We're not talking full-on privatization here. But there are some simple steps states could take to preserve the quality of their parks.
The simplest one is to raise entrance fees. Nationwide, park entrance fees cover just 38 percent of the total cost of running state parks (see chart below). And while some states ask visitors to pick up most or all of the costs of running a park -- notably New Hampshire (100 percent), Vermont (89 percent) and South Carolina (75 percent) -- most ask little or nothing from park visitors. Examples:
* Arizona collected about $9 million in fees between 2008 and 2009, according to data from the National Association of State Park Directors (NASPD). But the total operating expense for the parks was almost $23 million.
* In Iowa, park fees raised $4 million over that same time period, leaving taxpayers to cover the other $12 million in operating costs.
* Texas parks cost $79 million to operate, of which only $38 million was paid for by park visitors themselves.
* Hawaii collected $2.4 million in user fees in between 2008 and 2009, which covered just 26 percent of the cost of operating its parks.
* Maine, Rhode Island and Wyoming charge nothing to get into their parks.
With many states charging nominal amounts to get in -- Arizona's fees are as low as $2, and cabins are available rent for a little as $35 a night -- presumably there is room here for some modest increases.
Critics will argue that charging visitors more is inherently unfair -- they are, after all, public parks, not private ones. But that claim doesn't really hold much water.
First with some 725 million visits to state parks nationwide per year, even a dollar hike in fees could make a big difference.
And does it really make sense to say that vacationers spending hundreds if not thousands of dollars on their vacations can't be asked to cover more of their own costs when enjoying the beauty and tranquility of a state park?
In Virginia, for example, 40 percent of park visitors who stay overnight come from out of state, said Joe Elton, president of the NASPD. That usage pattern is likely reflected other states, especially those that promote parks as tourist destinations, such as California and Colorado.
Some states have seen the light here. Parks in Louisiana, for example, started charging $4 entrance fees, up from $2, while those in Idaho added a $3 fee to take a shower and $10 for an overnight stay. Some parks in Hawaii are charging entrance fees for the first time.
Higher entrance fees are just the first step that states could take to make their parks more self-sufficient. They could vary their fees based on demand, for example. They could do more with on-site concessions to raise money. Or they could, as several have, enlist private management companies to run the parks in a more businesslike fashion.
State parks are the country's treasures. It's time for state governments to come up with better ways to protect them, in good times and in bad.
Cheryl K. Chumley is an award-winning writer and reporter who lives with her family in northern Virginia.




