As both political parties trade shots amid the government shutdown, America鈥檚 national parks are caught in the crossfire. Under a adopted by the Trump administration, parks have been allowed to remain open with limited staffing during the lapse in appropriations, while some Democratic lawmakers and environmental groups have called for the parks to be closed, citing risks to visitors and damage to park resources.

National parks have long played a central role in D.C. budget battles. There鈥檚 even a name for it: the ,听in which popular parks are shuttered as a form of leverage in spending fights. President Clinton effectively in the nineties. During the 2013 shutdown, the Obama administration , including operations within parks that used no federal funds, a move that as a tactic to make the shutdown as visible as possible.

This time,听parks remain part of the political playbook. Some critics say听that听by keeping parks open, Trump is attempting to 听of the shutdown, while one Democratic House aide ,听鈥淭o the extent that national parks are a sympathetic face of shutdown damage, we鈥檙e thinking through how to use them in our work.鈥�

The partisan gamesmanship over our national parks should make one thing clear: it鈥檚 time to get politics out of our parks. As a former park ranger, I know how politics can pervade parks and undermine the ability of local managers to sustain and protect them. Instead of politicizing our parks, we should be looking for ways to make them less vulnerable to Washington鈥檚 budget fights and ensure that they cannot be used as pawns to advance the agenda of any administration, whether Democrat or Republican.

Simply put, that means making parks less dependent听on unreliable congressional appropriations. Today听the National Park Service counts on听Congress for of its funding, yet Congress is with park funding, regardless of which party is in control. This lack of funding has led to operational shortfalls and a deferred maintenance backlog of nearly 鈥攆our times the agency鈥檚 annual budget.

No one gets reelected for fixing a leaky wastewater system or for听funding routine park operations, and politicians are often more interested than . As President Obama鈥檚 interior secretary Sally Jewell of the need for basic parks funding,听鈥淲e have to hold a bake sale for everything.鈥�

The result: our national parks are weaponized in partisan budget battles and prone to management decisions motivated more by politics than prudence.

As a ranger in Olympic National Park, I saw firsthand how this can play out. After decades of neglect from D.C., Olympic faces a backlog of more than in unmet repair needs and regularly operates with just to adequately maintain and run the park. The effects are evident: crumbling roads, washed-out trails, and dilapidated visitor facilities are all too common. In the iconic Hoh Rainforest, where I worked as a backcountry ranger, there鈥檚 usually only enough funding for to staff the visitor center most of the year鈥攄espite it being one of the park鈥檚 most popular areas. 听

It doesn鈥檛 have to be this way. Finding ways to insulate parks from the annual appropriations process would make them more self-sufficient and less vulnerable to political manipulation. Relying more on park visitors and even nonprofit or private-sector operators, or by establishing dedicated funding sources鈥攑erhaps similar to the system that听 through license fees and taxes on gear鈥攁re just a few ways that would help reduce the influence of politics on our parks.

Yet some groups often seem reluctant to make national parks more self-reliant. Several environmental organizations the Trump administration鈥檚 to allow park managers to operate popular sites during the shutdown by tapping unspent visitor-fee revenue, which does not require congressional appropriation. (Due to internal restrictions imposed by the National Park Service, fee revenue has not typically been used for routine park operations and maintenance.)听And the outdoor industry has to establish a so-called 鈥渂ackpack tax鈥� on outdoor equipment that could be used to help fund parks and other public lands.

That鈥檚 a shame, because if our parks depended more on park users than on听Congress, they would be less susceptible to the growing partisanship and political dysfunction of Washington. And if park managers had greater authority to retain听fee revenue鈥攁nd the ability to use fee funds as they see fit, whether for operations or otherwise鈥攖hen they wouldn鈥檛 have to rely on Congress much at all. With a record-setting over the past five years, what could be more reliable than park visitors themselves?

In Olympic, fees听collected from visitors can be an important source of politics-free funding that directly benefits future visitors. And because such revenue听doesn鈥檛 require appropriation from Congress, the park鈥檚 local managers can tackle the needs that matter most on the ground.

Thankfully, there are some efforts underway to establish park-funding mechanisms that don鈥檛 depend on congressional appropriations. Last year, bipartisan bills in both the House and Senate that would of up to $1.3 billion annually in federal energy revenues devoted to maintaining听parks and other public lands. The fund听could be spent or invested toward听future projects at the discretion of the Interior Department.

That鈥檚 a good thing, because if we truly want to protect our national parks, we need to find ways to protect them from Washington.

Shawn Regan is a research fellow at the 听in Bozeman, Montana, and is a former ranger for the National Park Service.

The post Op-Ed: Get Politics Out of Our Parks appeared first on 国产吃瓜黑料 Online.