The Campground Conundrum

 As the season fades into the southern sun, I reminisce upon our summer camping trips. There is something so magical about being in the mountains, away from the complications and burdens of everyday life. Technology becomes nonessential, conversation flows freely, life becomes delightfully simple. It’s not hard to see how humans lived like that for hundreds of years. Unfortunately, everyday life also slithers its way into the backcountry. It frustrated me the number of fires we encountered on our trips that were still burning. We came across one that had four-foot flames! We drive into campgrounds that are full of trash, broken glass, and remnants of human waste. It’s heartbreaking that people can’t be more considerate than that.  


But there’s good news. It doesn’t have to be this way.
  
There are pros and cons to both public and private campgrounds in national forest. If a campground is privately operated, there will typically be less staff present, but the facility itself is neatclean and maintained. These establishments are usually sustained by a small group of individuals. Privatization allows for distinct property boundariesincreased income, a proper allocation of employee placement, and protection against overuse by the public. One of the only downsides of privatizing campgrounds would be the increase in cost for the public to utilize the grounds. Unless a campground is private, it is considered a public good, meaning that it is both nonrival and nonexcludable; Anyone can use it, and one person using it does not keep other people from enjoying it. The national and state parks are also run by a group of individuals on a limited budget, but the number of parks being maintained by these people increases dramatically, leading to run-down, shabby campgrounds and park areas, some of which are in need of considerable maintenance, and the low entrance fees don't cover the costs of fixing up the grounds. Although public campgrounds have their drawbacks, they are affordable for almost everyone, but overuse can occur due to the easy access of entry.  

To privatize a national park campground would solve a whole plethora of issues. Not only does privatization allow for financial security, increased maintenance, efficient employee placement due to a lack of administration, and protection from overuse, property boundaries can significantly increase the success of the campground. Property rights allow property to be owned by those who will make the best use of it, but the market will also allocate resources appropriately. Privatization would not allow for the land to be used for a new Wal-Mart or Starbucks, rather, a highly structured contract would be enforced, requiring the land to be used solely for campgrounds. Not only that, the government keeps accurate records of exact property boundaries, as well as providing trials for boundary-related disputes. Although the role of the government is small, it is mighty. 

Nowadays, it is becoming more common for these lands to be privately owned. For now, what are some other options for protecting our precious wilderness and ecosystems? I believe that education is the key to protecting pretty much everything. The more people know about the intrinsic value of our earth, the more we can protect it from destruction. What a beautiful thing that would be.  

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Delicate Balance of Environmental Policy

It's not my problem... Or is it?

Here. . . Fishy, Fishy!