Parks & Trails Council keeps speaking out, public responds

Parks & Trails Council of Minnesota continues to spread the word through the media that the Legacy funds cannot be substituted for general fund cuts proposed in the Legislature and that those budget cuts will have real impacts on Minnesotans who visit the state's parks and trails. The citizens and the newspapers are responding strongly.

Over the weekend, Parks & Trails Council Executive Director Brett Feldman was quoted in Forum Communications newspapers saying: “The impacts of these cuts are going to be devastating,” he said. “It is one thing to say the physical park is open. If the campgrounds are closed, the buildings are locked, the programming is eliminated … you get what you pay for.”

He also was quoted in Politics in Minnesota on potential examples of substituting Legacy funds for projects that should come from the general fund or other traditional sources of bonding.

While people are commenting about proposed cuts in many parts of the state budget, Minnesotans, newspapers and even out-of-staters all are weighing in on the state of Minnesota’s parks and what they mean to people.

In an editorial in the Wednesday Albert Lea Tribune, the paper wrote in part: "What is this state coming to? Each legislative session lawmakers work proficiently at reducing the DNR budget more and more. It’s already at bare-bones status. What more do lawmakers expect? A complete shutdown of the department?
We’re not going to fix Minnesota by cutting quality of life. Minnesotans always have cherished their outdoors and their treasured landscapes and waterways. We’re going to fix Minnesota by making sure the wealthiest Minnesotans pay their fair share."

Meanwhile, Minnesota Public Radio had a robust conversation on its web site with its question: “Which state parks would you especially want the DNR to keep open?”

While some folks pointed out which parks should be closed and the DNR budget cut, many strongly valued the parks, like Kirk.

"Our grandfathers will not be happy with the trend to take away our natural heritage and the treasure that it is.
Minnestoa historically always found a way to provide the best in wild places such as our state parks for all to enjoy and at a very affordable price. Even during the great depression. 
Today our affluent society falsly thinks we can not afford these places anymore. The opposite is the reality, as the population increases these wild places have a value beyond money and during the recent economic downturn the State Park usage skyrocketed as families chose close to home alternatives to big money vacations.
Some day we may look around and see that Minnesota is not such a special place anymore, 
The bottom line is that we should be adding places to the State Park systems not reducing them in any way. However I am older and value the wild places and I dont think the younger people do as much anymore .
Not a good sign."

The Rochester Post Bulletin also expressed its concern.

"The scary thing about this situation is that other "optional" services across our state are likely to be in the same boat in fairly short order. Would campers and hikers rally in support of higher entry fees at state parks, if that's what it takes to keep parks open and well-maintained? Would snowmobilers voluntarily fork over higher registration fees to keep their trails groomed? Would bicyclists lobby for  the right to pay license fee each year in order to keep paths smooth and clear of debris?
But perhaps the bigger question is this: If Minnesota becomes more of a "pay to play" state, how many people will be pushed to the sidelines?"

Finally, Ross Werland worried about Minnesota from the Land of Lincoln.

"As a longtime fan and user of Minnesota's water and woods, I have to say that a move to permit logging in two state parks strikes me as a bit like strip-mining Vail Mountain. Maybe that's an overstatement, but with natural resources that are such a tourism draw, tinkering with a winning formula seems like a bad idea.
It's not simply a matter of how many trees are taken but how much heavy equipment moves into wildlife areas to cut and retrieve the wood.
I have driven through Minnesota's woods countless times, and it appears that there is plenty of nonpark forest available for logging. Wouldn't it be wise to leave some land in its pristine state, able to age the way nature intended? After all, fallen trees are repurposed by all manner of wildlife once the wood finally hits the ground and rots."