Federal vs state govt ownership/management of parks

[sanbot]

Was just thinking the other day about how in the US the national parks are federally managed and financed whereas in Australia most parks are managed and financed by each state and how this can effect pricing of entrance fees.

Is there an advantage that one way has over another? How is it determined in Australia what is to be managed and financed by the federal government and what is managed and financed by the state?

I personally feel that the way things are managed/priced here in Australia is discouraging the youth from getting out into our wonderful national parks.

[Clusterpod]

While livestock are allowed to graze, I don't think they are much of a park at all.

[perfectlydark]

If it was centralised, you could buy a pass to visit any park in the country. As it stands my NSW pass doesnt work anywhere else. This is silly imo and there should be a body where one could purchase a national parks pass.

[maddog]

During the 'Hunting in NSW National Parks' debate, some were of the view that our National Parks would be in safer hands if they were a Commonwealth responsibility. In light of recent events, I suspect many are reassessing this assumption. Centralising power allows all of the same mistakes but on a much grander scale.

Another problem is that the States own the land that make up the parks, not the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth can only exercise authority over State land using the Foreign Affairs Power. Unless the Federal Government is relying on a treaty (such as the World Heritage Convention), it essentially has no legal jurisdiction under the Constitution.

Cheers.

[perfectlydark]

Good point.. "green tape" being a bad thing and all

[Gadgetgeek]

Canada has both. Federal parks are run under Federal rules, all the same, save for environment specific guidelines. Provincial parks are run slightly differently, I'm not 100% on all the differences, but as far as I can tell it mostly works. There is also crown managed land which are public, and have even less restrictions on use. So hunting is allowed on crown land, not in parks. Crown land can also be leased for exclusive grazing use, or resource extraction. I think with government managed land it should actually be managed by the Government of its name. And having a state, local and federal park system allows for a more flexible system.

[Mechanic-AL]

I personally feel that the way things are managed/priced here in Australia is discouraging the youth from getting out into our wonderful national parks.[/quote]



Parks management has a lot less to do with discouraging our youth from visiting them than Xbox, Gameboy. Youtube, Fakebook, mobile phones, ipads etc, etc.etc .............

[Hallu]

The US both have State Parks and National Parks. The point of the National Park creation by the US was specifically to prevent the greedy states from exploiting their State Parks. At first, states such as California, would create a State Park (so lock it basically) and exploit it for wood, coal, or simply sell it to the highest bidder. Federal control prevented that, and the idea was that a careful selection would have to be applied : outstanding natural features, fauna, a large area etc...

In Australia it was never like that. Royal National Park was created while it was basically a European garden with introduced plants, and introduced fauna (rabbit, fox, deer). It was completely the opposite of the situation in the US : here parks were created to prevent the federal government from exploiting it. The NP culture never really caught up in Australia, because there are too many of them, and because the country was so unknown, wild and sparsely populated. Mostly symbolic reserves were created, with no strong criteria on size, outstanding features, boundaries and numbers. That's why you have several hundred NPs in Australia, from ridiculously small to huge and why there is no strong legislation forbidding grazing, logging or mining in them. What's sad is that there's never been a prime minister willing (or able) to change this. The only way it could be done is through ecological disasters : imagine if the GBR were to die completely, then maybe this would shake the general opinion into forcing our politicians to do something. But until then, Australia is still retarded in terms of conservation compared to other Western countries. So creating federal ruling would change nothing if new laws aren't voted. And nowadays with Abbot ruling the country, it would actually makes things worse. No state is gonna agree to this with such a stupid industrialist PM.

[Mark F]

Maddog has it right. The Commonwealth has no specific powers over land use other than in cases where a different power given to the Commonwealth by the States allows it to dictate actions or it has provided specific money for a purpose. It is the same with water. Over the years the States have passed many powers to the Commonwealth - Taxation in 1942 and more recently corporations powers. Of course the States could hand over control of land use to the Commonwealth any time - in your dreams.

[FatCanyoner]

I'm not sure how pricing is discouraging people. I live in Sydney, and there are only a couple parks that have a price associated (and they are places I avoid because I'm not interested in crowds). I walk or canyon most weekends, and have done so for the best part of a decade. I have never bought a parks pass. And I can count on one hand the number of times I have paid to enter a park or camp. For Sydney (and NSW as a whole) if you can't afford to bushwalking because of the park entry fees, you're going to the wrong places!

As for State or National management, the origins are in our constitution. States manage things like land and water. Therefore, when national parks were formed they were logically state managed. It would require states to handover huge quantities of the land to the commonwealth for this to change. I can't see any of them doing that. I also can't see the Federal Government doing any better. I also don't see the benefit in national parks passes. Most people don't walk in multiple states each year, so you'd be paying for parks you can't even access. Seems like madness.

[sanbot]

Thanks Hallu for the explanation it gives me some insight into the rationality of things.

I'm not saying that pricing is the one and only defining factor in the lack of participation of the youth. But I do think it is one of the contributing factors along with factors such as lack of promotion of what you can actually see and do in the parks. For example, whenever I try to find out information about what it would be like on certain walks or what you will see, I end up getting 1 or 2 pictures of what the campsite looks like or a boring picture of some firetrail. In the end I have to search for 3rd party websites to find this information and it ain't always easy to find. If I can't find it then I don't end up going.

Dont get me wrong, I hate crowds. I go hiking because I want solitude but I also love it when the youth get out there and appreciate nature and all its beauty and so far my experience going hiking is that I rarely see anyone younger then me out there, most of them tend to be older then me.

[Hallu]

Yeah finding info on parks in Australia can be tough. The main problem is that we have so many of them... In Victoria it's quite well done, as you get a fact sheet for every NP and State park on their website : map, walks, fauna/flora, that's a huge amount of work. In other states, it's not like that. Tasmania only does it for the most important NPs, while NT or WA's website are hard to browse through. NSW basically has nothing. It isn't like the US where you have about 55 NPs that are all very well documented. But then again, they're better funded. In Australia, you really have to work for it. It makes for a fun discovery sometimes, some hidden gems, but most of the time you end up in a place with awful roads and no walks, like I did in St Arnaud Range NP last year. We need to be a lot more careful on what we call a NP. It shouldn't be only an area worth preserving, giving it an NP status should unlock a certain amount of funding for maintained roads, walking tracks and campsites. But it doesn't, it's like the government (state wise) waits to see if it becomes popular (basically they wait until the public shouts at them) to do it. This dramatically limits tourism in less known areas that would benefit from it.