There are 59 national parks in the United States. Their purpose to serve an escape and adventure for those who visit. For my 4th action project, we are asked to create a dialectic argument towards something we feel strongly about. My argument is against the $110 million budget cut towards the national park service. The cut is being made because the government believes the national parks are dangerous. This will result in thousands losing jobs, loss of refurbishing trails, etc. Parks are a very enjoyable experience, and can change anyone’s life. I can reflect a lot from this project, I learned a lot studying the topic of National Parks. At first, I was realizing a growing love for nature and the outdoors. Although, when working on my synthesis, I realized the many problems in our country today. This made me ponder the importance of the National Parks, which ultimately led me to my synthesis. This has been an enlightening experience, check out my work!

Thesis: The government’s reason for cutting budgets in National Parks is invalid.

National parks do a lot towards safety, such as, close during winter months, fencing off certain areas with dangerous wildlife and forestry, etc. I believe that fencing/closing national parks is against it’s word, and unfair to the upcoming youth. While these do create safer parks, they create less revenue, which leads to much less government funding for the park service.

I recently led a trip in the Indiana Dunes National Lake shore, in early march. The trip was an astonishing experience. While the trip was a wealthy experience, I was surprised to find that we only saw two other visitors. Besides the weather being relatively warm, the hiking easy, and the day plentiful, there was still nobody there. Why? Because of underfunding and under advertising of national parks in the winter months. I believe this to be unfair to the general public and those who wish to hike in the winter months. When this budget cut takes place, the underfunding will be even greater, leading to lack of trails, and firing of park rangers. Obvious reasons as to why I believe this budget cut should not take place.


Antithesis: With the many unsolvable solutions in the country, why would the government fund the National Park Service?

      For the antithesis, I interviewed ZP, a sophomore student at GCE. While indulging in conversation, I brought up the topic of dangers in the wild. When asked why she would be hesitant in the back country, she stated that the danger of wildlife (bears, wolves, insects, etc.) was too great of a risk for her and a lot of others. I then brought up underfunding and cutting budgets for national parks, I asked what she would do in that political position, she responded “In my opinion, we have to put humans first.”
This is part of what I believe to be a very valid argument. It is human nature to put our species first. We are bred as a selfish breed, and rightfully so. Today’s world is so flawed, it is impossible to please everybody. With problems such as health care, homelessness, foreign threats, it only seems natural to put National Parks on the bottom of the list.

Synthesis: We can agree that the outdoors are important but money has other voids to fill: The National Park System should be a for profit organization.

        Through conversation and online research, I am willing to agree that NPS may not be the most vital problem, but one that can be easily fixed. My final synthesis is based around the idea of removing the park service from the government entirely. The National Park Service would become a for profit organization that would use it’s money for the preservation of the National Parks. The cost per night in a National Park would double to cover preservation. While this may seem unreasonable, it is of vital importance to upkeep each park.
            Following my theory , the NPS would have a national insurance from the government that allows things such as forest fires and natural accidents to be covered. I think autonamizing the National Park Service is exactly what the U.S government needs. It frees up millions of dollars to spend on problems both national and international, and it lets the N.P.S spend what they make, thus pleasing all parties.