‘Yosemite Passes the Hat’

I refer to your editorial (Jan. 23), “Yosemite Passes the Hat.” You speak with eloquent indignation of the lack of caring that the federal government displays in its reduced support for the national park system. Now private organizations, as you report, are having to come to the rescue with private donations. What a scandal!

This “caring” (synonymous with the frequent iterated “compassion” that the Democratic Party has made into a slogan) is a warm and appealing word. It helps us think of our government as almost like a family relation of ours, a little older and stronger: father, mother, uncle (Sam), big brother. Big Brother.

But it is a fiction that government possesses human qualities. Have we finally matured beyond puerile anthropomorphic conceptions of God only to make the same mistake when thinking and speaking of our government? Government is an institution, a system, an intricately interworking group of human beings. “It” cannot be happy, sad, loving, angry, jealous, caring or compassionate. The fiction of government as a caring person does however have its political uses, as every reelected senator and congressman knows well (that is how they get reelected).

What the people want, the people will get (if the politicians do not succeed in preventing them). Millions of people in this country value our parks and will support them by donations and fees. Yet you ridicule private support and present the use of tax dollars as an act of caring. I ask you, is force really morally preferable to freedom, as you seem to hold?

A real “liberal” believes in freedom, as the Latin origin of the word suggests. But worship of taxation (anathema to freedom) as the final solution to society’s problems has driven people by the millions from the ostensibly liberal Democratic Party. Some of those who cannot stomach illiberal Republican policies either (anti-choice in abortion; government agents posing as students in school, as parishioners in church; support for rightist authoritarians in the Third World) have changed their registration to Libertarian, as I have.

NEAL DONNER

Los Angeles

Voluntary efforts of U.S. citizens to assist their government in the ongoing improvement of the national parks have been seriously maligned in your editorial.

There is a continuing and unfortunate tendency to wring hands over what has not been done, without so much as mentioning the many recent accomplishments in our National Park system. Little credit has been given to an Administration that has substantially increased the amount of money spent on our national parks in order to keep pace with recent vast expansions of that system. Certainly, the President can be proud that during a period of severe budgetary restraint the National Park system has been maintained at a steady and in some cases increasing level, while many other agencies of the government found their activities seriously cut back.

In the case of Yosemite National Park, this Administration has repaired or replaced numerous facilities that had suffered serious neglect during previous administrations. At Yosemite, for example, the Park Restoration and Improvement Program represents an investment of $21 million since 1982. Indeed, the amount of money expended to operate Yosemite has increased by 11% a year during the Reagan Administration. The current budget for Yosemite National Park is $9.1 million, which is one of the highest park budgets in the nation, and more than any other California park.

It is true that the Reagan Administration has encouraged private nonprofit groups to contribute whatever they can to help alleviate the burden on the American taxpayer. But it is the height of hypocrisy and an unfair and unfortunate sleight of hand for your newspaper to attempt to cast such efforts as rescuing Yosemite or any other park from an otherwise irresponsible stewardship.

In a rhetorical cheap shot, The Times editorial asks: “Can you imagine a fast-food chain being asked to buy paint for the White House? An airline to fix up the Lincoln Memorial? Or an insurance company to shore up the foundation of the Capitol?” The editorial, of course, did not ask: “Can you imagine the businesses and citizens and children of this country contributing $115 million to restore the Statue of Liberty?” Would The Times suggest that all this money be returned to the donors with a note that it is the obligation of the government to restore the Statue of Liberty through taxation?

J. CRAIG POTTER

Washington, D.C.

Potter is acting assistant secretary of the Interior for fish and wildlife and parks.

Instead of suggesting that “the people” pay to maintain Yosemite National Park you should be applauding the efforts of the Yosemite Natural History Assn. to solicit private funding.

Talking in ringing tones about our “national temples” doesn’t change the fact that very few taxpayers use the park or have any particular interest in seeing their money spent on maintaining it. Those of us who love Yosemite--or Kings Canyon, or the Grand Canyon, or our local parks--should pay for keeping them beautiful.

And if corporations want to polish up their public images by sponsoring trails or adopting rangers, what’s wrong with that? Corporations sponsor ballets and operas, why not parks?

The proper function of government is to protect us from aggression, not to mow our lawns or teach our kids about trees and animals. If “the nation” should be ashamed of anything, it’s the attitude that if something is a worthwhile cause, we all have to pay for it.

L.A. VILLADSEN

Santa Barbara

I would like to congratulate the Yosemite Natural History Assn. on its aggressive plan to raise $52 million in public donations over the next 10 years for Yosemite National Park. It is imperative that concerned citizens help support the park when government can no longer appropriate the necessary funds for maintenance and operation.

The stress put on park facilities and the natural landscape by millions of users year after year is taking its toll. We must continue to preserve this unique park and restore it to its natural beauty. By providing additional funds, the public is playing a direct role in preserving Yosemite National Park, a natural asset to our country.

LAURIE L. STAAB

Montclair

Having been on several occasions a visitor to Yosemite, I agree that if $52 million is needed to restore and maintain this magnificent park, the the funds should be spent.

I don’t even object to fund-raising from the private sector, when needed. It seems, however, that either my math or logic are faulty in that instead of raising the money in the next 10 years the same effect could be achieved by increasing the admission/gate fee $1.85 a person! 2.8 million visitors annually see this park, and I see no reason why these same visitors should not pay to maintain its beauty.

JON D. KOSKOFF

Huntington Beach