I don't believe the federal government makes the best trustee for the park system because they don't have the best interests in mind. They want to revise a policy to satisfy the enjoyment and commercial needs for a hand full of people. For years, the majority of visitors and the park service employees has been happy with the basic management policies of the parks and has seen no reason to revise anything. Then people like Paul Hoffman come along and want to change everything these parks are supposed to stand for. The enjoyment of parks shouldn't be based on taking vehicles off-road, including snowmobiles; the enjoyment should come from being able to have the experience of being in the park in the first place. According to the park systems mission statement, "...when there is a conflict between conserving resources and values and providing for enjoyment of them, conservation is to be predominant."
In some ways, I think the states could better manage the individual parks. I think the states may be less likely to change policies. State parks are sometimes a reflection on the state. Why would a state want to destroy their park by letting snowmobiles and off-road vehicles tear it up instead of take pride in it and continue to conserve and protect it for many more generations to come? On the other hand, the state could make bad decisions based on their financial needs. If they are financially vulnerable, groups could present themselves and offer a way out in exchange for changes in the park system.
I don't believe the commercial nature of the parks should be left to a national consensus, the major reason being the reintroduction of wolves in Yellowstone National Park. I don't believe there should even be a commercial presence in parks. Why...