Note: This is NPCA’s third and final story in our series on the upcoming presidential election. You can sign NPCA’s petition urging the candidates to pledge their support for national parks.

By day, I work as an editor for NPCA on issues that affect our national parks. Then, when I have a few vacation days lined up, I often find myself heading… you guessed it, to a national park.

Earlier this month, I had a long weekend with nothing planned, so I convinced my husband to take a road trip with me to Antietam National Battlefield in western Maryland, the site of one of the bloodiest single days on American soil. By chance, we showed up at the visitor center just as a Park Ranger was about to give a presentation, and we sat down for an insightful overview of the history of the Civil War engagements commemorated around us, how the terrain played a critical role in the warfare, strategies Union and Confederate soldiers used, and how the battle led President Lincoln to issue a draft of the Emancipation Proclamation the following day. The ranger stood in front of several large windows overlooking battlegrounds to the north, east, and south of us, bringing those fields to life with stories. After the presentation, my husband and I spent four whole hours driving and hiking around the quiet farmland, mesmerized by the cornfields and country roads steeped in so much history.

My husband was so moved by the visit that he suggested we spend the next day at Gettysburg. Why? A day at a national park is more than just a hike or a history lesson for us. It’s a transformative experience.

The truth is, I’m far from alone: Americans love national parks. NPCA commissioned a poll this past June and found overwhelming support across the political spectrum for preserving these inspirational public lands. Some of the major findings:

• A whopping 95 percent of voters see “protecting and supporting the national parks” as an appropriate role for the federal government.
• 92 percent of voters think that federal spending on national parks should be maintained or increased.
• Nearly 90 percent of voters think that political candidates who prioritize national parks are seen as forward-looking and patriotic.
• 81 percent of voters report having visited a national park at some point in their lives, and nearly nine in 10 say they are interested in visiting in the future.
• Few voters (6 percent) think national parks are in good shape today, while many more (80 percent) express concern that funding shortages are damaging national parks and marring visitors’ experiences.
• 77 percent of voters say it is important for the next president to ensure that parks are fully restored.

Given this broad public sentiment—and the fact that national parks cost just one-fourteenth of one percent of the federal budget—you might think that funding the National Park Service would be a no-brainer in Washington. Yet both major presidential candidates have endorsed large cuts to federal spending. To make things worse, Congress is currently on a destructive course toward a “sequester”—massive, across-the-board spending cuts slated for January that would severely affect the ability to keep national parks staffed and open. Those amazing Park Rangers that bring history to life? Many of their jobs could be in danger, and many of the natural and historical wonders they protect could face widespread closures. We might not expect our elected officials to be national park nerds, but shouldn’t their priorities reflect the values of the people they serve?

If you’re one of the 95 percent of Americans who feels our government should preserve these irreplaceable public lands, please tell the candidates to support our national parks. Sign NPCA’s petition to Barack Obama and Mitt Romney  letting them know we need a leader who will prioritize our national heritage. It’s not just popular—it’s patriotic.

This story is cross-posted with the Preservation Leadership Forum blog by the National Trust for Historic Preservation.

Other stories in this series

• Putting National Parks into the Debates: Questions for Obama and Romney (October 9, 2012)
• Why This Election Matters for National Parks (October 3, 2012)

Note: This is the second of several stories on the upcoming presidential election. You can sign NPCA’s petition urging the candidates to pledge their support for national parks.

UPDATE, October 15, 2012: You can now submit a question for the October 16 town hall debate at http://feedback.aol.com/voiceofdebate/?aol.

On Tuesday, October 16, Barack Obama and Mitt Romney will face off in their second debate before the presidential election. The “town hall” format of this debate will offer something new: the opportunity to send questions by Twitter and email to the candidates on issues you care about.

Staff members at NPCA are watching these debates closely to see where both candidates stand on issues affecting national parks. And yes, we have plenty of questions.

We have reason to be concerned, too. Both candidates have endorsed large cuts to federal spending. The National Park Service is only 1/14th of 1 percent of the federal budget and even a small cut could have a huge impact—and not just on the parks themselves. Communities around the country like Estes Park, Colorado; Port Angeles, Washington; Cleveland, Ohio; and many others rely on national parks for tourism.

Americans also love our national parks—on both sides of the aisle. Roughly 278 million people visit them each year—more than those who attend NFL football games (17 million), visit Disneyland (16 million), attend major league baseball games (73 million), and visit Apple retail stores (71 million) combined. These are not only important places for their beauty and their history; many people need national parks to remain open because their jobs and businesses depend on them.

Here are a few things we want to know.

NPCA’s suggestions for what to ask the candidates

1. As you propose federal budget cuts in your campaign platforms, do you consider the enormous impact even a small cut can have on the National Park Service?
2. Do you know that a small cut to the National Park Service could result in closing national parks all over the country? Have you considered what this could do to jobs and small businesses?
3. The Park Service will celebrate its centennial in 2016. As president, what would you do to enhance our national parks for their second century?
4. Multiple studies show that national parks create jobs, attract international tourists, and provide significant economic value to nearby communities. Do you agree public investment in our national parks is important to our national and local economies?
5. National parks depend on adequate operational funds to stay open and staffed. Do you think the national parks should receive more appropriated operational funds, about the same as they receive now, or fewer appropriated operational funds?
6. Do you support creating new national park units that tell American stories currently absent from our National Park System, such as  modern scientific advancement, women’s history, and Latino history?
7. Do you support opening all national park units to hunting, including historical sites and other federally protected places not originally intended for this practice?
8. A few politicians have suggested that selling public lands could solve our national debt problems. Would you sell national parks? If so, which ones?

Finally, tell the candidates national parks matter. Before you tune in to the debate, be sure to sign our petition!

More stories in this series

• Why This Election Matters for National Parks (October 3, 2012)
• Preserving National Parks: It’s Not Just Popular, It’s Patriotic (October 22, 2012)

Note: This is the first of several stories on the upcoming presidential election. You can sign NPCA’s petition urging the candidates to pledge their support for national parks.

I will be watching tonight’s presidential debate closely, and I hope park lovers around the country will be watching with me.

The decision American voters make this November will have a very real impact on the future of our national parks. When the votes are finally tallied, we will have chosen the person who will lead the Park Service into its centennial in 2016—a symbolic time when the nation’s attention will be focused on our parks. Do we want our government to continue to cut federal support for the Park Service budget? Or do we want a government that recognizes the value of protecting and improving our nation’s most beautiful and historically important places—and puts our money where our values are?

I know many Americans are disgusted by the state of partisan politics and feel their votes make no difference. I can’t say I never feel that way myself. But this is a particularly bad time to sit on the sidelines. Our ballots this fall will have real consequences for many of the places we love.

Here are a few real-life examples of what could happen if funding for our national parks continues to decline in 2013 and beyond:

• Fewer seasonal rangers at Acadia National Park in Maine, leading to a sharp decline in visitor services in the busy summer season.
• Fewer staff to protect archaeological resources at Bandelier National Monument in New Mexico, including its famous cliff dwellings.
• Shorter hours and possible closings at visitor centers serving the Blue Ridge Parkway in Virginia, the most visited part of the park system.
• Delays in critical restoration projects that affect the health of the Everglades in Florida.
• Cuts to seasonal employees and shorter hours at visitor centers in Olympic in Washington State, as well as delays to needed maintenance work, such as trail repair and replacement of aging pit toilets.
• No home for the 149,000 artifacts in storage at the Little Bighorn Battlefield National Monument in Montana. These historic documents and sacred objects could remain out of public view due to inadequate facilities.*

Underfunding is just one of many important issues facing national parks—but the steep, system-wide cuts currently being debated in Congress would have a chilling effect on parks and local communities throughout the country. Does this really reflect what we find important as a nation?

One thing we know for sure is that Americans on both sides of the political aisle love the national parks. An overwhelming 95% said in our recent survey that it is appropriate for the federal government to support national parks.

We also know that the entire Park Service budget costs just one-fourteenth of one percent of the federal budget, and that this small investment boosts local economies around the country, providing good jobs and supporting private-sector businesses in small towns and urban centers alike. Every dollar invested in park operations yields about $10 for local communities.

Times are tight, but cutting the Park Service budget would have virtually no impact on America’s debt. Even minor funding cuts to the parks, however, can have serious consequences that degrade our favorite places, as well as our ability to enjoy them.

Last Thanksgiving, my husband and I spent the long weekend visiting Joshua Tree National Park for the first time, and for us, it was an ideal place to feel gratitude. We hiked Ryan Mountain on a clear, beautiful day and got a perfect view of the valleys below with their sculpted granite, clusters of cholla, and feathery nolinas. We spent days marveling at those famous Joshua trees, with their tufted, twisted arms, and we were overwhelmed by the sight of them dotting the vast, sparse landscape, seeming to spread endlessly into the solitude of the Mojave. But of course, this wilderness is not endless. Undisturbed natural places grow scarcer every year, more precious and precarious. It can take effort to seek them out. Sometimes I wonder how our land and our legislative priorities would be different if trees and mountains and endangered animals could vote. But they can’t… it’s just people like us doing our best to speak up for them.

If you’re one of those people who value the national parks, please, tell the candidates. Remind them that not only do our national parks protect America’s heritage, but they are vital to the economic health of our country. Sign NPCA’s petition. Register to vote, if you haven’t already. And if you can, tune in for the debates tonight. It really does matter.

*All of these examples of funding threats to various parks are taken from NPCA’s Made in America report. For more information, see NPCA’s recent fact sheet on park funding (PDF, 11.4 MB).

More stories in this series

• Putting National Parks into the Debate: Questions for Obama and Romney (October 9, 2012)
• Preserving National Parks: It’s Not Just Popular, It’s Patriotic (October 22, 2012)