In 1993 a bill titled "Public Lands Corps Act" was passed through both the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate and subsequently signed into Federal Law by newly elected President Bill Clinton. Ever since, there has been an established group working to protect and maintain National Parks and other outdoor attractions. The Public Service Corps, which has been refered to by some as the modern day Civilian Conservation Corps, probably because of the manual labor performed by the youthful workforce, is a group that works to protect the future of our National Parks, Monuments, Historic Sites and Preserves.

Currently the NPS has an estimated 9 billion dollars worth of backlogged renovation and research projects, which means they are 9 billion dollars short in doing what they think they need to do (examples include: maintain or upgrade parks, perform scientific research and important environmental studies, and create and run programs which involve youth in the parks experience, initiating American children into the world of the great outdoors).

But as of right now, things don't look great for the future of the Public Lands Service Corps...

The House of Representatives just passed their version of the ammendment to the 2009 update of the orginal Public Lands Corps Act, which will rename the federally funded organization the "Public Lands Service Corps," now with the emphasis on individual service — in this case, employment. The hope was to get a bill passed that would provide adequate funding for the NPS and The Corps Network, the two main organizations behind the whole "Service Corps" project, to bring more people into the parks to help do what needs to be done to fix and improve them.

Unfortunately, the version of the bill that went through underwent last minute changes that diminished the scope of the Service Corps project, and instead allocated more funds toward firefighting (which, this author will plainly admit, is a very important cause, as well). A full 75 percent of tax-payer dollars set aside by this bill would go to firefighting if the House bill is signed into law. According to the National Parks Conservation Association, this new bill's passing would mean "Service Corps participants can only engage in a fraction of the national park visitor service and maintenance efforts that were in the original bill. These amendments change the nature of the program and limit the range of skill development for program participants."

It also means there will be less money available for the creation of diverse jobs for people interested in Wildlife, Nature and the Environment. But also, on the flip side of the coin, that we will be better equipped to deal with any potential threats from spreading fires in the nation's driest, most fire-prone areas.

So who knows exactly who should get what? If we don't provide the funding for forestry services and firefighting teams, there may be no National Parks left in some places (like California and Arizona, where wildfires have devasted large tracts of land before), but if we do not provide the funding for the Public Service aspect of this bill, surely this will have a negative impact on the future of our nation (particularly youth's that could be employed and educated as a result of the bill's passing) as well. Much thinking and studying must be done to make sure we get this decision (and other important ones) right (like health care!). Raise your voice if you have an opinion on whether or not this bill should pass as is!

Right now about 64 percent of people who have voted think the bill should not pass. This environmentalist cannot help but wonder:

• Is this because people think the Service Corps is that important that they need more funding than 25 percent of the total appropriations?
• Or is it because people think that the Federal Government is already spending too much money, and that we, as tax-payers, cannot afford to fund such a lofty ambition?
• (But don't these unskilled workers and youths need a chance to recover and make a decent living by making a positive difference in America's Parks!?)
• Wasn't the Civilian Conservation Corps a good idea when President Franklin Roosevelt signed it into law back in March of 1933? Didn't we accomplish a lot of important things with this bill?
• If a new version of the bill is passed and the Public Lands Service Corps is provided with significant funding, what projects should they go to work on first?

GettingOutside.com is an open-forum website — a communication portal open to all — so you can make a positive change here — you can be heard all around the world!

We welcome you to join our community and then write your own articles and blog-posts!

And, please, we welcome you to post any comments and/or ideas of your own about these topics and proposed questions below!

We really want to know what you think — so, again, please — use our contact form and tell us about whatever is most important to you!