This summer, millions of Americans are visiting and enjoying the wonders of this nation’s national parks and historic sites. Visits to such sites are a wonderful family experience in that visitors have an opportunity to learn so much about this country’s history and the people who have shaped it, and to be awed by magnificent natural wonders.

The vast majority of visitors will have a good experience and think everything is in pretty good shape. However, behind the scenes there is a continuing struggle between many in the National Park Service, various advocacy groups and those in Washington, D.C., who set priorities and funding for park programs.

Publicly, Park Service people are fairly disciplined in what they say about budget cuts, their needs and their concerns about park conditions. Privately, they concede they are worried.

The National Parks Conservation Assn. was established in 1919 and is America’s only private, nonprofit advocacy organization dedicated to protecting, preserving and enhancing the U.S. national parks system for present and future generations.

In an effort to do a better job assessing the condition of parks and historic sites, the association initiated a study in 2000 called State of the Parks. The study is to be thorough, nonpartisan, science-based and academically defensible. It details the condition of natural and cultural resources in parks whether at Glacier, Yellowstone, Grand Canyon or other such natural wonders, or at sites such as the Adams family homes in Quincy, Mass.

As stated in the State of the Parks assessment of Waterton-Glacier International Peace Park, “More than a century ago, Congress established Yellowstone as the world’s first national park. That single act was the beginning of a remarkable and ongoing effort to protect this nation’s natural, historical and cultural heritage.

“But over the years, Americans have learned that designating national parks does not automatically ensure the well-being of the resources parks are meant to protect and the history those resources represent. Many parks are threatened by incompatible development of adjacent lands, air and water pollution, skyrocketing visitation, and rapid increases in motorized recreation. Park officials often lack adequate information on the status of and trends in wildlife populations. Two-thirds of historic structures are in serious need of repair and maintenance. Most cultural landscapes have yet to be adequately inventoried.”

The goal of the State of the Parks studies is to alert the public and inform and encourage officials in Washington to give proper attention to the parks.

As the late and highly respected parks authority Robin Winks said, “You can tell a lot about a culture by what it chooses to preserve and commemorate about itself.” Winks, a Yale University history professor, was instrumental in encouraging the conservation association to launch the State of the Parks studies.

Several weeks ago, association officials released the results of their analysis of the Bush administration’s stewardship of the parks system from 2001 through the first half of 2003.

The association’s assessment? A D-minus.

Five categories were used to compile the performance report, with “resource preservation” given the greatest weighting at 40 percent. That was followed by visitor experience at 20 percent, funding at 20 percent, administration and management at 12 percent and growth of system at 8 percent.

As noted earlier, most visitors probably think the parks are great — and they are. They are magnificent, but must be protected and adequately funded to ensure future generations will be able to enjoy these national gems, historic sites and cultural resources.

It should be noted that deterioration of the national parks and historic sites did not take place solely in the 2001-2003 period cited in the association’s study. The parks have been neglected for years by previous national administrations — Republican and Democrat.

It’s possible the Clinton, Bush, Reagan and Carter administrations would have received similar poor grades if the studies had been done during their administrations.

Democrats and park advocates are sure to use the State of the Parks Report, and the individual reports on specific parks and historic sites, as ammunition against the Bush administration.

It is difficult for this writer to believe President Bush, or anyone in his administration, is anti-parks. He does, however, have the responsibility of making his priorities clear to those who craft the national budget.

Soon after moving into the White House, Bush indicated he planned to call for funding to catch up with the costly backlog of badly needed projects throughout the parks system. At that time, there was no way for him to know what was ahead of him and this nation in the way of monetary demands and the economy. He may have had the best of intentions, but 9-11 changed many things.

The parks are terribly important and must be protected and preserved for future generations. It is hoped Bush will demonstrate, at the earliest possible date, his genuine interest, appreciation and support of the national parks system by calling for increased funding to help address many of the needs outlined in the National Parks Conservation Association’s report.

Park visits must be enjoyable, educational and inspiring for this and future generations. The parks cannot be neglected. They need adequate support from those who sit in the Oval Office.