Forty years ago, writer Edward Abbey worked as a seasonal park ranger in Arches National Monument in Utah. Even then, the National Park Service was struggling with how to balance preservation of the natural resources with tourist accessibility.

Abbey wrote in dismay about road-building projects at the monument: “There may be some who believe without question that any and all forms of construction and development are intrinsic goods, in the national parks as well as anywhere else.”

The National Park Service traces its origins to artist George Catlin, who worried – in 1832 – that the nation’s wilderness was under threat from human development. He believed that large chunks of it should be preserved before it was too late. Within a century of his vision, the Park Service was established and some of its most famous parks, including Yellowstone, had been set aside for preservation.

The Park Service now oversees nearly 400 parks, monuments, recreation areas and historic sites. Funding has always been a challenge. A recent Associated Press story catalogued the budget woes in Washington’s national parks. North Cascades, Olympic and Mount Rainier national parks are all understaffed. Visitor centers, trails and roads within the parks are in need of updates.

Some national parks charge entry fees. These fees provide a solid source of funding, because parks are allowed to keep 80 percent of fees collected. So it was a natural for the Park Service, and the Interior Department that oversees it, to explore ways to increase tourism at the parks and monuments. More tourism equals more dollars – and the ability to keep up with repairs and renovations.

Yet, in one of his first moves as Interior Secretary, former Idaho Gov. Dirk Kempthorne rejected a proposal for more tourism-generated money through increased access for snowmobiles and other motorized recreational vehicles.

The plan was thrown out because it was not faithful to the founding vision behind national parks: Preservation of natural resources above all else. Kempthorne’s move was a welcome surprise to those who view the Bush administration as friendly to development and commerce above all else.

The funding challenge, however, remains. Nonprofit groups have adopted many of the national parks and monuments. People join these various nonprofit groups because they have visited the parks and monuments and found some relief there from the crushing burden of modern life. They have hiked or fished or run rapids or walked Civil War battlefields.

A satisfactory financial solution to the maintenance of Park Service lands will require a workable balance of government funds, market-value concessionaire permit fees, contributions from nonprofit groups and entry fees paid by visitors. Above all, the solution will require a commitment to the idea that these national treasures are worth the money it takes to staff and preserve them right.

And that commitment must be shared by government officials and those who actively recreate within national parks, as well as those who enjoy the beauty from the windows of their car – or never visit at all.