Sure, and I appreciate that, thank you.
We're all conservationists because at some point in our childhood, we connected with nature. We had an experience that meant something to us, where we started to say that the environment or wildlife or fish or plants meant something to us.
If that doesn't happen, we don't get conservationists. If we don't get conservationists, we don't get conservation.
Reaching out and meeting and introducing conservation ideals to children, to people who have never had the experience before, to people my age and older, I think is critically important. And I think parks can play an incredible role in allowing and connecting people to that nature, to building conservationists.
What I was trying to get at is that we shouldn't let visitor use and the economics of this use of sites necessarily drive the purpose of a park. We shouldn't let that override the intrinsic importance of conservation within those parks. There is a balancing act. Let's face it, unless we get gate sales or the public putting value on these parks, there isn't going to be funding for those parks. We're going to lose more than the 638 parks staff we just did in this last budget, unless people value parks.
I think it's important to get people to those parks, but not at the expense of conservation of species and landscapes and biodiversity within those parks.