LINCOLN - Recent state funding for Nebraska parks has been flatter than the Platte River.

And if you plan to play Frisbee this summer at one of Iowa's smaller parks, bring a spare - the disks could disappear in unmown grass.

The two states use somewhat different approaches to deal with similar challenges.

In Nebraska, minimizing the impact also has meant reducing land holdings.

The transfers are as much about saving fuel and time of a limited number of park employees as they are about saving money.

While Iowa has not used the land transfer approach adopted in Nebraska, it uses two tiers of service at its parks. The main 50 camping parks get staff and full service, while day-use parks will be pack-it-in, pack-it-out places with a decidedly unmanicured look.

Things could be much worse, said Phil McNelly, who heads the National Association of State Park Directors in Raleigh, N.C. He pointed to Arizona, which has been ordered by officials to divest all parks that don't pay for themselves. California, meanwhile, has experienced closing of state parks.

The irony, McNelly said, is that most states reported substantial increases in visitation during the economic downturn as people vacationed closer to home.

Closing and divesting parks for budget reasons is short-sighted, McNelly said. He cited an economic study showing that every dollar invested into state parks generated $10 in associated recreational spending.