"If" this, "in essence" that - that's a lot of conjecture and wild-ass-guessing, that you then go on to act as if you've actually proven those things and try to sell it as fact. That's the sort of thing that Wall Street did that crashed the economy.

EC Buck is correct. This big NPS PR blitz was capped off the other day when Jewell came to the Smokies and dayhiked a trail rehabbed by volunteer monies. She and local fraud and Senator Lamar Alexander grandstanded before a room of carefully chosen syncophants to tout the benefit of economic partnerships with the park, eg concessionaires. (There is a growing controversy here about the park's plan to build new horse stables in Smokemont so they need to stack the deck in order to divert more taxpayer money to do so.)
One story that didn't get covered by the pro park local media was that when Sen. Alexander's entourage pulled into the Marathon gas station in Townsend following that dog and pony show, he was refused service because of his support of the backcountry fee and recent vote to reduce veteran's benefits by store manager, Col Paul Sprayberry. The backcountry fee reduced visitation to the backcountry by %30 and I suppose he voted with his finger as he gave the senator a one digit salute and told him to buy his gas elsewhere.

While we may quibble about the accuracy of the stated numbers, there seems to be general agreement that parks bring dollars into local economies. Local business interests and politicians must agree, based on the continuing clamor to add new areas to the NPS, and "upgrade" existing ones to "full national park status" so they'll draw even more tourists to the area.

 Largely overlooked in the discussion is the fact that the NPS feels compelled to issue such reports at all, which seem to be spurred primarily by the intense competition among federal agencies for appropriated funds.

It's unfortunate that the value of places like the Grand Canyon, Yosemite and Glacier can be justified in so many minds only in terms of how much they can add to the GNP. These days, it's apparently no longer sufficient to show  that  parks "produce" enough economic benefit to justify their existence; now the pressure is on to show an increasingly positive cost-benefit ratio—and hence we get reports like the ones under discussion.

here seems to be general agreement that parks bring dollars into local economies.

And nobody is saying anything otherwise here. Unfortunately, they take them away from other economies.

NPS feels compelled to issue such reports at all, which seem to be spurred primarily by the intense competition among federal agencies for appropriated funds.

Feeling "compelled" is not a good reason to mislead the public. But at least you see that the purpose of the report is to lobby for Fed dollars. Rick B is too blinded by his Wall Street fantasy that he can't see that nor does he understand it was government interference in the markets not Wall Street, that crashed the economy. Perhaps he should go back to his library job and read a few books. He could start with The Great American Bank Robbery.

Ec, am familiar with Mr. Paul Sperry, he is a conservative pundit, investigative journalist for the New York Post and Stanford University Hoover Institute Media fellow. He strongly favors the neo-liberalism viewpoint, hey thats OK, thats his thing. On the other hand Andrew Sorkin, "To Big To Fail" is an interesting read and presents another viewpoint. Further an excellent article in this weeks "Nation" magazine on the Federal Reserve is worth reading. There all those that feel exactly the opposite of your statement that it was governmental interference, not Wall Street, that crashed the economy. All this off topic "Traveler", please excuse.

Agreed, Jim. From the article's opening statement--"from being described in the 19th century as unproductive wastelands in order to gain congressional approval"--to Rep. Hastings's infamous comment that the parks aren't "moneymakers," there is an abiding and unfortunate critique that parks must produce economic activity in order to be of value.

Unfortunately, they take them away from other economies.(referring to money generated for local economies by park visitors)

Not  sure I follow that logic, or see how it's a problem. Sounds like a value judgment that money spent by park visitors at a local motel, restaurant or canoe outfitter would be better spent elsewhere.

Feeling "compelled" is not a good reason to mislead the public.

You can question the numbers cited, but until someone provides hard evidence based on similar studies that the numbers are wrong, we're just bouncing opinions back and forth. Are the numbers overstated? Perhaps.  I'm not an economist or a statistician, so I don't know, but I think "mislead the public" is a bit of a reach. Frankly, I tend to be a bit skeptical of all such studies that tout the economic impact of any activity, whether it be a bicycle race, a winter olympics, a Super Bowl or pick you own favorite "economic engine."

Sounds like a value judgment that money spent by park visitors at a local motel, restaurant or canoe outfitter would be better spent elsewhere.

Not at all Jim. I am not making a value judgement between the two. I am just pointing out that that it is largely a zero sum game. In simplest terms, I decide to take a vacation and budget $2,000. I could go to Disneyland or to a National Park. If there were no NP, I would go to Disneyland and spend $2,000 there. If there is a NP I could still decide to go to Disneyland and spend the $2,000. Or I might go the the National Park. NP area gains 2 grand but the Disneyland area loses it. The NP didn't create $2,000 of activity, my decision to vacation did and the money would have been spent whether there was a NP or not.