You are here

Are National Parks An Appropriate Backdrop For Sports Illustrated's Swimsuit Issue?

Share

Published Date

August 7, 2016

For many young adolescent boys growing up in the 1960s, the cold winds, ice, and snows of winter met a thaw in February, when a softer, not quite so lusty version of Playboy showed up in mailboxes across the country: Sports Illustrated's annual Swimsuit Issue.

With bikini-clad models such as Elle Macpherson, Christie Brinkley, Cheryl Tiegs and Rachel Hunter gracing covers and multiple-page spreads within the covers, the Swimsuit Issue quickly became a marketing success. By 2005 it was estimated that that issue alone generated $35 million in revenue for Sports Illustrated. As the years passed, the editors and art directors have gotten more and more risque, dressing their models in skimpier and skimpier swimsuits, and finally painting suits on them. 

In 2002, a representative for the National Organization for Women said the issue, "promotes the harmful and dehumanizing concept that women are a product for male consumption."

Until recently, national parks have been left out of the Swimsuit Issue, and generally have been promoted by media as wonderful family destinations. But in 2014 the sports magazine requested, and received permission, to shoot in Yellowstone, Grand Teton and Bryce Canyon national parks for its 2015 Swimsuit Issue.

An outtake from the Yellowstone shoot (above) was used by National Geographic this year in its May issue, which was dedicated to Yellowstone.

Now, as the Park Service is confronting an issue of sexual harassment and misconduct within its workforce, a watchdog group is questioning whether the agency's decision to permit the pictorials doesn't "undermine" its commitment to root out an institutional "culture of tolerance for sexual harassment." In addition, the Park Service's approval of the photo shoots illuminates the gray area in interpreting the agency's management guidelines and recalls a magazine shoot four decades ago that a former park ranger deemed "extremely offensive."

Back in August 1977 Grand Canyon National Park made a splash in Playboy in a river trip pictorial that raised more than a few eyes, as Roderick Nash noted in Wilderness and the American Mind while discussing the issue of river trip permit allocations:

The Grand Canyon allocation controversy raised the deeper question of what kind of use is most appropriate in a federal managed wilderness. One point of view regarded the large, motorized commercial trips as little more than outdoor parties. Beach volleyball and cold beer highlighted these trips. The customers neither expected nor wanted a wilderness experience. The whitewater rapids might as well have been located in an urban amusement park. The highly publicizied and much photographed river trip that Playboy staged came to represent the problem in many minds. The fact that this kind of Grand Canyon trip used part of the limited visitor quota, and in effect kept wilderness enthusiasts off the river, rubbed salt in the already tender wounds of noncommercial boaters.

Grand Canyon resurfaced early this year in another sexually charged saga; not based on titillation, but rather sexual harassment and misconduct. An Office of Inspector General report given to the National Park Service last year and released to the public in January detailed a 15-year-long chapter of sordid behavior in the park's River District. In the end, the park superintendent retired and the Park Service recommitted itself to root out sexual misconduct and harassment, promising to set up a hotline to which complaints could be voiced, anonymously if desired, and to conduct a service-wide survey to determine how prevalent the problem might be.

Last last month, Interior Secretary Sally Jewell traveled to the Grand Canyon with Park Service Director Jon Jarvis, Intermountain Region Director Sue Masica and incoming Grand Canyon Superintendent Chris Lehnertz to meet with the park's employees, hear their concerns, and discuss how the matter would be addressed.

“That’s unacceptable behavior. It is a failure of leadership. It is something that we have got to address," Secretary Jewell told a small pool of reporters gathered at Hopi Point on the South Rim after meeting with roughly 300 park employees. "I will say that this is a team of employees that wants to move on, that does not want to be defined by the actions of a few."

Objectification, Art, Or Freedom Of The Press?

Ironically, as the National Park Service tries to determine just how extensive sexual harassment and misconduct might be across its workforce of 20,000, questions about the appropriateness of Sports Illustrated's use of national parks in 2015 to show off scantily clad models have surfaced. Not only did the sports magazine stage photo shoots in Bryce Canyon, Grand Teton, and Yellowstone national parks, at least, but it also produced videos of the models and crews at work in the parks.

Model Jessica Gomes posed in various locations in Yellowstone for the Sports Illustrated shoot.

Some Park Service employees were disturbed by the Lower Falls image that appeared in National Geographic's May 2016 issue.

"Many permanent and seasonal NPS employees (male & female) object to this image, and the message communicated. It could be inferred by Dan Wenk in NPS uniform (elsewhere in the issue) as NPS endorsing or sanctioning this type of behavior," one employee told the Traveler. "At the very least, if NPS says it had no control over what Nat Geo publishes, I believe the powers that be at National Geographic AND the National Park Service would be singing a different tune if it had been Dan Wenk in his underwear instead of his carefully planned and orchestrated NPS Class A dress uniform on the preceding pages."

At National Geographic, Director of Communications Anna Kukelhaus pointed out that the swimsuit photograph was just one of 70 images of Yellowstone contained in the issue.

"As a journalistic publication, we tell multiple aspects of a story. For our Yellowstone issue, we did not want to just showcase the natural and ageless beauty of the park, but to look at how the park is used and how people interact with it," she said. "We think this image represents one of the ways the park is used. It is also important to note that any photo shoot in a national park cannot take place without park permission. Park rangers accompanied the teams to various locations throughout the park during the course of this shoot."

Concern about the propriety of the photo shoots, in light of the ongoing issue with sexual harassment and misconduct in the Park Service, led Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility to file a Freedom of Information Act request with the Park Service for:

* All permits issued by NPS to Sports Illsutrated or its employees to conduct a photo shoot or photo shoots on NPS land;

* All records indicating where each Sports Illustrated photo shoot took place, including any NPS staff briefings;

* All correspondence between NPS and Sports Illustrated or its employees regarding photo shoots and/or the publication of photos;

* All correspondence between NPS and Nat Geo or its employees regarding the publication of the Jessica Gomes photo in the magazine’s May 2016 issue.

"We are interested in the records for several reasons," PEER's legal counsel, Laura Dumais, told the Traveler. "First, Jon Jarvis and NPS leadership are currently under fire for fostering a long-term culture of tolerance for sexual harassment, where perpetrators enjoy protection while victims fear to report wrongdoing. If it is true that NPS managers found nothing inappropriate about authorizing the publication of a photo of three fully-clothed men literally in the process of objectifying a near-naked woman in front of an iconic Yellowstone waterfall, then it’s not difficult to understand why NPS has a problem."

In its FOIA request, PEER stated that, "If, in fact, NPS condoned the actions of Sports Illustrated and National Geographic in taking/publishing photos that undermine NPS’s stated commitment to ending sexual harassment in national parks, then this is very important information that the public should know about prior to the centennial celebration. Presented with such information, the public may choose not to attend such celebrations, or individuals may choose to exercise their First Amendment rights to engage in informed public discourse on the issue prior to or during the celebration."

Secretary Jewell's office did not respond to a Traveler request for comment on the appropriateness of using national parks as backdrops for the Swimsuit Issue that, after it's arrival, drew harsh criticism for its cover photo being "100 percent inappropriate" and "obscene," along with more graphic descriptions. The National Center on Sexual Exploitation was so shocked by the covergirl on the 2015 issue that the executive director sent letters to retailers asking that the magazine be removed from public display.

At the Park Service's Washington, D.C., headquarters Tom Crosson, chief of public affairs, would not comment on the appropriateness of the photo shoots or whether the agency approved of the images and videos.

"The National Park Service is obligated to protect the public’s right to free speech in national parks, as guaranteed by the First Amendment. We do not apply a 'morals test' when granting access to our parks for legal activities," he said. "When issuing permits, we do consider factors such as the potential impact to park resources and visitor use. If it is determined that a particular activity would constitute impairment to the park and its resources, or would generate unacceptable impacts as defined by NPS Management Policies, or is prohibited by law, the park would deny the request."

Does Sports Illustrated's Swimsuit Issue Uphold National Park "Values"

The management handbook for national park superintendents, the 2006 Management Policies, contains a section on "Appropriate Uses" of the parks. In that section on page 98, the narrative specifies that, "In exercising its discretionary authority, the Service will allow only uses that are (1) appropriate to the purpose for which the park was established... (emphasis added).

Under the Code of Federal Regulations that discretion was trimmed somewhat, removing the wording pertaining to the purpose for why a national park was established. It does, however, state that permits can be denied if the activity results "in unacceptable impacts or impairment to National Park Service resources or values...'" (emphasis added)

Sports Illustrated's crews and model also visited Bryce Canyon National Park for the 2015 issue.

Mr. Crosson would not respond directly to whether the swimsuit photo shoots were appropriate to the purpose for which Yellowstone, Grand Teton, or Bryce Canyon were established, or whether they diminished the values of the parks.

At Yellowstone, Superintendent Wenk said his staff followed guidelines for issuing commerical photography permits when approached by Sports Illustrated.

"Because the project met the legal requirements for this type of permit, specifically that there were no resource or unacceptable impacts to visitor use, we issued the permit," he said in an email. 

The guidelines set down by the Management Policies can be difficult to interpret, said Superintendent Wenk.

"We looked at this permit process objectively in 2014. Perhaps we would look at it differently today," he wrote, adding that through the years he has been told "content could not be a reason for denial of a permit as long as other conditions were met."

"The application of NPS policy that you cited can be interpreted many ways," he continued. "What purpose are you saying is not appropriate to the purpose for which the park was established? If you apply your definition, would advertisements for cars, outdoor gear, swimsuits, pain relief or insurance be appropriate? Where do you draw the line if a manufacturer wanted to advertise kayaks and the model wore a swimsuit that was as revealing as the SI model, appropriate or not?"

At the Coalition To Protect America's National Parks, some members thought the swimsuit permit request should have been denied.

"I don’t see that photos/videos of scantily-clad women in any way is consistent with park values. Moreover, I don’t see how this kind of photography or videography for commercial purposes in the public marketplace is considered freedom of the press or speech under the First Amendment," said Bill Wade, whose 30-year NPS career included the Department of the Interior Meritorious Service Award.  "I’m sure the (Interior) solicitors – with much more knowledge of the legalities than I have – reviewed all this and approved it, but it seems to me to be a big stretch. One more example of how the policies and laws are gradually becoming more diluted, at the detriment of what national parks stand for."

Added Rick Smith, whose Park Service career included a stint as acting-superintendent at Yellowstone: "Park values are being degraded with this kind of activity.  It reminds me of the Playboy shoot on the Colorado River through Grand Canyon, topless models and all. It was extremely offensive."

  

 

Comments

Very well said, Kurt, and thank you for not bringing up climate change. I notice that when anyone seems to be losing an argument these days, they bring up climate change as a rebuttal.

But yes, let's talk about the internal combustion engine for a moment. Argalite is right. No American industry has ever done more to force change on the national parks. When visiting the national parks in 1959, my family traveled on 35 mph roads. Now they average 45 mph, but really 65 mph, since so many have been widened and straightened to accommodate bigger loads.

If we must rail against ladies in swimsuits (can we say ladies anymore?), should we not equally rail at what remains the deeper issue driving the commercialization of our national parks?

Simply, where is our cultural tipping point? This morning at coffee, I asked my friends if the swimsuit issue offended them. "Get over it, Al," they all agreed. Liberal and conservative women alike all found nothing offensive about the act of posing in front of Yellowstone Falls.

Then what would you find offensive, I asked? Posing in front of the 9/11 memorial? the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier? the altar of St. Patrick's Cathedral? "Now you're being ridiculous," they exclaimed. "No one would ever do that!"

Call me Ridiculous, then. The point is: If there is a limit--and if you see a limit--someone else's limit needs to be honored, too.

Once upon a time in America, we were all about respecting those limits. No more. We have rather learned the power of disrespecting limits. The person calling for them is made to feel like a fool.

Until--and this is the worst part--we see how well the process works. Then we impose our limits, and not merely ask for them. "Al, why would you want to show those pictures in your class?" "Because they are now history," I answered this morning, "no different from a railroad or an automobile ad." No, I was not to show those pictures in any class, because then yes, they might prove offensive.

In other words, they get to censor my idea of information--and I don't get to censor theirs. They get to determine what the "limits" are--and the rest of us don't have a say. Win or lose, if you want to understand Donald Trump, there is the frustration he has unearthed. If you want to understand how and why our culture is falling apart, you have to understand our growing disrepect for the "other" side.

Fine, I said to my friends. Anything goes. Just don't complain when the barbarians storm the gates.

 


It's "Kurt," Gary, not Kirk;-)

You largely skirted the entire "values" discussion and how the SI shoot stands up to NPS/park values.

As for tying the SI shoot to the Grand Canyon situation, there is no direct tie...other than the argument that the SI Swimsuit Issue objectifies women, and, as NOW stated, "promotes the harmful and dehumanizing concept that women are a product for male consumption."

Check out our Facebook page for further discussion. This article drew more than 400 comments, and it would appear that most oppose using the parks for such photo shoots.


It seems like you are trying to oversensationalize this by tying the sports illustrated photo shoot to the Grand Canyon incident.  These are not anywhere related, and it is a BIG STRETCH to tie them together!  If seeing a woman in a bikini in front of old faithful is going to turn a person into a rampaging degenerate, then that person has mental issues and I doubt the photo would be all that it would take to set that person in motion.  These photos aren't going to make most human males run out and start harrassing women.  At least not normal people with any sense of morality.   So to state that seeing a woman in a bikini is an act of indencey and promotes a culture of sexual harassment is a big stretch, Kirk.  I don't see the SI shoots as jeopardizing the NPS mission to preserve cultural and natural resources and leave them unimpaired.  If I visit any of these spots where these shoots were done, can you please tell me what harm occured from these shoots?  I can't think of any.

I'm sure many get offended when they see a women in a bikini or a muscular guy without his shirt on, but there is nothing illegal about that image.

Also, those on this thread claiming the National Parks are "Family oriented"... well that's their perspective, but as someone that has seen many national parks before I had a family, I believe it encompasses more than just families and saying that the NPS has a mission to create a "Happiest place on Earth Adventure Park for Families", like it's something out of Disney World also doesn't hold merit and represent the core mission of protecting and preserving the cultural resources.

As for permits, and what to permit.  That's done on a case by case basis, and I don't believe the National Park Service would issue a permit that would promote hunting in Grand Tetons by having a hunter point a rifle at a bear that is within a park boundary, since those bears are protected. So that would violate most commercial use permits since it would promote an illegal activity.  A woman in a bikini or even a male standing in front of a waterfall does not jeapordize park resources.

However, wildlife within National Parks are used on the covers of hunting magazines.  Some of the biggest bucks in Cades Cove from Great Smoky Mountains National Park have antlers that are 13 points or more, and they have graced the cover of those magazines.  It is a bit ironic that the reason they get such large racks is because they aren't permitted to be hunted within the park boundaries, and so they live longer complete lives that most deer do not get to have since most of them stay within the boundary all year long. 

It's very much a grey area to say that films like Planet of the Apes, Star Wars, Star Trek, Rocky, ET, etc etc meet any sort of NPS core objective, and in those films it was very much the landscapes that served as the backdrop for the film.   In one of the Mission Impossible films, the beginning shows Tom Cruise climbing a prepicise in the Grand Canyon and making it to the top and getting picked up by a helicopter and getting flown off.. Does that meet any mission?  In Star Trek, Captain Kirk free solo's El Cap and falls and is saved by Spock who has levitation boots.  Other than fantasy, what core objective did that serve, other than Captian Kirk attempting to solo El Cap?  That activity is somewhat common in that park, but the use of levitation boots?  The only thing those films do is promote the odd or striking beauty of the area in the backdrop and expose them to the masses.

But, there is a difference that should be explained as some here seem to think that rules that fall under the wilderness act should also apply to other areas in National Parks that do not fall under those guidelines.  In areas that fall under the wilderness act, different rules apply, and these sort of commercial shoots wouldn't be permitted unless it serves an educational purpose, and that is definitely opened to the oversight of the administration doing the permitting.  However, since these areas next to pavement are not wilderness, and do not fall under the wilderness act, then yes, they can use them as a backdrop, if they get a commercial permit. 


Alfred Runte:  People don't bring up climate change to those who understand. 

Here is another thing you don't understand

Direct Mortality of Birds from Anthropogenic Causes Scott R. Loss,1 Tom Will,2 and Peter P. Marra3

 


As I stated, are you just trying to oversensationalize an issue?  For what purpose?  For site hits?  What purpose does it serve to oversensationalize this and tie it to something completely unrelated?  Do you think the people that approved these shoots, also were tied into the Grand Canyon incident?  Really, how so?  Sorry if i'm not following the horde on this one.

I'm not morally offended by women that choose to pose in bikinis, nor am I offended by men, who at this stage in my life are more muscular and more fit than I posing for photos, if they choose to.  Nor would I be offended if you or alfred wanted to go pose in the same manner and post it on the traveler.  Now if they were forced beyond their will to do such an act, that is a different story, but I don't believe that is the case here.  America is filled with all walks of life, and if the NPS is representative of  "American values" then other walks of life should be represented too.  It's their park too. 

Alfred, the Pokemon Go app did come under fire recently when it was discovered people were finding pokemon characters in the Hiroshima Atomic Bomb Memorial.  Some Japanese officials asked Nintendo to remove the characters from the park, and I believe that occurred.  I don't know if the same thing is occurring at the 9'11 memorial or Gettysburg.


Gary, if you think it's entirely unrelated, I suggest you Google causes of sexual harassment.

Here are some other stories for your edification:

http://national.deseretnews.com/article/17494/see-why-some-are-calling-s...

http://www.beautyredefined.net/our-issue-with-the-swimsuit-issue/

http://www.lauriehaller.org/an-open-letter-to-sports-illustrated/


It is unrelated.  Very much so.  Only people with a political agenda, or those that are trying to oversensationalize unrelated events to drum up site hits are trying to tie them together.

And if you are somehow trying to say that because I looked at these images, and don't care if these women were photographed in a National Park, that it somehow means I support sexual harassment, well then you are wrong.  Sorry, but the human body doesn't offend me.  I see it simply as a vessel of millions of years worth of evolution, and yes, we are no different than the animals. 

But I get it... some see the human body, and it's offensive to them, because subconciously it makes them realize they are no different from animals.  But, I film animals and their behaviors for a living.  Smiling human specimens, no matter how good they may look to males or females of the same species, are no different to me than 399 or other famous creatures that walk the Earth. 

So, animals and their bodies do not offend me!  Sorry if I don't find the concept morally reprehensable.


Hubba, hubba :-J

 

Seriously though, I fail to see how NPS could bar this unless it bars any and all commercial photographers. This appears to be an all or nothing thing. I can see NPS losing in federal court if it were to pick and choose. 


Your support helps the National Parks Traveler increase awareness of the wonders and issues confronting national parks and protected areas.

Support Our Mission

INN Member

The easiest way to explore RV-friendly National Park campgrounds.

The Essential RVing Guide to the National Parks

Here’s the definitive guide to National Park System campgrounds where RVers can park their rigs.

Our app is packed with RVing- specific details on more than 250 campgrounds in more than 70 national parks.

You’ll also find stories about RVing in the parks, tips helpful if you’ve just recently become an RVer, and useful planning suggestions.

The Essential RVing Guide to the National Parks

FREE for iPhones and Android phones.