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

Argalite, I understand climate change just fine. I also understand how it is being used to censor those scientists who don't agree. If no one is allowed to disagree, there is no science. It is then called propaganda, whether for good or ill. From Webster's "2. the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person 3. ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause, also: a public action having such an effect."

My cause, if you will, is the environment. Suddenly, my cause stands in the way of "their" cause, led by Vestas, Google, and General Electric. Their "science" tells me not to worry when my science is suppressed. How is it suppressed? Note the definition above. When it is alleged, and hardly proven, that wildlife and the landscape can "survive" the loss of habitat brought about to "reverse" global warming.

Fortunately, the courts are not buying it--even the most liberal judges. They still insist on good science. Now, what does this have to do with swimsuits? I've got it! Sports Illustrated should say they are preparing us for global warming, when even Yellowstone Lake will not freeze. This is a patriotic message, in other words. Perhaps so, but I could never get into one of those suits.


Gary, no political agenda, no need to drum up site traffic.


Kurt writes "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."

Would most oppose if the photos were in full burkas?  It'd surely offend some.  Heck, Trump would exploit it as a campaign issue!  But is this to be decided by poll?

Kurt also asks if bikinis (and I ask, burkas) "reflect NPS' core values"?  But this is not an NPS photo shoot, not an NPS activity, and these are not NPS employees.  The question is can NPS forbid either dress?  What if NPS did deny the permit, and the applicant (and the ACLU) sued NPS citing the First Amendment?  What would a Federal court decide?   This certainly is not France (where even bikinis are optional, but the burka is banned).  And I wonder whether it is the 21st century or the 19th.


Let's face it, America has no standards any more.

 


I asked "What would a Federal court decide?"  Federal rulemaking could (but does not) ban bikinis.  There is no ban on bikinis (or even nudity) throughout the NPS system.  36 CFR 7.87 bans public nudity only at Kaloko-Honokohau National Historical Park in Hawaii.  Supplementary rules for the BLM California Desert District Office ban nudity in visitors centers, campgrounds and picnic areas only.  State or local laws do not apply, because Yellowstone NP is an area of "exclusive Federal jurisdiction".  So I suspect a Federal judge would determine this is a legal activity and order NPS to issue SI a permit for this photo shoot.

I suppose NPS could undertake a rule-making process to ban it, as it did for drones?  But I think it would have to apply to everyone, not just to SI.


Rod, thanks for taking the time to address the values question I raised.

The point I was making was that from the National Park Service Organic Act forward, the NPS was given the authority to manage the parks in the best interests of the parks for the reasons they were created, and, as the Management Policies and CFR state, specifically, for the "values" of the parks as well as "appropriate uses" that uphold those values.

The "core values," as the NPS training page says, apply to how the NPS operates and manages the parks, not the values visitors hold.

Would SI sue if the NPS declined to issue the permits, citing the CFR and the Organic Act directives? I doubt it.

And you're right, it's not a vote of what the public wants. The NPS has made that clear many times, perhaps foremost on the issue of Yellowstone snowmobiles. Rather, the agency looked at the directives of the Organic Act and Management Policies, and crafted a winter use plan that, at the end of the day, the various groups could live with. 

The question I've been seeking an answer to is whether the SI Swimsuit shoot somehow upheld the values of the NPS and the parks. 


Gary - I agree with some of what you said about photographing someone in a bikini in the parks is no big deal, but I only go so far with you. You are being disingenous when you try to disregard the realities of objectivization. it is a complex and intertwined issue.

 

Do I like to look at pictures of pretty girls? Sure. Can focusing on pictures of pretty girls objectify them, yup. Are there complex and non black-and-white sensitivities in this, of course.

 

More of an issue in my mind than any body modesty or "moral" issue is the simple stupidity of showing someone in, or partially out of, a swimsuit in front of a hot springs similar to one where a person recently jumped in and died.


What I find annoying is how this is being twisted on this site, especially considering that this media outlet has a history of oversensationalizing many issues just to turn a paper. I also am losing respect for PEER as an organization, especially since I notice as time goes on, they are more apt to stirring the pot and create issue after issue to get thier name in the media instead of actually doing quality non-profit watchdog work.  This is another case in point.  And there have been many over the last two years.

And of course, media outlets like this one ablige to keep the sensationalization machine a turnin'.  To state that the NPS is sending a message that it is promoting sexual harassment by allowing SI to have a commercial permit to photograph in National parks is a big stretch.  Commercial organizations are legally able to apply for a commercial permit to photograph in National Parks, as long as they meet a handful of rules, many of which are in place to protect the integrity of National Park resources. That's it.  THAT SIMPLE!  The NPS is not in the business to legislate the morality of those organizations, and not a single NPS employee from my understanding was a swimsuit model. So to state that SI represents the value system and cultural workforce of the NPS is once again a stretch. 

Regardless if you find women in bikini's or even men in speedos, or even a naked body as morally objectional isn't the point.  Although, it is ironic that we have fallen so far down the evolutionary totem by attempting to seperate ourselves from nature, that we now look at primates that wear less clothes as "sinister beings" or "whores" or "prostitutes" or whatever the puritan folks here want to label it!  This is just another form of art and no different than the old masters that painted models in front of natural settings.  If you allow yourself to be bought by the objectification of the imagary than that is your choice.  But to state that the NPS is forcing this imagery on the public, and promoting it as part of their "Brand" does not make any rational sense.  The NPS does not use any scantily clad humans in any park materials that i've ever seen.  So to state that this work is part of the NPS value system, or the NPS brand is once again, a BIG BIG stretch of the truth.  These photos are strictly SI's value system, and thier work culture, and their brand.  And SI is very much allowed to purchase a commercial photography permit to photograph in the National Park, and they are allowed to photograph in parks as long as they meet  guidelines.  It looks like all these photos were outside of designated wilderness areas, and nothing was illegal or broke park laws.  In other words, it was all done by the books. 


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.