Would it make sense to turn management of Bryce Canyon National Park entirely over to a business?/Kurt Repanshek
With a park system that is being strangled by its maintenance backlog and operating costs, would the National Park Service, and the system, be better off if the agency outsourced entire parks?
That isn't necessarily a ridiculous idea on its face. Already the Park Service contracts with others to manage its lodgings, restaurants, and many campgrounds, and it relies heavily on volunteers to cope with visitors. So why not go all in? Would it make a stronger, more efficient, and better managed park system if individual units were treated, say, as franchises that were independently managed?
The idea was raised last month in Bozeman, Montana, during a three-day workshop the Property and Environment Research Center held on the next century of the National Park Service. The topic certainly is timely, as the Park Service's centennial arrives on August 25, 2016, and, at least outwardly, more emphasis so far has been placed on how to celebrate the agency rather than what can make the agency better going forward.
Understandably, with a maintenance backlog estimated at more than $11.5 billion, congressional appropriations relatively flat, and unwieldy concession operations, fiscal fitness should be a key aspect of any long-range planning by the agency.
From the perspective of one of the workshop's presenters, Holly Fretwell, the Park Service appears to be an inefficient agency that likely could benefit by placing the day-to-day operation of some, if not many, of its units into the hands of the business community.
'To me, if we thought about this from some sort of economic perspective, the point of the National Park Service, the reason that you would want sort of that umbrella entity, is to lower the transaction cost of having these parks function," Ms. Fretwell, a research fellow at PERC and an adjunct economics instructor at Montana State University, said in a follow-up interview. "If it's not doing that, if it's actually increasing the transaction costs, then it's not serving its purpose. And I think at this point it might be increasing those transaction costs."
Whether the Park Service's staggering fiscal morass is due to managerial pitfalls or congressional underfunding has been, and will continue to be, debated. By placing some units under outside managers -- franchisees could be one descriptor -- not only could lead the units to become economically viable, but also help control Congress's appetite for creating park system units that might not quite fit the mold.
Would a First State National Monument be any less if a non-profit organization ran it, much like the Mount Vernon Ladies Association runs George Washington's home? Should $8 million-$26 million in tax dollars be spent in the coming years to fund the proposed Blackstone River Valley National Historical Park in Massachusetts and Rhode Island, or should an outside group step forward with a plan to raise those funds on its own and operate such a park under the NPS umbrella?
'Why do we have a National Park Service anyway? What is the NPS, and what is it doing for us?" questioned Ms. Fretwell. "Is it providing a great service and helping us lower the transaction costs for us to have these wonderful parks, or is it not?"
There still would be a need for a Park Service, she went on, to manage park units that don't quite fit a business model but which we as a society still want preserved, either for their historical significance or natural resources. Units that might fit that description could include Buck Island Reef National Monument in the U.S. Virgin Islands, Mojave National Preserve in California, or St. Croix Island National Historic Site in Maine.
"I have a concern for these areas that are worthy of protection, but they can't pay for themselves. I don't want to cut those out and say everybody should be able to run as a franchise and everybody should be self-sufficient and everything's fine and dandy," Ms. Fretwell explained. "I do think that there are places worth protecting that will not be financially self-sufficient. I do think there are places for protecting that we do want people to recreate in that, sort of as a general populace, if they were privately run and managed the fees to go in there would be so high that most of us wouldn't be able to go.
"... I guess my big goal is to try to say how can we manage for those that can be better managed as a private sector or as public entity with sort of this franchise idea, because I don't think it's politically feasible or even politically appropriate at this time to say privatize them. I think that just turns too many people off. We're not going to get anywhere that way."
Buck Island Reef, which protects "one of the finest marine gardens in the Caribbean Sea," might not lend itself to private management/National Park Foundation
While she sees possibilities for creating "franchises," if you will, Ms. Fretwell also believes prospective units of the park system could be better evaluated than they currently are if they had a groundswell of support and also met a currently undefined set of standards or parameters for being a "national park."
"If there's a big enough group that says we really should be protecting this because it's a wonderful recreation area and we don't want it to be developed ... in that sense then we should be able to make it reasonably self-sufficient and then by golly let's create a business plan," she said. "The way that you get into the National Park System now is you create a business plan and you figure out how you're going to manage this, and you apply for a franchise."
That approach already can be seen, to a certain extent, across the country. The Nature Conservancy manages many of its own properties, and even owns the majority (nearly 11,000 acres) of the Tallgrass Prairie National Preserve in Kansas and co-manages it with the Park Service. The Audubon Society owns and runs the Wellfleet Bay Wildlife Sanctuary on Cape Cod. These non-profits have developed successful business plans to operate lands that would seem natural additions to the National Park System.
"If it really is worthy to be there, then people need to see it's worthiness and its value for the long-term period, and you need to be able to generate revenues for it to cover the costs for the long-term," said Ms. Fretwell.
While the "national park" cachet is potent, and has led to efforts to rebrand units of the park system as "national parks," Ms. Fretwell doesn't fear that a unit operated by a business rather than the National Park Service would lose its drawing appeal.
'In my mind, it's still going to be a national park. It's under the National Park Service, and if you've gotten that franchise then you've said, 'I am worthy and this area is worthy of National Park System status,'" she said.
'Is it (the NPS) helping us, helping the parks be more functional today, or is it making them more costly? I don't have an answer to that, it's sort of a rhetorical question. But I think it needs to be addressed.'
Comments
First, I hope all readers will take a few moments to explore the web link for the Property and Environment Research Center so you'll know right where they are coming from and who they really represent. Then decide if you agree with them or not.
Second, let's get Congress out of the picture. It's not so much the National Park Service that has messed our parks as it is Congress with its continual pork barrel legislation and attempts to micromanage. Get rid of the political forces that continually tug the parks back and forth as Congress tries to keep every special interest group in the world happy and ensure maximum profits for GOP's socialists and maximum income into campaign coffers. (GOP Socialism = Socialize expenses, Privatize profits)
Third, let's indeed run our parks (and forests and BLM lands) as businesses. Let's let those who use and abuse them pay for the privilege. People willing to spend nearly a thousand dollars a day for a family to visit Dizzyworld or tens of thousands for ultrahuge travel trailers shouldn't complain if they are asked to pay for their fun on public lands.
Fourth, remember that if PERC and Congressional Rob Bishops and others like them prevail, our public lands will no longer be public and we'll be paying much more than we'd probably pay if we simply ran our parks and recreational outdoors like a good business.
Here in the west, the phrase "Property Rights" means I got mine, it's mine, gimmie what I'm demanding or NO TRESPASSING. What should happen is that land that is already private remains private. Land that is public needs to be supported by the public.
While I am not in favor of privatizing the NPS I do think something needs to be done. It makes no sense to me to read about the huge maintenance backlogs and budget shortfalls over and over again and at the same time reading how they want to expand, often into areas of questionable or debatable value. I'm all in favor of more natural area's because once they are lost they are hard to get back but the NPS needs to demonstrate they can manage the ones already on their plate first. It does appear to me the NPS has grown too large to be efficient.
I'd rather stick to the ideas and weight them on their own merits. For someone that complains about factions not cooperating, it is kind of ironic that the first thing you do is challange an idea because of who it came from.
100% agree - especially the micromanage part
100% agree
Some lands might not be public and probably shouldn't be. Other lands including some Park units as noted above might be very well better run by a non-profit organization. As I have noted before they do quite well with the likes of Mount Vernon, Monticello, Mountpelier, Ash Lawn, properties under the domain of the National Trust for Historic Preservation, et (many) al. To use scare tactics to imply all our public lands including our national parks will dissappear is just dishonest. Noone is suggesting that including PERK and Congressman Rob Bishop.
So let me get this straight, park service biologists, climatologists, geologists, and archeologists have to wear disney logos and answer to mickey mouse stockholders? You do realize this idea comes with a big of ridiculousness, right? I think the "maintenece backlog" is well over stated. A lot of that can be solved, by simply designating more wilderness in National parks, and keeping them wild, and not attempting to accomodating the auto crowd at every whim.
Right, wild. But again, how much of the expansion has been driven by the Park Service and how much by Congress? Is it that the NPS has grown too large to be efficient or that the resources available -- money and personnel -- make it impossible to operate properly or efficiently? If your lawnmower breaks down and you have no choice but to replace it with a pair of scissors, how efficient and effective will your efforts be?
And Gary, remember 2003 when the only people in the visitor center at Bryce Canyon were wearing Ford Motor Company logos on their shirts as part of President Cheney's push to "privatize" the parks?
Gary--The maintenance backlog is not a myth. All one has to do is to closely observe the crumbling infrastructure in many of our parks to know that. You don't replace roofs on buildings by declariing more wildernesss. The really sad part is that the lack of adequate appropriations often means that routine, cyclic maintenance cannot be completed, thus adding to the backlog. It's not a pretty picture.
Rick
How often do we see the NPS saying "No"? Do they frequently appear before Congress and say "we don't want that unit"?
Honestly I don't know the answer but I am not aware of it happening. A question that needs some research but I would love to see examples from so of those with more intimate knowledge of NPS operations.
Congress is indeed at fault but I suspect the NPS is a willing accomplice. Like any entity, the natural propensity is to expand and ask for more money not contract and reduce your budget.
Lee, when was the last time the NPS opposed the addition of a unit? Searching the site for the word "opposes" returns no hits.