With the National Park Service's centennial eight years off, it's not too early to take the measure of both the service and the National Park System it manages. Is all well across the 391-unit system, or has the time arrived to overhaul and strengthen this venerable agency?
The National Park System must be temporarily reduced to a size for which Congress is willing to pay. Let us, as a beginning, close Yellowstone, Yosemite, Rocky Mountain, and Grand Canyon national parks -- close and seal them, assign the Army to patrol them, and so hold them secure till they can be reopened. They have the largest staffs in the system but neither those staffs nor the budget allotted them are large enough to maintain the areas at a proper level of safety, attractiveness, comfort, or efficiency. They are unable to do the job in full and so it had better not be attempted at all. If these staffs -- and their respective budgets -- were distributed among othe areas, perhaps the Service could meet the demands now put on it. If not, additional areas could be temporarily closed and sealed, held in trust for a more enlightened future -- say Zion, Big Bend, Great Smoky, Shenandoah, Everglades and Gettysburg.
Guard against fire, clean up after litterbugs. Protect and restore the wildlife, even wolves and mountain lions, in order to keep the balance of nature, but do it in a show window where millions can thrill to see it. Offer high-grade adult education to all who ask for it and many who don't. Rescue climbers trapped or injured on the cliffs, tourists wounded by the bears they have been (against the rules) feeding.
Do what you can about America's slop-happy habit of defacing signs, tearing up shrubs and wild flowers and throwing candy wrappers, bottles and beer cans in creeks and springs and geysers. Be patient when tourists balw you out for something "because I pay taxes for this." Do it all on a pitifully inadequate budget, with collapsing equipment and an overworked and undermanned staff and smile. The picture is gruesome, but it is neither sensational nor exaggerated.
Those statements about the National Park System could have been made yesterday, but in fact they were made 55 and 53 years ago, respectively. The first was voiced by Bernard DeVoto in a column not-so-subtly titled Let's Close the National Parks that appeared in Harper's Magazine. The second was uttered by none other than Wallace Stegner in an article that also was not-so-subtly titled, this time simply We Are Destroying Our National Parks, that ran, believe it or not, in Sports Illustrated.
How stands the National Park System today, a half-century after these demands or recommendations were made? Some might easily argue not merely that little has changed, but that things have gotten worse, that the agency has become hamstrung not just by underfunding and politics but that it has become more focused on fostering recreation than conserving the resources for future generations, more concerned about appeasing gateway communities than standing firmly in defense of natural resources.
Today the National Park Service is saddled with a maintenance backlog guesstimated at somewhere around $8 billion; the agency's annual shortfall is pegged at roughly $800 million; solemn Alcatraz Island has been transformed, at least for one night, into a garish amusement attraction; the White House is telling Yellowstone National Park officials that like it or not they will indeed maintain snowmobile access through the park's East Entrance even though the park lacks the money to safely do so; at the same time, Dinosaur National Monument, a unit built around paleontology, is dismantling its paleontological division because it can't afford it; politicians are playing name games with National Park System units; air pollution is despoiling vistas and resources at parks such as Acadia, Great Smoky Mountains, Shenandoah, and Sequoia; off-road vehicles and personal watercraft are creating resource problems.
Those are just the tip-of-the-tongue examples of why the National Park Service seems to be shuddering. tumbling, teetering along the way toward its momentous birthday party. You easily could go on, pointing out the lack of full-time personnel across the system, commercialism some see seeping into the parks, a pecking order among the 391 units, and more.
These comments are not mere hyperbole. Rather, they're a quick collection of examples that has more than a few folks worrying about the future of the National Park System. Is it a system in decay, stricken with dry rot?
In 1991, noted conservation writer Michael Frome saw his book, Regreening the National Parks, first published. Now working on an update, Mr. Frome is not likely to be glowing in his latest analysis of what has transpired the past 16 years. "Virtually all of my research and continued study show that our treasured national parks have suffered from political interference and profiteering power, and are being reduced to commercialized popcorn playgrounds," he says.
As with DeVoto and Stegner before him, Mr. Frome is beckoning us to take note of what is transpiring and to react to it. His voice is not alone in the wilderness.
"Stegner was certainly being dramatic, but he was not far off the mark," offers Dr. Dwight Pitcaithley, a former chief historian for the National Park Service. "The parks are undergoing gradual physical decline due to lack of proper funding. The maintenance backlog throughout the NPS is officially between $5 and $8 billion. These figures are at least two years old, so the correct figure might even be higher.
"How will the NPS catch-up with an overall budget of $2.4 billion?" he continues. "One might correctly observe that the national parks are not being overtly destroyed, but there certainly exists a slow-growing cancer of benign neglect and misdirected leadership that is eating away at the integrity of the parks every year."
Rick Smith, who spent three decades with the Park Service in a range of positions, including associate regional director for Natural and Cultural Resources in the agency's Southwest Regional Office, Santa Fe, and continues to advocate for the park system as a member of the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees, says that Mr. Stegner was "voicing a fairly common concern about parks in those days." That said, he doesn't believe the words of Stegner nor DeVoto were overly dramatic.
"It is particularly important to have people like Wallace Stegner, his son, Page, Dr. Roderick Nash, Joe Sax, etc., speak out because they have great credibility and people listen to them," says Mr. Smith. "If they find their criticisms credible, they apply pressure to their elected officials for corrective action. That is the way it has worked for a long time.
"It is only recently that this cycle seems to have broken down a bit, the victim, I believe, of the overly partisan nature of our national dialog now," he adds. "What passes for environmental debate now is, for the most part, shrill posturing with little active listening being done by either side of the debate. It's pretty depressing."
The pertinent question today, though, is how much longer can the National Park System endure under current conditions? Is there a need for a thorough revamping of the National Park Service, with how we as both a government and people steward the National Park System? Can the system continue to survive with more and more additions but scant financial and manpower resources? Are there questionable units that could be better served if they were cast off, given to states or even communities to tend and so free the National Park Service to better spend its meager resources?
A core problem with how the National Park System is being managed today is that it too often finds itself at the center of a tug-of-war between special interests -- take your pick between the motorized recreation industry, environmental and conservation groups, gateway communities, states and, yes, even the National Rifle Association -- with Congress as the referee and whoever resides in the White House playing the role of final arbiter, though "final" probably isn't the best adjective in light of the role the courts play.
At a time when the American population is becoming more and more diverse, when budgets are becoming leaner and leaner, and when tougher and tougher choices need to be made, isn't it more vital than ever that broader consensus be gathered for how the National Park System is to march on?
Is it essential that the National Park Service kowtow to every special interest and strive to transform the parks into some creation that sates every constituency's demands? How far should the latest electronic technology invade the parks? Do we want visitors turned into drones content to be led about by their cellphones and Ipods, or does it make more sense to rely on knowledgeable interpretive rangers who not only can answer questions but stimulate imaginations? How many recreational constituencies can, and should, be catered to in the parks? Are the simple pleasures of a walk in the woods, a night under the stars, appreciation of art, a better understanding of the American melting pot, now passe?
The Coalition of National Park Service Retirees for some time has called for a national dialog to be conducted on the future of the National Park System, a talk to be handled through a non-partisan National Park Service Centennial Commission (see attachment).
Understandably, given Congress's past handling of reports churned out by commissions -- remember the 911 Commission? -- there's an apprehension from some for appointment of such a commission. But short of such a commission, a body that can not only sort through the quagmire that today bogs down the National Park Service but also work to shine light on the shortcomings, who will?
Beyond such a commission, it's imperative that politics be removed from management of the National Park System. The National Park Service must be overseen by a director free of the bit and bridle that politicians saddle the agency with. Give this director a 6- or 8-year-tenure that overlaps presidencies and a prime directive to do what's best for the parks, not the politicians.
Much has been made of guiding the National Park Service into its second century, which commences in 2016. But readying the agency and its system requires more than simply luring in more dollars through philanthropy, sprucing up the facilities, and calling for greater diversity both in the agency's ranks and also the parks' visitors.
There's a paradigm change on the way. What remains to be seen, is in which direction it takes the National Park System.
"Any clear vision for the national parks for the 21st Century must uphold their reputation in the worldwide realm of parks and protected areas. That is both challenge and responsibility, as President John F. Kennedy recognized," says Mr. Frome. "In welcoming delegates to the First World Conference on National Parks held in Yellowstone National Park in 1962, Kennedy declared:
Growth and development of national park and reserve programs throughout the world are important to the welfare of the people of ever nation. We must have places where we can find release from the tensions of an increasingly industrialized civilization, where we can have personal contact with the natural environment which sustains us. To this end, permanent preservation of the outstanding scenic and scientific assets of every country, and of the magnificent and varied wildlife which can be so easily endangered by human activity, is imperative. National Parks and reserves are an integral aspect of intelligent use of our national resources. It is the course of wisdom to set aside an ample portion of our national resources as national parks and reserves, thus ensuring that future generations may know the majesty of the earth as we know it today.
An earlier president, Theodore Roosevelt, in 1903, after camping with John Muir among the ancient sequoias of Yosemite, listening to the hermit thrush and the waterfalls tumbling down sheer cliffs, wrote that 'It was like lying in a great solemn cathedral far vaster and more beautiful than any built by the hand of man.' Then TR went to Stanford University, where he declared: 'There is nothing more practical than the preservation of beauty, than the preservation of anything that appeals to the higher emotions of mankind.'
As the National Park Service stands at the cusp of its second century, we must do more than kick the tires and look for rust. The engine, arguably, needs to be overhauled and our compass bearings checked before heading on down the road.
Again, Mr. Frome: "To sum up, national parks when they were new yielded discovery, adventure, and challenge. They should always do that. And they can, if we set our minds and hearts to it. As the rest of the country becomes more developed, and super-civilized, national parks should be safeguarded to represent another side of America, free of technology, free of commerce and crowds, free of instant gratification, a pioneer, self-reliant side of America. I do not want them closed. I want them to serve as models for a quality environment of life."
Comments
So, is the answer to propose a Fed Chairman like position a la what Kurt talks about here, who is relatively independent but ultimately becomes accountable to almost nobody? Or, is the answer to have an NGO, or a corporate oligarchy, who is accountable only to their largest funders?
Or, is the paradigm shift that we are talking about not radical enough? The only way that accountability for public lands happens if there is a radical decentralization of decision making in society - that is, a society made up of units small enough for individuals to have voice. However, that doesn't happen when you have big capital and big government, either or both. Right now, the choice is between corporate control or government control, but neither is free from corruption, both prove almost impossible to stop if either makes the wrong sorts of choices. Unless we are willing to take on anything that keeps us from having a voice, then there is no way that we can have reasonable discussion about what to do in our parks.
In the short term, the only question is what is the biggest danger to the parks, but apart from a long term analysis of what we need to do, it's kind of silly. You don't remove politicization from decision making in the parts; all you can do is reduce the amplitude of it - make it smaller and more innocuous. However, what that typically has meant in our society is ceding government control for private control, which does nothing to reduce the amplitude when mega corporations control everything. We need to make them smaller and broken up as well. That starts, frankly, with community organizing - with building local community. And, in the meantime, just hoping and praying that the rest doesn't go completely to hell.
Jim Macdonald
The Magic of Yellowstone
Yellowstone Newspaper
Jim's Eclectic World
There's nothing wrong with thinking bold, with truly thinking outside the box. Brainstorming produces dozens of ideas and possibilities, but not all will fit, and you don't enter into such a process expecting all to fit. You simply carry hopes someone will suggest something that does fit.
I think a director in the form of the Fed chairman would be a great start, as long as she/he is the right person for the job and the supporting legislation that creates the role includes a political shield...as well as a system for ensuring this individual doesn't get too carried away.
The NGO model raises concerns; look at what The Presidio Trust has become. Formed, in theory, to help the Presidio become self-sufficient, the trust has turned the Presidio into a business commons and threatens to dilute the history of the place. Imagine if that played out across the entire system.
Beyond such a change in leadership, perhaps serious consideration needs to be given to breaking up the National Park System. I know that's blasphemy in some circles, but if you look at the existing 391+ units, you've got an untenable mix of national parks, of historic structures, of the arts, etc, etc.
What would be the reaction if the National Park Service only oversaw "national parks," ie the 58 units that carry that distinction? What if some/most of the other 333 properties were spun off, some back to the states, some to NGOs, some to the National Trust for Historic Preservation? Give the NRAs and national preserves to the BLM; that's surely a better fit, and perhaps even the national seashores.
Perhaps if these various scenarios and others not mentioned become part of a national discussion there will be a clamoring for better funding and a serious look at how the National Park Service conducts business. But to discard that idea or this idea for being too idealistic or doubting that the backbone exists for serious change benefits no one.
The biggest danger to the parks, I fear, is to do nothing but let the current course play out.
YES. Nothing short of complete separation from the political umbrella is satisfactory. As I've stated in previous discussions, the least painful manner of maintaining the system in its present form is the creation of a NPS business unit, with some painfully strict modifications from most "big business" operations. Some examples are:
1) The "Director" post, or chairman, president, Big Kahuna, or whatever, is a single term position with duration of a maximum of 5 consecutive years. This position is supported by 5-7 "regional" managers with similar term limits, each charged with specific geographic responsibilities which are determined by an ability to actively render first-hand accounts of issues pertaining to a segment of the NPS. They are in-park managers, geographically dispersed such that they can physically be on-site at any unit in their territory within a matter of not more than a few short hours, particularly to function as liaison between the unit and the NPS offices during times of importance (e.g. weather-related events, wildlife issues, search and rescue, and other "major" issues including earthquake, volcanic or other "natural" disaster relief) to give credence to allocation of resources to ease conditions within the NPS unit in question. Additionally, the Director has the primary responsibility for private sector fundraising activities, acquisition of additional lands as required to maintain the overall health and long-term protection of the system as a whole, and to function as the public "face" or the organization.
2) Speaking of fundraising and how it is planned and executed to maintain a system that is solvent, the following is to be implemented immediately:
The NPS will collect a minimum flat $10 per person "tax" (precise final amount to be determined from actual current fiscal obligations) from every US citizen annually, NO EXCEPTIONS / EXCLUSIONS. EVERY citizen of the US pays, even those who choose to dwell "off shore". This will form the basis for the annual minimum operating budget of $3BB. Additionally, the parks are to be run as a "for profit" business, with SEVERE limitations on overall profitability. Quite obviously, all costs of doing business are to be inclusive in the fee structure charged for lodging, meals, entrance fees, permits, etc. and are to include ALL costs associated for staffing, personnel, equipment, REGLUAR required maintenance on structures, roads, trails, and grounds, and more than I care to include in this post. A detailed investigation of current annual operating expenses specific to current salaries, vehicle costs, building maintenance, road repair, grounds maintenance (e.g. snow removal, landscaping as required to maintain pedestrian and vehicular traffic, etc.) would be undertaken and modifications of entrance and associated fees would be implemented by the end of the first fiscal year of operation.
3) To encourage "private ownership" and pride in our national treasures, the NPS will be allowed to sell stock in the NPS, a kind of personal stewardship in our land. A maximum, or cap on purchasing a designated overall percentage of available shares is too implemented such as to avert the possibility of one person, family, corporation, trust, etc. of gaining a "majority" in the overall Park Service Business. These shares do NOT include a voting right in the general operation of the business unit or the nomination of Board members, Director or Managers. In return for the purchase of stock, to encourage promotion and visitation, dividends will be issued BASED ON ANNUAL PROFITABILITY. The park service will be encouraged to maintain a "percentage over costs" of profit, with a finite dollar volume to be determined, and 100% of those profits are to be returned to the general operating fund. ANY profits over and above the "cap" as stated in the annual allowed budget will be returned as dividends to the shareholders. If profits do not reach their annual allowed cap, no dividend is to be issued.
Example: fees collected from the "citizen tax" and each park unit, if budgeted properly, should allow at a minimum for the continuation of the service as a whole. An attendance rate of say 1-20% over projections makes the system more solvent. And at >21%, portions of the profits are returned to the stockholders, beginning with the first percent over 20.
4) Salaries at the Manager, Board and Director levels are quite meager given the responsibilities with which they are charged, generally <$150K at the Director level. This is indeed more of the "true" public service opportunity. But upon leaving the NPS, WITHOUT the corporate "golden umbrella", your visibility to the private sector would be such that acquisition of the high-6+ figure remuneration position would be almost guaranteed, provided you've shown some level of competency. This differs from our current political system where you actually gain more by being incompetent, hitting the lecture circuit, teaching "How to Circumvent the Law" at universities, going on talk shows and writing a book about your experiences. Or you can go the way of Kenneth Lay and the rest of the Enron buttheads and rot in your country club prison, "not knowing how we're going to get by with just our one $12.5MM house".
Unfortunately, on this thread I can only begin to articulate the overall business plan, but I have factored in more checks and balances to keep any one person from gaining total control and manipulating the system than you might imagine. No one person signs off on anything. An odd-number of regional managers report to an odd-number of general Board members. Each group initially functions within their own group prior to presenting issues to their superiors, such that those in the field know and understand the scope of the entire system just as well as do those up the food chain. The Board Members have the critical responsibility of trying to triage prior to presenting a short-list to the Director. The Director is similar to the current President of the Senate, who is called upon solely to determine issues when voting is hopelessly deadlocked. And even after balloting has been cast on issues, prior to funding being allocated, three signatures are required, one from each level of the management team, and who is chosen to represent the team BY the team, with no fewer than 1 dissenting vote on each level. It sounds more complicated than is it in practice, and at first glance it seems like total gridlock, but I've been involved in something similar in the past, and the tri-level committee functions quite well. What it prevents is any one person or group manipulating the direction of the overall team.
There is much more to discuss along these lines. I know someone's first objection if going to be, "How in hell are we going to get anyone competent and diligent enough to undertake this responsibility for that kind of money?" My initial reply is that SO many of you are absolutely thrilled with your political representatives now, be you Dems or Reps, why would the fiscal concerns bother you? Do you have a clue what Representatives, Senators and the President are paid at the current point in time? How about your governor, state senators and representatives, mayors, etc? Another objection is bound to be,"Geez, this'll take FOREVER to set up." I estimate not more than 2 years, max, from inception, primary "billing" of the public tax thru collection of initial revenues to first issuance of stock certificates. Let's not argue the list of candidates at this juncture for Managers, Board and Director posts. But let's also no longer debate whether or not the general idea is feasible, or whether or not the time has finally come, due to political mismanagement and simply not caring enough to act to protect our public interests, and create the private trust that we, as Americans, deserve and are entitled to protect of heritage and safeguard our future.
Reporting live, from La-La Land...........
I like the idea of having everyone pay a simple $10 tax each year. I would rather pay this than $25 each time I visit a park, and it wouldn't be a huge financial burden on anyone to pay it (ie - eat out one less time or skip your Starbucks once a month).
Anonymous, but, why should we be giving more operational funds for a park like Yellowstone, for instance, that makes such horrible management decisions? Whatever we think about budgets for parks, it doesn't do any good if the parks are mismanaged. And, while I don't really agree with many of the proposals outlined here, at least I understand what is driving them - a sense that the Park Service is making a lot of bad management decisions and that something needs to change.
As for user fees, I totally agree - that all user fees are obnoxious if they are for things really held to be public goods - whether it's for a bus ride or for entering a national park. But, I think that's another discussion. When it comes to user fees and national parks, it's a small issue - the poor are already priced out of most of the crown jewel parks before user fees are ever involved. The issue of user fees, like the issue of park management, can't be treated in isolation from considering other systemic social ills.
Jim Macdonald
The Magic of Yellowstone
Yellowstone Newspaper
Jim's Eclectic World
Jim,
My comment wasn't intended to be about any specific park - just that having every American pay a flat, relatively small tax instead of nailing park visitors sounds like a good idea to me, especially when you consider that there are ~300 million of us, so 10 times that would be nearly $3billion. Add to that the money NPS gets already from Congress, remove the entrance fees and BANG!, you have a pretty sweet funding structure.
Jim-
Allocation of funds for any individual park unit, if you're comments are directed to the manifesto outlined above, wouldn't go directly to a specific unit manager to be misappropriated or mismanaged. Park managers report to regional managers, who have the responsibility of coordinating project requests from their entire sector and presenting these requests to a higher level board, who in conjunction with the regionals, the Director and the CFO triage, based on immediacy of need, available budget, and many other factors, prior to cutting loose any monies to any specific unit. The managers of any particular unit, be they Yellowstone, Grand Canyon, Yosemite, Joshua Tree, Badlands, Petrified Forest, Arches, or any "lesser" unit, are charged solely with making proposals which are placed in the hands of the regional managers. The relative import of each proposal would be determined by a series of "higher ups", from the unit manager level, those who hold responsibility for the health of the system as a whole, not the health of any individual park. This fail safe mechanism is one of the keys to maintaining the function of all the park units equally, rather than having the "popular" units manipulating the lion's share of the funding based, as currently done, largely visitation numbers (i.e. public pressure), political pandering, and private special interests. While virtually no system can place the immediate influx of capital required to eliminate the total maintenance backlog in one fell swoop, at least with this system of prioritizing, done solely from within and free of the external meddling that currently clogs the wheels of progress, those issues that are wrought from conditions that are "dangerous, require immediate attention due to safety concerns and updates that are long overdue" can receive the attention they have deserved for decades and which have been ignored by having people in charge of allocating funding who truly are oblivious or just plain don't give a damn.
While the National Park Service & System is often treated as a political football (to its detriment) by actors & agents external to the system, officials within the Service are themselves highly politicized agents, acting from within. This part of the reality can seem glossed over, but is really a large element of the politicking.
The politics-issue is not just an outsiders-meddling problem, but is also an insiders-agenda problem. The problem of politics and the NPS can be neither accurately described without acknowledging the role of Parks people themselves, nor effectively addressed without doing the same.
[hr]
I expect to see further diversification of the components of the NPS, in accordance with regional and State realities, and ongoing incremental movement away from a monolithic central-Federal model. This trend could be strong enough that the Fed will take steps to secure its role & turf, by 'creating' contexts to emphasize a need for its centralized functions.
Alaska's distinctive arrangements have now proven themselves solidly successful across a meaningful span of time. The examples available for study in the newest components of the Park contain a foment of suggestions applicable to the older components. Pay special attention to the eventual resolution of the State's conflict with the Federal government, over the implementation of ANCSA and ANILCA requirements to support subsistence.
The recent ruling to let Park firearms regulations follow those of the jurisdictions different Parks are located within, is itself an important step toward a local-driven model.
There is the potential for substantial differentiation and local-adaptation of our Park-resources, and in some cases the preparations appear to have been deliberately cultivated over considerable time.
I would not expect this to look like a planned overhaul, but to occur as part of the process of evolution & adaptation that has been a hallmark of the NPS throughout its history.
The beloved paths of the very conservative Grand Canyon National Park, for example, were dynamited from the cliffs ... and they were quite proud of themselves, at the time. History reminds that in living memory Yellowstone had bleachers at the garbage dump, seating for tourists to watch as the Park systematically feed garbage to several hundred bears often brawling in the refuse...
Although there has been an ebb & flow to periods of change in our Parks, my sense is that the system has been malleable all along ... right down to the present. There are needs & improvements aplenty to address, but whether this amounts to a crisis is less clear.