Is it appropriate for the National Park Service to transform portions of the prison on Alcatraz Island into a cabaret with scantily clad dancers, all in the name of luring younger generations to the parks? Should corporations be allowed to rent out portions of parks -- at no profit -- for lavish parties? These are hot-button topics to some, but elicit a shrug of the shoulder from others.
Within recent weeks there have been at least two "special events" in the national park system. I say "at least" because there's no way to say how many might have been held without calling each of the 391 units, as the NPS's Washington headquarters does not track these events or sign-off on them.
These two events were parties, complete with alcohol, music, and good times for those invited. One, at Alcatraz Island in Golden Gate National Recreation Area, was staged to benefit Toyota's San Francisco Bay area Scion owners. The other was across the country at the Charlestown Navy Yard, part of the Boston National Historical Park, and commemorated the end of a conference held by McKesson Corporation, a Fortune 500 (No. 18, actually) health-care company.
They've generated controversy on these pages because some folks are angry over how units of the national park system are being managed. Others say the Park Service should stage such events if they bring in dollars to help with the parks' upkeep. Still others say the parks should be available for folks to enjoy themselves in such fashion, and others say the Park Service could learn from the non-profits that run such places as Mount Vernon and Monticello.
While some parks turn to such events to help raise money -- the contract BNHP has with Amelia Occasions, the event organizer that brought the McKesson party to the Navy Yard, calls for Amelia to plow some money back into the Commandant's House -- others allow events because groups like to use the parks as a backdrop for various occasions.
Indeed, Golden Gate each year averages right around 1,000 special events at its many venues, from weddings and film projects to marathons and music festivals.
While some certainly seem fitting -- the Wolf Trap National Park for the Performing Arts would be oddly silent without its concerts, operas, and children's theater -- others can seem oddly out of place, such as the Alcatraz and McKesson parties, for reasons I'll get into in a minute.
Then, too, there are concerns that problems can creep into the park system with the private bashes staged on public property. Those concerns range from the threat that continued commercialization and special events will transform the parks, both subtly and not so subtly, into something they were never intended to be, to the very question of what's appropriate.
Take a good look at the accompanying picture (You can find others here). and ask yourself whether Alcatraz, once used to incarcerate 19 members of the Hopi Tribe because they refused to be "Americanized," and long a maximum security prison, is an appropriate venue for such a production. To get an even better of what transpired, check out the YouTube feed found on this page. Pay close attention and you'll hear one of the participants in the "art gallery" questioning the location: "We're having this celebration out here where so many people suffered. It's hard."
Even the folks at Golden Gate admit the "performance art" dance by the Vau de Vire Society, portions of which some might consider sexually suggestive, if not mildly obscene, staged in the prison's infirmary is controversial. But they don't think it was too much for Alcatraz Island, a venerable unit of the national park system, one whose stories revolve around pain, suffering and misery.
"From what I've been able to gather from some of the messages that we got, people thought the dance routine was too much, had too many burlesque elements," Rudy Evenson, Golden Gate's chief of special park uses, told me.
"There may be elements that pushed people's envelopes," agreed Rich Weideman, the park's public affairs chief. "But I can tell you that we did an out-briefing of this event with our superintendent. He is very, very much in support of events like because of the very reason this park was created was to attract urban audiences into the national park system.
"The bulk of these people had never set foot on Alcatraz, nor very few even knew the national park area existed in and around the Golden Gate. This is the core of our future potential audience for the National Park Service. Not necessarily party people, but young, diverse communities. "
Is it so important to attract Gen-Xers and Gen-Yers to the parks that they have to be lured with elaborate parties that don't really mesh -- at least in the case of Alcatraz, a National Historic Landmark -- with the backdrop and tramp upon the solemnity of the setting? You have to wonder if the 750 Gen-Xers and Gen-Yers who attended the event were impressed with Alcatraz itself or the nubile dancers, the fashion show staged in the shower room, the related art show, and the free drinks.
True, there was some park interpretation, but...did it stick?
"For all the events the Park Service permits on Alcatraz Island, we require that as part of the permit the event include an educational component," said Mr. Evenson. "So, for example, we had a park ranger who gave a talk about the clothing-issue area in the shower room and how prisoners were processed there as an introduction to the ecologically friendly fashion show that was part of this event."
Across the country, I can't tell you exactly how the folks at Boston National Historical Park felt about the McKesson party, as, after my initial contact, they haven't returned my phone calls. I do understand, though, that upwards of 50 complaints were received the night of the event and that higher-ups in the Park Service's regional and national offices have been looking into the event and the agreement with Amelia Occasions.
There is some concern that the Park Service's tight budgets are forcing park superintendents to become more entrepreneurial in how they manage their units. While being more business-like in terms of watching the bottom line is welcome, pushing the limits of how the overall business is run can lead to questionable decisions.
Rick Smith, a long-tenured NPS employee whose career took him from field locations to the Washington headquarters and included a stint as associate regional director for natural and cultural resources in the Park Service's Southwest Office, worried about a "new breed" of park managers in a story published last fall by CQ Researcher.
Overtime, Park Service veterans are beginning to worry that tight budgets and political pressures are producing a "not very attractive" evolutionary change in park managers, Mr. Smith told the publication. Now an official can rise through the Park Service ranks "if your park makes money because you're able to collect fees or you're a great fund-raiser, or if your park has a congressman or congresswoman on an appropriations committee you get palsy-walsy with," he says. "I would prefer a park manager who has real dedication to preserving and protecting the resource.
While the National Parks Conservation Association so far has been silent on the issue, that's not the case with the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees. Bill Wade, who chairs the group's executive council, quickly questioned the propriety of the two events.
"These are likely to be instances that test the purpose and intent of the NPS Management Policies. While I’m sure that one can find specific permission in the Policies to justify these kinds of events, there are also provisions that would argue against them," he told me. "It comes down to the intent of the policies (and law) and the judgment of the authorizing superintendents. In these two instances, the judgment was faulty because the events clearly degrade the purposes for which the units were established."
At the Park Service's Washington headquarters, Lee Dickinson, the agency's program manager for special park uses, had no personal knowledge of either event. Nor would she express an opinion on whether the events were appropriate for the two settings.
And yet, Director's Order 53 clearly states that superintendents should not grant a special use permit if an event is "contrary to the purposes for which the park was established" or will "unreasonably impair the atmosphere of peace and tranquility maintained in wilderness, natural, historic, or commemorative locations within the park."
"Obviously, the superintendent decided that it was an appropriate use," Ms. Dickinson said in regard to the use of the Charlestown Navy Yard for a corporate party with an invitation list that numbered 3,500.
Now here's a kicker: the Park Service nets no profit from allowing special events on its grounds. Legally, all it's allowed to charge is "cost recovery" for overtime paid to rangers assigned to the event and any costs associated with the permitting process and managerial work, such as having maintenance crews outline where underground utilities and irrigation lines are so they aren't damaged by such things as stakes used to guy out tents.
In the case of the Alcatraz party, the FlavorGroup that arranged the affair for Toyota paid the Park Service a total of $23,000 -- $10,000 for administrative cost recovery and around $13,000 for management costs. The 750 party goers were not charged the normal $2 fee for setting foot on Alcatraz.
Comments
Kurt y'all are doing a great job of offering a ground breaking website to further much needed dialogue. It is much appreciated. Where can I send a contribution? Remember I'm a free market capitalist and would love to voluntarily support your efforts with a free will offering of monetary support.
On a separate tangent I have noticed that hardly any of the contributors to these discussions are actual employees of the NPS. Or at least they have not identified themselves as such. A pity because this website provides a rare opportunity for park professionals to exchange information and ideas that is badly needed in that closed off and insular agency. If any organization could use the doors to be opened to let in some fresh air it is the NPS!
Again I appreciate what you and Jeremy are doing and believe that most of the readers of this website are very glad you are in cyberspace.
Beamis, your comments are much appreciated. As for donating to the cause, we're not quite ready to go down that road, but that day might not be far off so stay tuned.
As for NPS folks and this site, quite a few across the system read it on a regular basis. Understandably, I believe some feel it would be risky to comment directly, and identifiably, on this site. I do believe they've taken a pledge not to undermine the service, though I could be wrong. We certainly welcome comments from active NPS staff and believe there are many non-controversial posts to which their thoughts would add a lot of insight and helpful information.
That said, it's entirely possibly that there are some nom de plumes out there.
Frank,
I be quite cynical concerning the way the NPS is managing parks, but the NPS has NOT "failed miserably" as you suggest.
Let's provide the entire sentence of The Organic Act which establishes the "mission" of the NPS: "The service thus established shall promote and regulate the use of the Federal areas known as national parks, monuments, and reservations hereinafter specified by such means and measures as conform to the fundamental purposes of the said parks, monuments, and reservations, which purpose is to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wildlife therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations."
This Act was signed in 1916. WE are the future generation, and we, by the millions, enjoy our parks which are well protected, despite the myriad of use and developement controversies we are discussing here.
Let's pull out a few verbs...PROMOTE, REGULATE, CONSERVE, PROVIDE FOR THE ENJOYMENT, LEAVE UNIMPAIRED...the mission paradox implied by these verbs is now a cliche. And certainly the NPS fails in little and sometimes not so little ways every day, but the NPS has not "failed miserably" at its mission. And when it does fail, those mistakes are made in the "provide for the enjoyment" arena as much as they are made in the "to conserve and leave unimpaired" arena.
To say that these parties and such are "totally out of character" with the NPS mission is sophomoric thinking. Alas, if only these decisions were that simple.
It's a pity the agency does not have the Haunted Hiker as its current director, God love her.
I too vote for Haunted Hiker as Director! Let's start a campaign :)
She's got it absolutely right, we ARE the future generation the Organic Act is talking about. We were given a special gift with a simple set of instructions. All we need to do is pass the gift of the parks on to the next generation in the same or better condition as it was given to us. Art Allen said something similar in his comments earlier in this thread -
Simple, right? When the "mission" describes providing for the enjoyment of the resources, I don't think the authors of the Organic Act had the type of corporate parties that took place at Alcatraz and the Charleston Naval Yard in mind. Scion and McKesson totally transformed these places into their own corporate playgrounds. I can appreciate that 'enjoyment of the resource' can mean different things for different people, but in the case of both parties, the resource was literally used as a billboard for corporate promotion. If that isn't out of character with the mission, it should be.
Kurt,
Thank you for covering the issues you mentioned (OHVs, snowmobiles, etc.). My comment was based on the articles on currently on the front page, and for that snapshot in time there didn't seem to be more than one or two articles with a primary focus on preservation. I'm not saying you're not doing a good job; I was just wondering: 1) Why there haven't been more articles on preservation (I appreciate the latest); and 2) Why do the readers of this blog get more outraged at parties in prisons and shipyards and a perceived lack of diversity in park visitation than environmental degradation (as evidenced by the number of reads/comments)? Is it because fighting booze and dancers in parks is somehow sexier than fighting to preserve wildness and natural settings?
Haunted Hiker,
Your comment is addressed to me, but I'd like to point out that I didn't make the "sophomoric" statement that "corporate parties totally out of character with the mission the Park Service".
That is your opinion. My opinion is that it has failed miserably in leaving places unimpaired. There are countless examples in NPS (mis)management history where leaders could (should, in my opinion) have chosen to leave areas unimpaired, but instead they chose to provide for the enjoyment of people (those too lazy or too busy to walk). The Kolob Canyon Road in ZION, which obliterated the wilderness character of that part of the park, is an excellent example. Here's a big impairment: fire suppression; things are so out of whack, it'll take decades, maybe centuries, to return fire-dependent ecosystems to a more natural state. Thanks to NPS (mis)management, many predators were hunted to extinction, and extinction, to me, is a HUGE impairment. Sewage and gas spills at Crater Lake? Check. Introducing fish to Crater Lake? Check.
Stephen Mather said, "The primary duty of the National Park Service is to protect the national parks…and keep them as nearly in their natural state as this can be done in view of the fact that access to them must be provided in order that they may be used and enjoyed." Mather recognized that it is important to allow appropriate access to the parks, but it is of utmost importance to protect them. (THE PRIMARY MISSION IS TO LEAVE PARKS UNIMPAIRED.)
And what is appropriate access? In the early 20th century, the official stance of the DOI was that no automobiles would be allowed in the national parks. Early Yellowstone superintendents argued that allowing cars into the park would be "criminal". But the NPS built thousands of miles of roads and thousands of buildings, and in the process the natural sound scape, air quality, and wild character were permanently impaired.
So, yeah, given my experience, my bias, I think the NPS failed to leave parks unimpaired. I understand that many see roads, cars, buildings as "improvements", not impairments. But to me, someone who would like to experience Crater Lake in silence as it was experienced 100 years ago, these are impairments.
And before people go off saying I want to lock up the parks and prevent access, that's not what I'm advocating. There any many forms of access, and easy access by car should not be so pervasive and extensive.
Sorry for going off topic.
Excellent points Frank. I used to do an evening program about the fact that the NPS was probably the greatest scenic road building organization in world history. A short list of famous pavement ribbons brought to you by NPS planners: the Zion-Mt. Carmel Hwy., Going to the Sun Road, Blue Ridge Parkway, Natchez Trace, George Washington Parkway, Tioga Road, and the Rockefeller Parkway. Then there are the elaborately engineered roads without famous names that penetrate the wilderness of Yellowstone, Rocky Mountain, Canyonlands, Crater Lake, Colorado N.M., Great Smoky Mountains, Capitol Reef, Lassen Volcanic and Death Valley just to name a few. If there is DEFINITE legacy of the NPS it is scenic highway construction.
I absolutely do not support privatization of the parks, either in the overt hand-it-over variety, or in the fascistic corporate/government partnerships (closer to Mussolini's definition of fascism) that have always been a part of park history.
However, even worse to me are stories like the one I'm about to post in the Jackson Hole News & Guide.
http://www.jhguide.com/article.php?art_id=2009 - Jets to fly by Tetons
http://www.jhguide.com/article.php?art_id=2022 - Angels draw crowds, roar over Jackson Hole
The Blue Angels roared passed the Tetons yesterday. Part of that was a photo op in front of the Tetons, which presumably will help with what the Angels do, which is military recruiting. I think this is disgusting. The sound first of all is deafening. Last summer, when I was hiking the Mt. Washburn spur trail, and the day before when I was hiking the nearby Seven Mile Hole trail, I heard the deafening roar of low flying fighter jets. The hikes were otherwise solitary. I saw hikers only once during those two days, but the boom of the jets let me know that I was living an illusion. I can only imagine what else it does, even for only a horrible moment, to the land around it. And, for what? To sell the military industrial complex? The very thing that drains money away from the poor of New Orleans, the parks, and keeps us focused on being afraid than on how better to live with each other and the land. It's disgusting to me. It doesn't even raise money for the parks. It's bad enough that there's that damn commercial airport in Grand Teton National Park.
I don't think we should frame this debate about private v. public; we shouldn't frame it as how to raise money for the parks given their budget shortfalls. It should be about the absolute absurdity of parks in the world we live in; how can any sane person look at this world and not think we've all gone completely nuts. It was nuts when French trappers were destroying beaver, strange when an oil tycoon was secretly buying up land to give to the government to protect the valley of Jackson Hole. It's no less strange now to have Blue "Angels" ripping through the sky so that they can sell their death machines with the Tetons in the background.
Jim Macdonald
The Magic of Yellowstone
Yellowstone Newspaper
Jim's Eclectic World