Earlier this week we had a spirited discussion into whether the National Park Service needs to add a site to honor Cesar Chavez, who orchestrated the farm labor movement in the 1960s. That discussion nips at a larger question: Has Congress led the Park Service astray and turned it into a catchall agency?
When the National Park Service Organic Act was passed in 1916, it stated that this new agency would oversee "parks, monuments, and reservations, which purpose is to conserve the
scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wild life 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."
Indeed, that act specifically stated that units of the park system be of "like character" as those in the system in 1916: Yellowstone, Yosemite, Sequoia, Hot Springs, Mount Rainier, Crater Lake, Wind Cave, Mesa Verde, Glacier, Rocky Mountain, and Lassen Volcanic.
Now, of course, a debate can be kindled over what exactly the founders meant when they listed "historic objects" in that act. But did they really intend for the "Park" Service to be given management of presidential birthplaces, a roundhouse full of steam locomotives, a museum honoring First Ladies, or World War II detention centers?
And what about military parks and battlefields? Many started out in the War Department and later were given to the Park Service.
Is a housecleaning in order, not to debate the value of some of these properties, but rather to bring the Park Service's current mission and management responsibilities back in line with the Organic Act?
Comments
Issues associated with the National Park Service are really no different than those found in the evolution of any idea or organization over time. There's no question the NPS began with a superb idea of the preservation and use of the nation's best natural and cultural gems. When the agency was created, the sites were the "best of the best." But almost from the beginning, congressional intentions began to dilute the quality through "mission creep." Huge executive expansions during the FDR years and during the '60s and '7os added to the trend. I'm sure readers have heard about expansions in the last generation coming so fast the method was jokingly referred to as as the "park of the month" approach. Similarly, we've head the idea that "every state needs one" or "every congressional district needs one." How could the NPS NOT become a catchall! And through all this I doubt there's been one single budget year since Mission 66 (1956-66) where funding matched real needs.
Yes, I think the agency is in serious need of a housecleaning. Start by seriously tightening criteria for inclusion. Aim for the best of the best once more. Focus on greatness, both good and bad. Site development associated with contemorary persons or events should be delayed --for example, 50 years for National Register listing--to insure significance value. Focus on NATIONAL significance and unity, and beware of the recent trends toward diversity and political correctness and the creation of "victim" resources that separate Americans.
As we approach the centennial of the NPS in 2016, it is going to be very interesting to see how the agency manages its 500 units during a stagnant if not declining economy. It is not out of the question that closing parks of "lesser value" will become a reality as scarce Federal dollars--mostly borrowed--are diverted to essential uses. If that occurs, we will finally see what parts of the mission really matter.
"Victim resources that separate Americans?" Perhaps the most ridiculous statement I've ever read.
Does Manzanar NHS "separate Americans" by memorializing the astounding racial injustice perpetrated upon Japanese-Americans? Does Women's Rights NHP "separate Americans" by preserving the groundbreaking struggle of women to secure equal and full citizenship?
If so, then does not Arlington House also "separate Americans" by honoring a traitor to his country who fought to maintain a brutally racist system of slavery?
I work almost entirely on the natural resources side, but I think that cultural resources and cultural units are equally important in preserving our heritage for the enjoyment of this and future generations. However, what is valuable culturally and historically is much more contentious than what is valuable in terms of natural resources (CAHA notwithstanding).
I personally agree with Travis: Manzanar is an important part of our history and culture, and I hope to get back there to hear some of the oral histories from people (citizens) who were interred there. Similarly, I want to understand what happened at Little Bighorn, I don't want to be "united" around glorifying only Custer any more than I want to be unified by a one-sided interpretation of Gettysburg. I want to learn the big picture about the what and why of Fort Larimie as well as the day to day life of the residents.
As far as funding goes, I agree with the line I've heard: NPS has a mission to die for and a budget that kills us. That said, I also see that the budgets for smaller cultural parks are very small, with more hours put in by unpaid volunteers than by (often overqualified/underpaid) federal workers.
Travis, thank you for making my point.