You are here

Guest Column: Where's The Vision For Properly Funding The National Park System?

Share

As a historian of the national parks, I followed with interest stories of how the government shutdown – thankfully concluded now – played out in the parks.

From World War II vets “storming” their D.C. memorial, to the private operator of Blue Ridge Parkway’s Pisgah Inn resisting closure in leaf season, to visitors complaining about canceled weddings and wrecked vacations, to state governments rescuing Grand Canyon, Mt. Rushmore and the Statue of Liberty, the parks garnered attention during the shutdown that they rarely get in regular times.

The boisterous public and political pressure for park access seems, at first glance, to validate the common perception (supported by poll data) that the national parks are one rare thing people across party lines agree on.

As lead author of a 2011 study “Imperiled Promise,” which documented problems created by longstanding underfunding of Park Service history programs, I hoped the closures were galvanizing support for public reinvestment in our parks as we approach their 100th birthday in 2016.

But the situation did not produce a clear consensus. Many of my colleagues rallied to NPS’s support, but fellow historian Larry Cebula pointed out that the closures also fed right-wing attacks on the Park Service. The National Review Online vilified rangers as “Park Service Paramilitaries.” In a tense House hearing titled As Difficult As Possible: The National Park Service’s Implementation of the Government Shutdown, Republican congressmen scolded NPS Director Jonathan Jarvis for his handling of the shutdown, while focusing on minor issues like tickets given to joggers running in the closed Valley Forge National Historical Park.

For me, the shutdown called to mind historian Bernard DeVoto’s 1953 Harper’s article, Let’s Close the National Parks.

In DeVoto’s era, the traveling public was “loving the parks to death” while parks funding remained anemic. The irreplaceable parks should be shuttered, DeVoto argued, until the federal government funded them adequately.

The mere specter of closed parks struck a chord. In short order, Eisenhower’s Republican administration crafted the 10-year, $1 billion Mission 66 program that upgraded park facilities in time for the Park Service’s 50th birthday in 1966.

But in 2013, the parks did close. And while people who love them and communities whose economies rely on them pleaded for them to be reopened, it remains to be seen whether closure will produce a groundswell of public support for increased funding.

To ensure that it does, we need to look carefully at who said what during the shutdown.

To my knowledge, Republican calls to reopen the parks were accompanied by no vision to address the parks’ severe (decades long) underfunding. Instead, those demands were wrapped in attacks on the Park Service itself – whose rangers were told that they should “be ashamed” for keeping the public out of the parks.

Meanwhile, commentators on the left noticed that the state leaders busily moving funds to open parks (such as Arizona’s Grand Canyon) were the same ones who initially stopped welfare payments in their states during the shutdown.

These observations remind us that many political leaders who cried the loudest for re-opening the parks are not reliable friends of the parks. They are not advocates of a robust notion of a “public good” that under-girds the park idea, nor protectors of parks’ resources, nor allies of visitors from all walks of life who clamor for access to them. They are demagogues who cynically used the parks’ popularity and patriotic symbolism for political gain while repeatedly kicking an agency that was already down.

This is no way for America to treat its Park Service on the eve of its centennial. It is the Republican Party – whose (Theodore) Rooseveltian fore-bearers created many of the early national parks – that should be ashamed. Meanwhile, those of us who love our parks must recognize that the greatest threat to them lies in the systematic demolition of our nation’s public sector. In coming days, we should watch vigilantly for those efforts to intensify, building on hyperbolic tales of “Park Service mismanagement” during the shutdown.

Park supporters should redouble our efforts to build a country in which reliable long-term investment in our parks is part of a broader recommitment to our nation’s public interest. A good starting point could be immediate action on a Mission 2016 national parks investment plan that can assure that our national parks always remain protected, staffed, maintained, enhanced – and open and accessible – for the benefit of all who look to them for economic survival, inspiration, education, recreation and renewal.

Anne Mitchell Whisnant is a historian with long experience writing about the National Park Service. Her essay appeared first in the News and Observer of Raleigh, North Carolina.

Featured Article

Comments

Just a different point of view on government hiring:

I have worked in HR and budgeting for a government entity. We had two kinds of budget for personnel: hard/line budget and soft budget.

The hard/line budget was allocated every year. We had a number of lines which corresponded to the number of full-time permanent employees. Occasionally, we would be given a new line. A couple of times, our number of lines was reduced. When we were given a new line, we could hire a full time employee with benefits. When we lost a line, we couldn't fill an open position and permanently gave up the line. With hard/line hiring, final hiring approval came from above. We were allowed to note our preferences but the final word for who was hired was handed down to us.

The soft budget was not allocated. We could use it for almost anything and often used it for temporary and/or contract personnel. These people did not have to go through the same hiring process as the hard line people did; the approval was from within our department rather than outside it. The positions were generally limited in duration and benefits. Depending on the contract, some worked six months at a time and were renewed (usually but not always), some worked one year and their contract ended. Often, people hired using the soft budget were not hireable on the hard budget due to lack of specific qualifications. Occasionally, we had a temporary person apply for a permanent position. Their time in the position did not necessarily make them better qualified for the position.

We liked our seasonal/contract/temporary employees so much, we often kept them for years. Had we been able to use them to fill full-time permanent positions, we would have. However, often constraints with the available budget and how it was allocated made that impossible.

It isn't always the case that government entities are trying to get around paying benefits. The way the system is configured makes hiring temporary/contract labor our only method of filling necessary positions.


Perceptional Seasonal. I am with you on this one except for one minor point, I think it is a mistake to personally attack NPS Director Jarvis, assumptions on the character of an individual are troubling without solid evidence to back them up. It is better, in my view, to stick to the issue which in this case I am in agreement, for what its worth. It is important to review the history of the 1930's and the reasons for the Fair Labor Standards Act, and other labor laws that have followed including the recent Lily Ledbetter Act. PJ Ryan did an excellent op-ed on the book "Intern Nation". The author of Intern Nation brings up many points related to the situations a NPS seasonal contends with. It is probably going to take some law suits, just as are beginning to occur with interns in corporate and governmental work situations, to get things turned around. I have no problem with ECs position, that is of course, based on the premise that both parties are following the labor laws of the USA.


that both parties are following the labor laws of the USA.

Totally agree that both parties should follow the laws. Personally, I think many of the labor laws are wrong and a major impediment to our economy, but the law is the law.

But then, why would you go work for someone that you know is breaking the law?


Which labor laws do you find so oppressive? Agreeing to rehire veterans after they serve their reserve call-up? Paying overtime for over hours? Child labor laws?


rmackie, I have been concerned that mentioning Jarvis might distract from the simple point that violation of personnel regulations to avoid the cost of permanent employees in the NPS is rampant, but I have criticized Jarvis because he has to know this goes on and I have seen him do nothing about it; because he has instituted programs that bypass experienced, dedicated, temporary staff in favor of people who have to be talked into working for the NPS (they would call it outreach) ; for the way his refusal to enforce the rule of law for four months during Occupy DC made him look like he favored extremist political groups, and for how he had done nothing about the cult like shoot the messenger atmosphere that has led to the persecution of whistleblowers --in fact he has promoted and protected those who carried out the persecution.


Perpetual Seasonal, I am certainly no expert on this issue. I have observed many of practices you are alluding to recently on my fire assignments. As dahkota pointed out in an informative email, it is a very complicated process. Just reading some statistics on federal employment the last 5 years, almost 750,000 government positions have been eliminated. There has been nothing like the down sizing of the Federal Government since before the election of President Reagan. The private sector is not doing that well either, 71% of the jobs created (according to some labor department statistics), the last 5 years, (if my stats are correct), are service industry positions, mostly minimum wage jobs. Most american manufacturing jobs, once top paying working positions, now reside in other nations. Apple computer a good example and I love my apple computers. I recommend Intern Nation as a book worth reading, it will explain, at least from the authors point of view, many of the frustrations you maybe experiencing. The NPS Director along with agency management personnel throughout the federal government are all faced with some very tough choices. This is an interesting discussion, as the seasonal NPS employee, and I count many among my friends, are essential to the NPS mission, at least in my opinion.


Perpetual Seasonal, please excuse the multiple posts, I was thinking of of the three seasons I spent with the California Department of Fish and Game after my retirement from the NPS. The more I think of the plight of the NPS seasonal, it brought to mind the benefits of working for the State of California Resource Agency. We not only had the opportunity to sign up for health care through the state but could pay into the Calpers retirement system, Getting permanent was hard but possible. Being retired, I already had health and retirement, did not pursue permanent status, so I opted out. You might want to research California Resource Agency Seasonal positions and use them in your approach to the NPS seasonal employment issue.


greeing to rehire veterans after they serve their reserve call-up? Paying overtime for over hours? Child labor laws?

Those weren't the specific ones I was thinking of though I think overtime shouldn't be up to the government. Minimum wage is probably the most destructive and the protections for strikers would be another that I would object to. Licensing requirements are often overly burdensom and unnecessary as are many work place rules. The corporate mandate of Obamacare is another burden. Tax rules are also a major impediment to employment and economic growth. The list, unfortunately, is nearly endless.

[edit] Oh, and I forgot many of the environmental laws that are a substantial burden with little if any positive benefit.


Add comment

CAPTCHA

This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.

The Essential RVing Guide

The Essential RVing Guide to the National Parks

The National Parks RVing Guide, aka the Essential RVing Guide To The National Parks, is the definitive guide for RVers seeking information on campgrounds in the National Park System where they can park their rigs. It's available for free for both iPhones and Android models.

This app is packed with RVing specific details on more than 250 campgrounds in more than 70 parks.

You'll also find stories about RVing in the parks, some tips if you've just recently turned into an RVer, and some planning suggestions. A bonus that wasn't in the previous eBook or PDF versions of this guide are feeds of Traveler content: you'll find our latest stories as well as our most recent podcasts just a click away.

So whether you have an iPhone or an Android, download this app and start exploring the campgrounds in the National Park System where you can park your rig.