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

What is proper funding for the NPS?

In my nearly 30 years of Federal government service; 1st in the military, then with DOD, and the majority of my time with the NPS, I have yet to meet an employee who was overpaid, nor a program manager, division chief or park superintendent that didn't need more staff, more resources or more $$$ to get the job done.

I honestly do not know what full or proper funding means. Is it funding to fill every vacant position on an org chart, or cure all deferred maintenance in the NPS, survey plants in the an area of the park closed to visitors? Is it more money for National Heritage Areas, and Wild and Scenic Rivers, and new park service units supported by well connected and vocal political and special interests?

Given the realities of the nation's finances, we would be better served setting priorities for the funding we do have, rather than lamenting that we are not "properly" funded. It is time to focus on the need to do, rather than the nice to do.

With the NPS Centennial just around the corner it might be time for the NPS to return to its roots and get back to basics.

* Everyone is a Park Ranger first. Staff needs to be multi-functional, cross-trained and willing to work across the full spectrum of park operations . In essence, reverse the trend in overspecialization. Yes, there is a need for specialists, just not sure they should be a the park level or even in the NPS for that matter. Partnerships with Universities, shared positions with BLM, USFS, other Federal agencies, State parks, contracting with private industry, etc.

* Flatten the organization; eliminate overhead. NPS is too top heavy. How many deputies, associates and assistant directors at the WASO and regional levels do we need? This isn't unique to the NPS. Just look at the US military - more flag/general officers now with less than 3 million Active/guard/reserve service members than we had with 12+ million men under arms at the end of WWII. Personnel and resources should be reassigned to the parks.

* At the park level, it may be time for the NPS to abandon the traditional, stove-piped, park division structure in favor of a more operationally responsive and flexible organization.

* Reverse grade inflation - Many postions in the NPS are overgraded. When position descriptions are sent to the HROC for classification, typically after the retirement of a long-term employee, many positions are coming back at a lower grade. GS-14 positions are coming back as GS-13s; and GS-12s are coming back as GS-11s or 9s.

* Remove or lessen self-imposed NPS restrictions on uses of FLREA, 152/tour tickets, visitor use, concession franchise fees, and project funds; with goal of providing more flexibility at the field level.

* Review NPS Director's Orders and Management Policies with the goal of reducing/streamlining the bureaucracy. The NPS is enamored with, and in many instances, paralyzed by its own processes. Whether its NEPA, NHPA, planning, resource studies, GMPs, foundation documents, etc., just one more study, one more survey, one more meeting and then we can proceed. Enough process for process's sake.

* As a agency, and as an idea, the NPS has been loved to death and in many ways is a victim of its own success. A comprehensive review of all NPS units should be undertaken with the goal of transferring/removing units that don't make the grade. I am not going to single out any particular units. Everyone can come up with their short list of units that may have value but don't belong in the NPS. Before anyone jumps off the deep end, I know the NPS didn't ask for nor support many of these congressional designations. However, as an agency the NPS is remiss in its duties if it doesn't at least voice its concerns on a recurring basis.

Anyway, just some thoughts from the trenches. Would I like to see more funding? Yes. In the meantime, we have a mission to accomplish and there is plenty that can be done within the current funding and organizational structure to get the job done.


, I have yet to meet an employee who was overpaid, nor a program manager, division chief or park superintendent that didn't need more staff, more resources or more $$$ to get the job done.

Maybe if their staff showed up, they would be able to get more done.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/ali-meyer/bls-gov-t-workers-absent-50-mo...


Thanks ec,

Here are the stats from the CNSnews article if anyone is interested:

In 2012, according to BLS, private sector workers missed 1.4 percent of their usual work hours as a result of absences and government workers missed 2.1 percent of their usual work hours becasuse of absences. Thus, government workers missed 50 percent more of their usual work hours as a result of absences than private-sector workers did..

At 2080 hrs per year, comes out to be 30 hours missed annually by private sector employees and 43 hours missed annually by government employees.


Brutusman - Do you think the difference in work ethic only shows up in hours of absense?

Oh, and you missed the meet of the article: 4% were absense every week.

In 2012, according to BLS, 4.0 percent of government workers reported being absent from work in the typical reference week compared to 2.9 percent of private-sector workers. -


Hard to infer a lot based on the information in the article. For example, reasons for absence included illness, taking care of a family member or transportation problems. Did the population of private sector workers include those whose employer grants little or no time off for such reasons? If so, those employees will likely show up to work, sick or not - or send their kids to school, even if sick, because mom can't take any time off work. There have been some news stories covering the problems with spread of flu and other illness just for that reason. I know people in the private sector in such situations.

How much of the 43 hours a year off work for those reasons was vacation time the employee chose to use for those purposes, rather than for vacation? I have friends who use all their vacation time helping aging parents with needs.

How significant is the extra 13 hours a year (out of 2080 hours for a typical full-time employee) for a government vs. private sector employee?

Nice fodder for discussion, but maybe not much else, without more details.


How significant is the extra 13 hours a year

Its not just 13 hrs. That is the subset Brutus chose. It was 4% absense per week. All the "excuses" you offered would be just as valid for a private sector employee yet on the whole, they weren't absent as often by a significant amount. And if they (government employees) are absent 38% more what does that say about their work ethic? Are they 38% less productive when they do show up for work?

The answer isn't always "more money". In fact it seldom is. If Coburn's numbers are accurate ( and I haven't seen anyone contribute info that says it isn't), I would think you would be as appauled as anyone else that 1/2 the funding never gets to the parks. If you want more funding, as I do, we need to 1) improve the economy so there are more available funds and 2) convince people their money is being spent wisely - by spending their money wisely.


It is not what I chose, it is what BLS reported according on CNS. The 1.4 and 2.1 figures cited are the aggregate of all time absent for other than vacation/leave. Regardless it still comes out to a difference of 13 hours.

I did not come here to discuss BLS stats, but to comment on the concept of "full" or "proper" NPS funding. Since it seems that most folks rather quibble about 30 v 43 hours of sick time per year. I'll guess I'll go back to lurking.

Thanks


It isn't just a negatively phrased "work ethic". I know federal employees with an excellent work ethic who breath a sigh of relief because they now have sick leave. Because they now don't have to work ill and make everyone else ill. They can now legitimately take a day of leave to care for a sick loved one, where in the private sector they had no such benefits. It isn't all wonderful for the worker in that glorious private sector, ya know? And "feeding at the government trough" isn't all glory and easy sliding.


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.