Editor's note: Harry Butowsky spent 36 years working for the National Park Service as an historian. In the following op-ed, he outlines concerns he has with the current direction the National Park Service is being taken.
As we begin 2015, which marks the 99th year since the establishment of the National Park Service and National Park System, some troubling trends are more and more apparent. A short review of recent articles should give everyone who supports our parks reason to pause and think about the future.
For example, a recent article in National Parks Traveler, Mount Rainier National Park's Staffing Woes Impact Winter Fun at Paradise, deserves notice. According to this article: "One of the busiest weeks of winter has brought heavy snows to Mount Rainier National Park in Washington state, but staffing woes have closed the sledding and snow play areas at Paradise, frustrating locals and businesses in the areas close to the Nisqually Entrance in the park's southwestern corner."
In addition, a recent press release from the National Parks and Conservation Association stated the following: "The National Park System has been damaged by compounded budget cuts over recent years. The October 2013 16-day government shutdown came on top of a long-term pattern of declining budgets followed by the damaging and indiscriminate across-the-board sequester cut. This pattern threatens the long-term protection of our national treasures and the countless local economies that depend on American families and international visitors having a safe and inspiring experience."
The simple fact of the matter is that the defense authorization bill, recently signed by President Obama, creates seven new national parks and expands nine existing parks, adding roughly 120,000 acres to the park system. The legislation, however, provides no additional funding for the expansion.
These stories raise an obvious question. How long can the nation continue to expand the National Park System and not fund our existing and new parks to the minimum level that the American people deserve and the resources require? When will we reach the breaking point, or perhaps are we there now? Parks are popular and important but what is the meaning of our National Park System when we have so many parks that they cannot be managed and supported? Can we continue to expand our system of national parks forever with no comparable increase in staffing and funding to operate and maintain those parks?
These reports are issued and then forgotten. They go nowhere because they do not represent serious consideration and hard thinking about how many parks we need and how many we can manage in the current fiscal climate.
This is a question that those of us who support the National Park System need to address. This is the question that the National Park Service should address. Over the past several years we have had been many reports and proposals on how to manage the future of the National Park System. Several reports over the last 10 years have provided a vision for the Service’s second century. A Call to Action (2011); America’s Great Outdoors: A Promise to Future Generations (2011); the National Parks Second Century Commission Report, Advancing the National Park Idea (2009); and The Future of America’s National Parks (the Centennial Report, 2007). These reports are issued and then forgotten. They go nowhere because they do not represent serious consideration and hard thinking about how many parks we need and how many we can manage in the current fiscal climate.
Today, the National Park Service lacks the leadership it needs to survive and prosper in today's fiscal climate. The management of the National Park Service lacks the will and insight needed to make the important decisions that will address the lack of resources needed to maintain our parks.
The problems of today are not difficult to discern. The national parks need to have an adequate number of rangers to provide for the safety of the visiting public. Roads, bathrooms and other public facilities need to be kept in a state of repair. Park visitor centers need to be manned by National Park Service employees who can respond to questions and help visitors enjoy their park experience. The Service needs sufficient numbers of professional cultural and natural resource managers to work with the parks and to serve the visiting public. At this time the service is losing the very professional staff it so urgently requires through retirement and buyouts.
So what can be done at this time? To start I recommend the following initial steps.
1. We should not stop the expansion of the system, as time moves on and new areas of historical and natural significance become apparent, but let us do so in a rational manner and not through large and unfunded omnibus bills. We have a process to ensure that parks are thoroughly studied, national significance and suitability and feasibility requirements are met. Let us follow our process.
Today, the National Park Service lacks the leadership it needs to survive and prosper in today's fiscal climate. The management of the National Park Service lacks the will and insight needed to make the important decisions that will address the lack of resources needed to maintain our parks.
2. At this critical time, the National Park Service with the support of Congress needs to examine the total number of national parks to determine which can be transferred to state, local or private communities to manage. Not all parks and historic sites are equal. Some will do quite well under the management of state and local jurisdictions. Indeed, many poorly managed and funded sites will do better.
3. The National Park Service also needs to implement a zero-based budgeting system that will look at all of the Regional and Washington, D.C., offices and programs to determine what is the value of the money we spend on these programs and what is the value that is returned to the American people for this effort. If a program or position does not produce tangible results, then it should be eliminated.
4. The National Park Service maintains many grant programs which are popular and worthy to many people. Some of these programs include the American Battlefield, Historic Black Colleges & Universities, Japanese American Confinement Sites, Native American Graves Protection & Repatriation Act, and National Center for Preservation Technology, Preserve America, Save America's Treasures and Tribal Heritage. These programs were started years ago for good and worthwhile reasons, but do they need to continue? At the very least, the National Park Service needs to ask this question.
The National Park Service has budgeted thousands of dollars for public relations campaigns to celebrate its 100th anniversary 2016. While this will serve as an effective way to gain public support for the National Park Service, a portion of this funding ought to be diverted to thoroughly examine the National Park System to ensure the longevity and health of our parks. We need to eliminate any duplication and waste that may be present to effectively manage our scarce resources (including both funding and personnel) in a more strategic and logical manner.
We cannot do more with less. In the final analysis, if we do nothing then we can only sit by and watch the entire system spiral down and collapse under poor management, excessive numbers and waste. I do not believe this should be the legacy of Stephan Mather, Horace Albright and the founders of the National Park Service in the 21st century. The American people deserve better.
Dr. Harry A. Butowsky retired on June 30, 2012, from the National Park Service in Washington, D.C. where he worked as an historian and manager for the National Park Service History e-Library web site. He is the author of World War II in the Pacific, a National Historic Landmark Study, six other landmark studies, as well as 60 articles on military, labor, science and constitutional history. Dr. Butowsky teaches History of World War I and World War II at George Mason University. His Ph.D. is from the University of Illinois.
Dr. Butowsky manages npshistory.com, which contains thousands of NPS reports and articles.
Comments
I want to thank everyone for reading and taking the time to reply. While I believe we all support the National Park Service and the National Park System, we do not necessarily agree on what needs to be done at this critical time. That said, I appreciate that we can have a constructive dialogue about these issues here. I am responding to some of your concerns.
1. I am concerned with the continued spate of articles about the lack of staffing and funding in our national parks. At the same time, I am concerned with (what I see as) the rapid growth of the number of parks. (Yes, I do understand the difference between authorization and funding bills.) I hope that these new parks receive the funding they need to operate successfully.
2. I do not believe we should stop the expansion of the National Park System. As I said, time moves on and history evolves. New areas of natural beauty and consequence should always be identified and added to the system. However, I suggest we slow the pace of growth in order to appropriate address our fiscal and resource constraints. (Yes, I agree Congress has created this problem, and it will be up to Congress to solve it.)
3. I am not familiar with any of the proposed new parks, but I am sure that some sites, such as the Harriet Tubman site in particular, would be excellent additions to the system. I hope Congress will fund this new park to preserve the resource and provide the quality visitor experience that should be part of the site.
4. I think some respondents thought I was casting aspersions toward the leadership of Director Jarvis—this is not the case. However, Director Jarvis is the head of the agency and as such he does have responsibility to lead it. I am curious to hear his thoughts about the current state of the National Park System and what he sees for its future. Perhaps he has already made his thoughts known on this matter. If so, I am not aware of it.
5. D-2 is correct that new areas must compete with existing parks for funds. I believe this is called “thinning the blood.” Does D-2 think the service cannot fund new parks or keep them on minimal life support? I suspect local Congressional members (and other vested stakeholders) may have other opinions.
6. I worked on many park plans in my 36-year career. During this time, some of my proudest achievements were studying areas of significance and recommending the preservation of those areas via state, local, or private ownership or other means. Many substandard sites were kept from becoming National Parks though the planning process.
7. I am pleased to hear from D-2 that many of the grant programs I cited are working and should continue. This is positive. If a program works, saves the resource, and is cost effective, then it should continue. But the NPS still ought to look at all of its grant programs to identify weaknesses.
8. I understand that some historic and natural areas are under threat from development, but there are ways to preserve these areas without them becoming National Parks. There are other programs (such as the National Register of Historic Places, the National Historic Landmarks program, and affiliated area designation) that could be used to preserve these sites.
9. Finally, I want to make it clear that I have always opposed National Park entrance fees. Our parks have been bought and paid for by the American people and should be freely available to all. The fee system discriminates against poorer Americans and should be abolished.
Since I have responded more than I’d initially set out to do, let me summarize my thoughts:
1. We cannot continue to expand the National Park System at the current rate and not fully fund these new parks. At some point, the system will break.
2. We need to look at the entire National Park System and decide which parks can be better served by other agencies. This has been done in the past. Parks are created by Congress and can be decommissioned by Congress. In 2015, I recommend Congress establish a commission to study the entire National Park System (including the regional and Washington offices). We should be realistic. The continued lack of funding is degrading the entire National Park System and we must identify opportunities to reduce spending on programs that could be cut or transferred to other entities. These are difficult decisions, but I believe they need to be made by a committed leadership. That said, if there are other solutions to the lack of funding and resources despite the rapid growth of the system, then we should discuss those.
3. Finally, I see nothing wrong with the concept of zero-base funding. Either programs and offices produce results worthy of the money spent on them or they do not. This approach is in line with the current administration’s goals for improving government performance while being more efficient and effective for the taxpayer (see Performance.gov for additional information).
Harry - I agree with you in most respects with two exceptions. 1) I have no problem with some fees being charged for the major parks. The closer the payer is to the user the better, whether its parks, healthcare. road maintenance or any other service. It may be more burdensome to the poor but that isn't discrimination 2) To claim the corrent adminsitrations goal is to become more efficient and effective is laughable. Performance.gov may be a minor figurehead program but the primary goal of this adminstration is to expand the role of government and control of your life at any cost.
Yes, EC, your denial aside, when you categorically exclude any group from the services and facilities of government, you are discriminating. Saying use of a program, ". . . whether its parks, healthcare. road maintenance or any other service," should require a payment, you are discriminating against those who cannot afford those payments. I hope you don't get hit by a car and have an ambulance driver check your wallet before agreeing to provide you emergency treatment or transport you for medical care.
As to Harry, I am most troubled by his argument that the National Register or National Landmark status can forestall threats to properties without bringing them into the National Park System. Since we've all agreed here that any addition to the Park System should meet established criteria, this stance would mean allowing the loss of properties that meet the criteria. Moreover, National Register and Landmark listings are recognitions, not protections. The owners still have the full authority to use such properties to test dynamite, if they so choose. Then, the Park Service, with all its might, can remove the property from its list of recognized sites. Period. That's a pretty soft protection tool.
And, you can call me cyncial if you like, but I simply don't trust a systematic effort to identify the "less worthy" parks to be honest. For example, consider Manzanar. It doesn't spark the same depth of interest or ease of access as Independence Hall or the Statue of Liberty. Located in a harsh climate zone, it is also susceptible to a worse rate of detrioration than many other structural parks. I don't foresee it ever being financially self-sustaining. Its assets, as an exemplar of an important facet of America's history are largely intangible and won't alter a balance sheet. It belongs. We should fight to keep it in the Park System and also fight for the tax support required to sustain it.
Duncan
Thank you Duncan, I agree with your comments and appreciate Harry's post as well. Manzanar is a fascinating place in an undeveloped area (the Owens Valley of California), very wild. Its history is extremely interesting, offspring of those interned there are plentiful here in California, some of whom have been Park Rangers, are now teachers, farmers, scientists, etc. It is a place well worth the effort to visit. If I remember my history correctly, it was a bull moose Republican Secretary of the Interior, Mr. Harold Ickes, who pushed the Roosevelt administration to end these interments. A wonderful book "Righteous Pilgram", The Life and Times of Harold L. Ickes, is really a great read. The book gives a lot of background on the the Interior Department and the NPS by its longest tenured Secretary, a very progressive republican in a democratic administration.
That is true, but charging a fee does not "categorically exclude" anyone.
Charging a fee categorically excludes anyone who can't pay.
Maybe a different example would help: You're charged with a terrible crime you didn't commit, but you can't get bail until you're tried and you can't get tried until you pay the salaries of the judge, the bailiff and the court reporter, the cost of the courtroom, and the fees paid to jurors. In short, justice for you depends on payment by you. If you can't afford those payments, we'll keep you in jail and charge you room and board. Then you'll have to find a way to pay or work off that debt. Your inability to pay prevents your access to justice. If that applies to everybody in your circumstance, that's a categorical exclusion.
Access to public parks is no different. If anyone who can't pay can't get in, that is also a categorical exclusion.
Duncan
Somehow, I think someone who has the money to drive to Yellowstone or some other National Park has the money to pay a $20 entrance fee. Or should we pay for their ride and hotels to get to the park, their food while they are there and of course, their kids need some souveniers?
I guess we should just give everything away for free becasue some people can't buy everything.
Where is Lee when we need him with his "entitlement mentality" accusations.
1. Many parks are close to major populations, so travel cost and distance isn't a factor.
2. Yellowstone has neighbors, too, so it doesn't cost everyone a lot to get even there.
3. Access isn't the right to use everything in the park. From the beginning, parks have always had concessioners, allowed to charge fees for lodging, food, transportation, etc. The concept of limiting government services to "inherently governmental" functions was not an invention of the Reagan Administration. Reagan and following Administrations, however, have chosen to redefine what constitutes "inherently governmental." (That's a whole separate debate).
4. I actually believe that citizenship does confer "entitlement" to much of what the government manages. I especially believe that clean air, clean water, and park access are components of the right to the "pursuit of happiness." Nobody owes you happiness, but we do owe you the opportunity to seek it.
5. I also don't expect every useful government project or program will benefit me. I've lived or visited in most states, but I've never been in Oregon. The state of their highways has no impact on my life, but I'm still willing to pay taxes that improve their highways as well as mine and I certainly think Crater Lake merits permanent preservation and availability to the public.
6. I also own a Golden Eagle Passport, which grants me lifetime free access to parks anyway, so the amount of the fees doesn't affect me at all. I still don't think they should be an obstacle to anyone else's access.