Witnesses at a hearing on how the National Park Service can improve its business practices offered a wide range of suggestions.
Today's National Park Service lacks business savvy, from trying to micro-manage businesses in the parks to being slow to respond to visitor desires and services, a Congressional subcommittee was told by business leaders whose companies operate in the National Park System.
One after another told the House Subcommittee on Federal Lands that changing business practices, and asking park visitors to pay more for services, will help reduce the Park Service's $11.5 billion maintenance backlog while providing visitors a better experience.
“The visitor services we provide in national parks are often inhibited by NPS policies which limit visitor experiences and reduce our payments, called franchise fees, to the agency," Derrick Crandall, counselor to the National Park Hospitality Association, told the subcommittee chaired by Rep. Tom McClintock of California.
“We are confident that increases in visitor services, including lengthening operating hours at units like Alcatraz and Statue of Liberty, adding appropriate services and allowing dynamic pricing of services, could increase franchise fees to the NPS by 50 percent within three years," Mr. Crandall added.
The hearing was one of two Thursday that examined how the Park Service does business. The other, held an hour earlier, delved into contracts the Park Service utilizes in managing its lodging, dining, and other visitor services.
While the committees' Republican leadership made it clear that solving the Park Service's budgetary problems would have to be accomplished without higher appropriations, Craig Obey of the National Parks Conservation Association told the representatives that Congress must take a greater fiduciary interest in the National Park System.
"Our national parks are investments worth preserving. Yet, for decades now, successive congresses and administrations have put park resources at risk through underinvestment. Operations funding for the National Park Service is down 7 percent ($178 million) in today’s dollars from where it was only five years ago, which has led to a reduction in rangers and other staff to educate visitors and protect resources," Mr. Obey, NPCA's senior vice president for government affairs, said in his written comments. "In addition, the National Park Service’s construction budget has declined by 62 percent ($230 million) over the last decade in today’s dollars. Between these reductions and insufficient investment on the transportation side, it’s no wonder that the deferred maintenance backlog has grown to $11.5 billion."
To bridge that gap, he urged the committee members to support extension of the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act, which generates nearly $200 million annually for parks through user fess, to endorse President Obama's 2016 budget that would boost the Park Service's funding for both operations and construction accounts, create an endowment fund for the parks, authorize the Centennial Challenge program that would match federal dollars with private philanthropy, support more highway funding to address infrastructure needs across the park system, and make it possible for the Park Service to utilize leasing of historic structures more often to preserve those structures.
From the concessionaires' viewpoint, points they made ranged from allowing longer leases to extending operating seasons in some parks. But many times the way the Park Service manages its operations were used to drive points home.
“No other agency that we work with micro-manages us to the level of the National Park Service . . . The price-approval process within the NPS is cumbersome and slow. . . Small operators are forced to spend disproportionate dollars to respond to prospectuses that are better suited to bigger companies doing business in many national parks. . . The NPS has lost sight in recent RFPs of the capital demands put upon the concessioner compared to the length of contracts.” -- Pamela Koeberer Pitts, secretary, The California Parks Company.
“In looking toward the future, we hope that the National Park Service will become even more receptive to increasing visitor service where it is needed, and where it makes sense, in a timely manner while at the same time, always protecting the National Parks’ natural and cultural resources. Prospectuses and contracts could be improved by giving concessioners a credit of some sort or other innovative rewards for making capital investments . . . Longer contracts would also allow concessioners to make larger capital investments that could be recovered by the end of the concession contract. And, finally, rewarding excellent concessioners in some way for being outstanding partners with the National Park Service and for providing outstanding visitor services . . . would help to solidify longevity and stability for good concessioners." -- John King, regional vice president, Forever Resorts.
“A system designed to reward those that do provide excellence in concession operations would benefit both incumbent concessioners as well as the National Park Service. Rather than challenging ourselves to innovate every time a concession contract comes up, it would encourage constant innovation and excellence in the performance of a contract. ... The current process lacks transparency and doesn’t allow unsuccessful bidders to understand their perceived shortcomings. This lack of transparency also leads to mistrust of the process, whether real or perceived.” -- Alex Klein - vice president and general manager, Grand Teton Lodge Company and Flagg Ranch Company.
“Stagnant park visitation reflects more leisure choices today but is also the result of reduced visitor activity choices – potential visitors are choosing other destinations. There are fewer park campsites, fewer lodging rooms, fewer restaurant seats, fewer ranger-led walks, fewer tours and outings. Visitor services eliminated by NPS have not been offset by new outdoor activities and special events.” “NPS is pursuing an unsustainable strategy of forcing higher payments by concessioners to the agency while simultaneously reducing business opportunities.” -- Terry MacRae - Hornblower Cruises; chairman, National Park Hospitality Association.
“[W]e quickly discovered that many more guests wanted to visit the Dry Tortugas than we were allowed to take. The market had spoken – visitors wanted to experience the Dry Tortugas National Park and preferred our boat over other options... After more than 20 months, the NPS finally agreed to the increase… The torturous path of paperwork between the local park and the region and the national office was costly to all parties and was stressful to the relationship between our company and NPS…What did not appear to gain consideration was the 10,000+ potential park visitors that could have experienced Dry Tortugas during this period, or the revenue loss to NPS of $250,000 or more. ...With the substantial and ongoing budgetary restraints that the NPS is facing, it seems to me that the NPS can, with little effort, recover a larger portion of the costs of its many excellent programs from those directly benefiting from those programs. Recreation and tourism are a trillion dollar industry, and national parks are widely regarded as a top asset of this industry.” -- Chris Belland - CEO, Historic Tours of America.
Comments
Thank you, I will definitely look for that book. Things have come a long way since Yellowstone's bear "lunch counter"! I can certainly appreciate the efforts of those, like Rachal, who put their field of study to use to promote change and awareness. Thanks again.
So tell me Ron, why was my stove and coffee pot an issue?
A bear's sense of smell is at least seven times greater than that of a bloodhound. They can detect even the smallest amount of food residue on items, no matter how thoughtfully a camper may have cleaned them.
Sense of smell aside, bears are very intelligent, and have excellent memories. They can see and recognize anything that they have ever associated with food in the past. So even if your stove was clean, and your coffee pot has never held anything but water, they still won't mind checking it out. (Neither will the raccoons, coyotes, squirrels, camp robbers, and ravens!)
This is why it is extremely important to practice bear aware methods and keep a clean campsite, even when in a "developed" campground in bear country. Even things like dirty dish water, plate scrapings, and old coffee, should always be disposed of properly, and never tossed into a campfire ring.
Bears are also attracted to the fruity sweet smells of our personal care items. So campers should take care in storing their toothpaste, toothbrushes, soaps, shampoos, etc. as well.
Those park regulations are definitely not "for show", and rangers and park staff are not making up stories when they warn of bear activity. Especially in Yellowstone.
Julie you are not listening. They don't need a keen sense of smell. The place is already wreaking from the garbage dumpster and food storage. If the bears are going to be drawn to odors, it isn't going to be from my stove and pot.
Please reflect on your own statement: "...locked dumpsters and locked food storage containers accomplish that..."
As I said, bears are intelligent. Those that may have already tried to work their way into dumpsters and food lockers, and have been foiled by them, know to ignore them, despite the smell. They will instead seek out (or be tempted by) easier targets, like those items that campers have left unsecured outside. Keep in mind, that this is Yellowstone we're talking about here. You could remove every dumpster and food locker from the entire park, and guess what, there will still be bears, at any place, at any time, day or night. Including busy campgrounds, boardwalks, and roadways.
You are welcome to your opinions about your stove and coffee pot. Your choice to blatantly ignore campground rules and NPS regulations is at your own risk. Perhaps the next time you decide to do as you please in a campground, you can enjoy the $250 citation, and possible loss of your items. At that point, perhaps you will realize that the signage and other printed warnings, are not "just for show". Lets just hope that your choices do not cause injury (or worse) to others, or result in the removal or death of an animal.
Ron,
I suspect you know your way around bears fairly well after spending most of your career in Yosemite!
Skip Prange
Then perhaps Ron can explain why we should be more concerned about a clean stove and pot than a garbage dumpster and food storage boxes?
Fortunately most park visitors are intelligent people capable of understanding that rules and regulations usually have good reasons behind them.
But there will always be a few whose lack of intelligence and maturity coupled with a fantasy that they are entitled to have everything their way. They will throw a foot stomping hold the breath and turn blue tantrum. Most people, fortunately, outgrow that by second grade.