A group opposed to corporate advertising in national parks has presented the National Park Service with a petition signed by more than 200,000 people who say they are against proposed changes pertaining to how commercial entities can be recognized in the parks. 

At issue under changes proposed to Director's Order 21 (DO21) is to what extent the National Park Service would permit corporations that donate to the parks to be recognized inside national parks. Some of the proposed changes included:

• Continued allowance of entering into partnerships with alcoholic beverage companies and accepting donations from them;
• Letting individual parks decide how to recognize donations, with restrictions against no implication of NPS endorsement, official sponsorship of the park, or naming rights. Whereas the existing guidelines prohibit donor recognition on vehicles, bricks, benches, or other park furnishings or buildings, the proposed revisions would allow recognition on vehicles if the vehicle was the donation, and would allow recognition on bricks, walkways, benches, and landscaped areas.

The petition drive was led by Public Citizen, a nonprofit organization that views itself as "the people’s voice in the nation’s capital. ...our work on each issue shares an overarching goal: To ensure that all citizens are represented in the halls of power." The signatures were gathered by CREDO Action, Public Citizen’s Commercial Alert program and the Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood (CCFC).

Among the groups' concerns is that the proposed changes, if made permanent, would "inevitably result in corporate-influenced park policy. Disproportionate attention will be devoted to resources and assets attractive to corporate sponsors, at the expense of investment, maintenance and promotion of other National Park assets."

"To read Director’s Order #21 is to see the inevitable perils that arise from corporate entanglements. The order identifies certain businesses with which NPS will not partner, though troublingly states that it will partner with alcohol companies. Just to read the acknowledgement of potential problems with potential natural resource company sponsors is to see that those problems are inescapable and not open to satisfactory resolution," Robert Weissman, president of Public Citizen, wrote in a letter to the Park Service.

National Park Service Director Jon Jarvis has gone on record saying that naming rights in the parks will not be allowed. During an appearance before the National Press Club last month he pointed out that, "we have always had relationships with corporate America. From the very beginning of the national parks. It was the railroads that built most of the major lodges, the old historic lodges, like the El Tovar (at Grand Canyon). And throughout my 40 years we’ve had long-term relationships with corporate America without selling out. Without renaming, or, 'This park brought to you by...' We just don’t do that. We sit down with corporate America and say, 'What are your goals? These are our goals. This is an area you can’t go, and we’re not going to allow that.'

“I think you should trust us that we are protecting these assets from branding and labeling," he added. "It is not the direction we’re headed. What we’re trying to do is sort of modernize our philanthropic capability for the Service, for the National Park Foundation, and all of the friends groups that raise money for us.”

Will Shafroth, president and CEO of the National Park Foundation, also told the Traveler last week that naming rights were not under consideration.

“We get people all the time who say what kind of recognition. And we say, well, if you want to get naming rightrs then you’re barking up the wrong tree, that just doesn’t happen," he said. “And, basically there are very, very few opportunities to have your name on a plaque. So you just have to be willing to do this because it’s the right thing to do. We can put it in our press releases, we can acknowledge you on our website, and there are other forms of recognition, but they are not what people are used to getting at a university, or museum, or hospital, something like that. It's just the way it is.”

Mr. Shafroth went on to say that, "In my view, the Park Service is very conservative in this area, and they’re appropriately careful and respectful of the responsibility that they’ve been given and they’re not inclined to sell anything out. I understand people draw a line in a different place. But I would say that the work that we’re doing with the Park Service is trying to be as respectful of the parks, and the big responsibility that we collectively have to preseve their legacy.

"I don’t think any of us would want to soil that by putting up big corporate banners and things like that, and I don’t think corporations want that either, at least the ones we’re working with anyway.”

Some corporations already are greatly visible in the parks when one considers the delivery trucks and semis emblazoned with such brands as Coca-Cola, Budweiser, Sysco, and others, as well as vending machines. At Public Citizen, campaign coordinator Kristen Strader maintained that the changes envisioned for DO21 would go beyond those examples of corporation marketing in the parks.

"Sure, there are already examples of commercialism in our parks like on delivery trucks and with some of the bans that have been lifted for the centennial celebration. Namely, the partnership with Budweiser," she said. "The revision of DO21 would accelerate the existing commercialism and allow room for logos to be attached not only to delivery trucks, but park property like busses and vehicles that remain within the parks. It could also open the door for co-branding outside of the park."