First of all, Hare is simply wrong in his assessment. Yosemite and Sequoia in very Hispanic California get lots of Hispanic visitors. I've seen many Asians in the national parks, foreign visitors and Americans. The Grand Canyon gets people from all over the country. The parks in the Northwest get mostly Caucasians, but then the Pacific Northwest is the whitest part of the country. As are the Rocky Mountain states which have some of the gems of the system. The parks already emphasize and point out the contributions of African Americans (i. e. the buffalo soldiers, the early rangers at Yosemite) and Native Americans (after all what is Mesa Verde all about, for one). And bears, eagles and deer know no race. Since wildlife and scenery are the primary point of most of the parks, aren't they race neutral?

Second of all, Hare is missing the point of the national park system. The National Parks are there to preserve the land, preserve the wildlife and preserve unique ecosystems. The historic parks are there to preserve history. Trying to raise the number of visitors in the parks is in many cases contrary to that mission. They are only secondarily places for people to recreate. People who want to come, who treasure the national parks will come and will take care that there visits don't destroy the parks. Those who choose to spend their weekends or vacations elsewhere will go to theme parks, water parks or cities.

And Ranger X if you were discriminated against in hiring for being a white male, you should have sued. The land doesn't know or care if you're Caucasion, Hispanic or black. The land and the wildlife only care that they are being protected. And the land and the wildlife are the reason for the National Park's existence.