You are here

Parties in the Parks: Much Ado About Nothing?

Share

"Performance art" came to Alcatraz Island in the form of dancers in the prison infirmary. John Curley photo.

Is it appropriate for the National Park Service to transform portions of the prison on Alcatraz Island into a cabaret with scantily clad dancers, all in the name of luring younger generations to the parks? Should corporations be allowed to rent out portions of parks -- at no profit -- for lavish parties? These are hot-button topics to some, but elicit a shrug of the shoulder from others.

Within recent weeks there have been at least two "special events" in the national park system. I say "at least" because there's no way to say how many might have been held without calling each of the 391 units, as the NPS's Washington headquarters does not track these events or sign-off on them.

These two events were parties, complete with alcohol, music, and good times for those invited. One, at Alcatraz Island in Golden Gate National Recreation Area, was staged to benefit Toyota's San Francisco Bay area Scion owners. The other was across the country at the Charlestown Navy Yard, part of the Boston National Historical Park, and commemorated the end of a conference held by McKesson Corporation, a Fortune 500 (No. 18, actually) health-care company.

They've generated controversy on these pages because some folks are angry over how units of the national park system are being managed. Others say the Park Service should stage such events if they bring in dollars to help with the parks' upkeep. Still others say the parks should be available for folks to enjoy themselves in such fashion, and others say the Park Service could learn from the non-profits that run such places as Mount Vernon and Monticello.

While some parks turn to such events to help raise money -- the contract BNHP has with Amelia Occasions, the event organizer that brought the McKesson party to the Navy Yard, calls for Amelia to plow some money back into the Commandant's House -- others allow events because groups like to use the parks as a backdrop for various occasions.

Indeed, Golden Gate each year averages right around 1,000 special events at its many venues, from weddings and film projects to marathons and music festivals.

While some certainly seem fitting -- the Wolf Trap National Park for the Performing Arts would be oddly silent without its concerts, operas, and children's theater -- others can seem oddly out of place, such as the Alcatraz and McKesson parties, for reasons I'll get into in a minute.

Then, too, there are concerns that problems can creep into the park system with the private bashes staged on public property. Those concerns range from the threat that continued commercialization and special events will transform the parks, both subtly and not so subtly, into something they were never intended to be, to the very question of what's appropriate.

Take a good look at the accompanying picture (You can find others here). and ask yourself whether Alcatraz, once used to incarcerate 19 members of the Hopi Tribe because they refused to be "Americanized," and long a maximum security prison, is an appropriate venue for such a production. To get an even better of what transpired, check out the YouTube feed found on this page. Pay close attention and you'll hear one of the participants in the "art gallery" questioning the location: "We're having this celebration out here where so many people suffered. It's hard."

Even the folks at Golden Gate admit the "performance art" dance by the Vau de Vire Society, portions of which some might consider sexually suggestive, if not mildly obscene, staged in the prison's infirmary is controversial. But they don't think it was too much for Alcatraz Island, a venerable unit of the national park system, one whose stories revolve around pain, suffering and misery.

"From what I've been able to gather from some of the messages that we got, people thought the dance routine was too much, had too many burlesque elements," Rudy Evenson, Golden Gate's chief of special park uses, told me.

"There may be elements that pushed people's envelopes," agreed Rich Weideman, the park's public affairs chief. "But I can tell you that we did an out-briefing of this event with our superintendent. He is very, very much in support of events like because of the very reason this park was created was to attract urban audiences into the national park system.

"The bulk of these people had never set foot on Alcatraz, nor very few even knew the national park area existed in and around the Golden Gate. This is the core of our future potential audience for the National Park Service. Not necessarily party people, but young, diverse communities. "

 

Is it so important to attract Gen-Xers and Gen-Yers to the parks that they have to be lured with elaborate parties that don't really mesh -- at least in the case of Alcatraz, a National Historic Landmark -- with the backdrop and tramp upon the solemnity of the setting? You have to wonder if the 750 Gen-Xers and Gen-Yers who attended the event were impressed with Alcatraz itself or the nubile dancers, the fashion show staged in the shower room, the related art show, and the free drinks.

True, there was some park interpretation, but...did it stick?

"For all the events the Park Service permits on Alcatraz Island, we require that as part of the permit the event include an educational component," said Mr. Evenson. "So, for example, we had a park ranger who gave a talk about the clothing-issue area in the shower room and how prisoners were processed there as an introduction to the ecologically friendly fashion show that was part of this event."

Across the country, I can't tell you exactly how the folks at Boston National Historical Park felt about the McKesson party, as, after my initial contact, they haven't returned my phone calls. I do understand, though, that upwards of 50 complaints were received the night of the event and that higher-ups in the Park Service's regional and national offices have been looking into the event and the agreement with Amelia Occasions.

There is some concern that the Park Service's tight budgets are forcing park superintendents to become more entrepreneurial in how they manage their units. While being more business-like in terms of watching the bottom line is welcome, pushing the limits of how the overall business is run can lead to questionable decisions.

Rick Smith, a long-tenured NPS employee whose career took him from field locations to the Washington headquarters and included a stint as associate regional director for natural and cultural resources in the Park Service's Southwest Office, worried about a "new breed" of park managers in a story published last fall by CQ Researcher.

Overtime, Park Service veterans are beginning to worry that tight budgets and political pressures are producing a "not very attractive" evolutionary change in park managers, Mr. Smith told the publication. Now an official can rise through the Park Service ranks "if your park makes money because you're able to collect fees or you're a great fund-raiser, or if your park has a congressman or congresswoman on an appropriations committee you get palsy-walsy with," he says. "I would prefer a park manager who has real dedication to preserving and protecting the resource.

 

While the National Parks Conservation Association so far has been silent on the issue, that's not the case with the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees. Bill Wade, who chairs the group's executive council, quickly questioned the propriety of the two events.

"These are likely to be instances that test the purpose and intent of the NPS Management Policies. While I’m sure that one can find specific permission in the Policies to justify these kinds of events, there are also provisions that would argue against them," he told me. "It comes down to the intent of the policies (and law) and the judgment of the authorizing superintendents. In these two instances, the judgment was faulty because the events clearly degrade the purposes for which the units were established."

At the Park Service's Washington headquarters, Lee Dickinson, the agency's program manager for special park uses, had no personal knowledge of either event. Nor would she express an opinion on whether the events were appropriate for the two settings.

And yet, Director's Order 53 clearly states that superintendents should not grant a special use permit if an event is "contrary to the purposes for which the park was established" or will "unreasonably impair the atmosphere of peace and tranquility maintained in wilderness, natural, historic, or commemorative locations within the park."

"Obviously, the superintendent decided that it was an appropriate use," Ms. Dickinson said in regard to the use of the Charlestown Navy Yard for a corporate party with an invitation list that numbered 3,500.

Now here's a kicker: the Park Service nets no profit from allowing special events on its grounds. Legally, all it's allowed to charge is "cost recovery" for overtime paid to rangers assigned to the event and any costs associated with the permitting process and managerial work, such as having maintenance crews outline where underground utilities and irrigation lines are so they aren't damaged by such things as stakes used to guy out tents.

In the case of the Alcatraz party, the FlavorGroup that arranged the affair for Toyota paid the Park Service a total of $23,000 -- $10,000 for administrative cost recovery and around $13,000 for management costs. The 750 party goers were not charged the normal $2 fee for setting foot on Alcatraz.

Featured Article

Comments

I personally am ashamed of the criminal theft of places such as the Tetons ... and Shenandoah...

And I'm ashamed of the Fed's theft of the Modoc homeland (Lava Beds) so ranchers could graze cows, the theft of the Klamath's sacred Crater Lake, and the theft of the Black Hills so we could blast the images of our presidents into sacred stone.

Just because places have national historical significance, it does not mean they MUST or even SHOULD be administered by the NPS. There are many properties, locations, sites on the national register of historic places (a list maintained by the NPS) that are administered by city, county, state, and regional governments, and many of them do it better because they are not constrained by Washington's bloated bureaucracy.

I think one must also consider why the Feds stepped in to designate areas national parks. Are some done to bolster federal legislators' stature to their constituency? Absolutely.

Some, like Fire Island National Seashore (which I believe should be transferred to a different agency), were created to stop unwanted development (power broker Robert Moses' attempt to build a highway down the middle of the island). Sequoia was created to halt the logging of 3500 year old commercially worthless trees.

But do the Feds need to manage Fort Vancouver or its newly acquired McLoughlin House Unit? As a historian, I believe historical preservation is best left to the State Historic Preservation Office, not the National Park Service. If you want a local factory or mill preserved, let your state or local NGO foot the bill.


Since California sends much more to the federal government than we get back, having the Santa Monica Mountains preserved by the federal government is at least a drop in the bucket of having the taxes we send to Washington come back.


Beamis. God love ya. Keep it up. Your voice and perspective are refreshing!

Kath makes a good point about California sending more than it gets back, but I still think Santa Monica Mountains is not worthy of National Park Status. (I hike there. State or county park status would be plenty of protection for these lands.) On the other hand, nearby Channel Islands NP is an extraordinary landscape

In 1997, I played a role (as a set team member) in the "Big Park" "theft" of a portion of Santa Cruz Island. Trust me, and I've got photos of the gulleys lined with sheep carcasses (left by hunters) to prove it, Santa Cruz Island is profoundly better off in the hands of the NPS. In fact, I hate to think of the money and attention that goes to Santa Monica Mountains that should go to the Channel Islands.

Eminent Domain and its ilk (pork barrel government) has resulted in some wonderful things and some evil things. The difficult part is deciding which is which.
(BTW, I have written about a "haunting" related to the "taking over" of a homestead in Big South Fork. It's a cute if not eerie story that reveals the vague yet lasting guilt felt by rangers working on lands "stolen" by the NPS. If you are curious about the Blevins story, the excerpt is on my website. http://www.hauntedhiker.com/favorite.htm )


On the other hand, the Nature Conservancy protects it's portion of Santa Cruz Island so well that it's very difficult for the average person to visit. That part of Santa Cruz Island is no doubt in good hands but I've never been there although I go out to the Channel Islands at least once a year.


The cultural resources protected by the park are as important as its natural resources. I agree with an earlier comment that it is a pointless exercise to pit one park against another for a battle between national significance. When the parks were established, either through Presidential Proclamation or as an act of Congress, they were deemed to be important. As 'lepanto' points out, there have been times that park units have gone through a reevaluation of significance. And in fact, park units have left the national system over the years (to see which parks, look for the 'disbanded' headings on this list at wikipedia). Beamis, I wouldn't say I support "BIG" government, but I do support a Federal Government. There are things we can accomplish as a whole better than we can on a state-by-state or even municipality-by-municipality basis.

I'd like to bring the conversation back to the topic of the article though, which is, considering that the National Park Service does manage these places (Alcatraz and Boston Naval Yard), are these parties acting contrary to the purposes for which the parks were established? I think someone out there could make an argument that they were consistent with the mission. I'd love to hear it. But, I'm of the opinion that these events were nothing more than corporate parties totally out of character with the mission the Park Service has promised to uphold on our behalf.


My guess is that if you polled 100 different National Park Service supporters as to which units they feel do not belong in the NPS system, you could easily get 100 different answers, with nearly as many well-conceived supporting arguments. There are certainly park units that were set aside for reasons that may not resonate with the collective original vision for the preservation of national public lands, but as was pointed out in another post, reasoning should evolve as the nation evolves. How future units are created seems to be as relevant, if not more so, to the future of the NPS than squabbling over which units should not be administered at the federal level. I'm sure there are places that, it could be argued, should be in the system that presently are not, though I can't name any myself. There might be many legitimate arguments for and against the large number of National Monuments created in the last days of the Clinton administration. Do we really need to protect over a million acres of desolate land on the Arizona Strip north of the Grand Canyon (Grand Canyon-Parashant NM)? Do we need Sonoran Desert and Ironwood National Monuments? I'm not for or against any of them--I simply don't know enough about them to support an argument either way.

Perhaps one way the designation of public lands could be done by the federal government to the benefit of people at the local and regional level, is to have such designations be temporary, as might be the case to stop commercialization or to save a wildlife corridor, etc. Then the state, county or municipal bodies could decide whether to take on the responsibility. States already swap for federal land for other uses. I don't know if any existing state, county or municipal parks started out as federally protected lands, but it could be possible.

Canyon de Chelly National Monument in northeastern Arizona is an NPS unit composed entirely of Navajo tribal trust land, which is managed in partnership with the Navajo Nation. In the city of Phoenix, South Mountain Park & Preserve is listed as the largest desert municipal park in the world, at "over 16,000 acres," according to the city's website. The city also had the foresight to create the Phoenix Mountains Preserve, in part to slow and manage urban encroachment in and around the string of desert peaks that stretch across the north-central portion of the city. Were there behind-the-scenes political or commercially-backed motives for creating these parks? I don't know, but as a 35 year resident of the area, I can say the press has been more positive than negative over the years.

I guess the point is that no single solution will work across the entire National Park system, or for that matter, the whole national public land management system, including the BLM, Forest Service and other agencies. I don't mean to sound like a fence-sitter, but both sides of the general argument seem to have merit, if applied to specific instances, rather than the system as a whole.


I'm of the opinion that these events were nothing more than corporate parties totally out of character with the mission the Park Service has promised to uphold on our behalf.

The "mission" of the NPS is/was to leave places unimpaired, and they've failed miserably in keeping that promise.

Why do the writers of this blog seem to downplay and/or ignore the many violations (broken promises) of the Organic Act?

...are these parties acting contrary to the purposes for which the parks were established?

The authors' and some readers' focus on social functions at historic sites seems trite in comparison the larger issues of the broken bureaucracy of the NPS and its failure to protect natural places from impairment. I can see that this is a real issue, but it concerns me that people are more upset over some nudity in a prison than, say, a bulldozer being driven through wilderness. How come articles like that don't get 20+ posts? Why does it take race and sexy dancers to get people to speak out?


Frank,

This is just the latest issue at hand. There have been plenty of posts over the months addressing practices that run contrary to the Organic Act. Just look at the many posts on snowmobiles in Yellowstone, personal watercraft in parks and seashores, ORVs in Big Cypress, and power boats in Everglades, just to name the ones that come immediately to mind.

The park system is huge and sprawling and comes packed with countless issues and controversies. For two guys driving this site for free while trying to juggle paying jobs, I'd counter that we're doing a pretty good job.


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.