You are here

Dinosaur National Monument: Paleo's Not The Only Responsibility

Northern Arizona University photo.

Dinosaur National Monument is more than just fossilized bones. Northern Arizona University photo.

Floating the Green or Yampa rivers through Dinosaur National Monument shows a side of this national park unit that is not reflected in its name. Indeed, fossils from the age of dinosaurs are the last thing that crosses your mind. Rather, you're caught up in navigating patches of white water, admiring towering cliffs, and gazing at bighorn sheep that have descended to the water's edge to browse.

Thumb through a copy of Dinosaur, Four Seasons on the Green and Yampa Rivers
and you'll read about the currents of water, not prehistory, that wend through this rugged landscape and learn something about the West's water wars.

And yet...the monument is named for dinosaurs, for the great treasures of bone turned to rock that are locked away in the sandstone reefs that ripple the landscape.

Nestled in the northeastern corner of Utah is one of the most famous and important windows onto the 150 million-year-old world of the dinosaurs -- Dinosaur National Monument.
So wrote Daniel Chure, the park's resident paleontologist, some years ago in a page-and-a-half monograph explaining the monument's significance. Although much still remains to be done and many discoveries are yet to be made, Dinosaur National Monument is an important stop for both paleontologists and the general public who want to learn more about dinosaurs and the world they lived in.

Any child, or adult, who has been mesmerized by a polished Utahraptor's claw, a toothy T-Rex grin, or the Jurassic Park franchise no doubt would leap at the chance to stand before the monument's famous cliffside with its array of more than 1,600 dinosaur fossils, including the smiling skull of a Camarasaurus.

And so it's not surprising that the announcement by the monument's superintendent that she planned to reduce the staff in the paleontology department was met with both disbelief and anger. In the wake of the shuttering of the visitor center at the bone quarry back in July 2006 because of stability and structural problems, Superintendent Mary Risser's recent announcement that a "core operations analysis" indicated the monument's paleontology division could be better managed with fewer staff positions seemed akin to a death knell for the monument's paleontological mission.

Not everyone believes that is the case at hand.

“This clearly is reflective of sort of the ongoing funding challenges the parks face," David Nimkin, the Southwest regional director for the National Parks Conservation Association, told me the other day. "It is clear, too, that Dinosaur is more than just paleontology, and that they have to spread their resources broadly to serve a lot of the different hats that they wear.

"... Certainly, it's Dinosaur National Monument," he continued, "but the elements that relate to river management and relate to all of the wildlife species at the park, the threatened and endangered species that they work with, all reinforce that this is a substantial and complex ecosystem.”

Initially these comments struck me a bit odd, that the NPCA of all groups would support a perceived reduction in what many view as the core mission of Dinosaur. What Mr. Nimkin had to say next was even more startling.

“I really am of the opinion that they’re doing a fine job in the face of real significant financial constraints," he said. "I’ve gotten messages saying she (Superintendent Risser) ought to be fired, change the leadership there. On the contrary, I really want to complement their staff for really finding ways to serve all the needs they have, and that’s not always a popular thing.” that paragraph over again, and take note of what Mr. Nimkin said. Essentially, it's this: When backed into a fiscal corner, due to the relatively meager funding given the National Park Service to disburse across its 391 units, Superintendent Risser made some tough choices, choices that should allow the paleontology division to continue to move forward.

Will it operate like the Museum of the Rockies in Bozeman, Montana? Hardly. But then, has it ever?

“That’s not taking the Park Service off the hook or taking the government off the hook for supporting core operations, which are so necessary,” the NPCA official said a bit later in our conversation. “I’m concerned, but it’s not the fault of the superintendent. It is the fault of a dearth of funds that have eroded over the years, that has put the management of the park in a position to make these very, very difficult choices.

"All I’m saying is that, in the scope of this, the confluence of the visitor center closure and building a curatorial center in Vernal and the limitations with their personnel, I guess I believe she has made a necessary but difficult choice,” Mr. Nimkin told me.

My next call was to paleontologist Chure. If anyone would be upset with the funding decision, surely it would be the long-tenured scientist, for it's his staff that's being reduced. But, like Mr. Nimkin, the paleontologist didn't see the end of the world. To the contrary. He saw new flexibility in his program, as the savings from the reduced personnel costs can be applied not to just one area, but to a variety of areas where research is needed at the monument.

"The thing you need to understand is the paleo operation is within the Division of Research and Resource Management. There are other operations there that involve wildlife, cultural resources, botany, threatened and endangered species," said Mr. Chure. "Over the last number of years, each of those operations has gone to a structure where there were a couple of employees each working on a few things to a single program manager that oversees a large number of projects involving outside researchers."

"So the reduction in staffing in those operations was used, that money was used either as seed money or matching funds or contracting or whatever," he continued. "The work in each of those operations has really expanded a lot. And really, the paleo operation is the last of the operations in the division to undergo that transformation to that other kind of structure. ... Some places make it look like the paleo operation has been targeted. That's not true. It's just that the paleo operation is now going to be brought into a structure that conforms with the way all the other resource management programs in the park have been operating for some time.

"The way I see this, it gives us a lot more flexibility for dealing with the various kinds of resource management issues and problems that we have," the paleontologist went on. "So for example, for one project you might need someone who's a geochemist and someone who does radiometric dating and a stratigrapher for a certain problem. And another resource management issue might require a sedimentologist and a fossil pollen specialist.

"And we simply don't have those kinds of staffing abilities in the park. For any operation. And so by going to this new structure we'll have the flexibility with the funds to contract for many different specialists for particular projects that we need to have their work for, and just for the duration of those projects. So it allows us to utilize a much wider range of specialists to deal with our resource management issues than just a few people on staff."

It could be argued, of course, that the bottom line is that the Park Service is outsourcing its work.

"I don't think it's a fair analogy," countered Mr. Chure. "It's expanding the research that is being done here, because a lot of those issues that we need to deal with are not getting addressed because we do not have the ability to do it with existing staff."

As for how the visitor experience might be impacted due to this change in working relationships, he doesn't think there will be a drop-off at all.

"A problem we have right now is working to get the visitor center reopened," Mr. Chure pointed out. "Getting the building reopened is a process that goes on independent of this issue of positions. Ultimately, when that building is open and we have new exhibits, that will be the major visitor-paleo experience that they will have. In the interim we're doing various kinds of things, like hikes to fossil sites, we're doing special kinds of programs that have fossils."

Actually, he said, under the new working arrangement there could be more opportunities for visitors to watch paleontologists at work. "Being able to lead them to where excavations are going on, or having visiting researchers maybe give some kind of talk to the public while they're in, and expose visitors to a much wider range of the paleontological world than they would get just normally."

Intern programs and volunteer opportunities also will continue, said Mr. Chure.

Is this a perfect solution?

Probably not in the eyes of those who believe the Park Service has a responsibility to conduct a robust, in-house science mission. But when it comes to today's fiscal realities, this just might be the best the agency can do.


This paints quite a different picture of the situation than the other articles did. It sounds like a reasonable approach under the circumstances. Instead of trying to do more with less they're really doing a lot more with a little more money. There is no stronger advocate for the National Parks and all their resources than the NPCA. The NPCA would not be supporting this plan if they didn't think it would benefit Dinosaur National Monument.

Or the NPCA is only going on the limited information they have been provided with from the parks point of view.

So now the NPCA is a dupe of the NPS? The NPCA is independent, sometimes it supports the NPS, sometimes it opposes it. Sounds like you can’t tolerate any other point of view.

Read the story again. The NPCA got letters from those opposing the NPS, including some calling for the Superintendent’s resignation. The NPCA heard from both sides and made a decision about who to support.

Sounds like the writing of JTR (yea the one who is obviously a park employee @ DNM & very close to the situation), sticking to only the upper management side of the story, completely fact-less postings and very willing to bash any other point of view or credible information that contradicts the party line. Hang tight people the facts and the truth are coming out and very soon there will be a very different picture painted! The spin from Mary Risser and other management at DNM is loaded with holes, fact-less information, smoke-screens, bold face lies and deciet. There is in fact two sides to this story and the side you will soon be hearig of is the truth. Strong public opposition and pressure will force the Secretary of The Interior as well as the Director of the National Parks Service to take a much closer look at this situation at DNM. We can only hope that they will keep the program in tact with it's current and crucial employee's and that the focus will shift back to paleontology at this paleontology based park. You the public are getting the wool pulled over your eyes while being short-changed (as a visitor or researcher) by the current management at DNM. Your voice is important and needs to be heard! Stay tuned folks for the other side of the story.......

Mr. Chure and the management of Dinosaur NM continue to misrepresent the current paleontology program to the public. Here are some points that should be made clear. Paleontology is identified as a core issue of the Monument. The program has included volunteers as significant partners since 1985. Assistance from researchers, museums, and universities has always been a part of the operation. There has never been any attempt or need to establish positions with specialized expertise.

Some insight into how the program currently functions can be gained through the following list of accomplishments, of the two positions being eliminated, since 2002. (Repeated from and earlier posting for the readers convenience)


Found external funding sources for 7 Geologist in the Parks (GIP) interns.
Hired 4 seasonal employes through the Student Conservation Association (SCA) program.
Recruited numerous volunteers that have contributed 10,733 hours of work.
Brought on one international preparation intern, for 5 months, with funding from the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology.

Brought in outside professionals to do work at Dinosaur National Monument.  These were two individuals from the Utah Geologic Survey and one from the Iowa Geological Survey.  (Attempts to bring in two other researchers were blocked by management)
Arranged for State Radiological experts to evaluate radiation and radon issues with specimen storage.

Received a $7,000 grant from the Colorado Plateau - Cooperative Ecosystem Studies Unit for dating the Cedar Mountain Formation using pollen.  
Obtained hundreds of dollars worth of equipment from outside organizations and private individuals.

Obtained thousands of dollars worth of in-kind work from the Utah Geological Survey and Iowa Geological Survey.

Actively participated in the design of the proposed Curatorial Facility.

Secured over $900,000 in Park Service funds for the all collections of Dinosaur NM. not just Paleo.  Some of the funds are for future needs of the proposed Curatorial Facility.
Actively participated in the design of the proposed Curatorial Facility.

Utilized contract help to work on the curation backlog.

Some background on how these positions relate. The paleo field staff consisted of two positions until around 2000. The field staff was then cut when one of the positions was converted to curator. The curator is responsible for all of the museum collections, historical, cultural, geological, and paleo. The remaining geologist position's job elements are inventory and monitor the paleontological resources, manage the field and lab program and manage the geology program.

The above accomplishments show two highly effective employees with demonstrated abilities who have provided what management states is their desired future condition. Does elimination of these two positions equate with the stated commitment to a strong, active paleontology program?

Additional important factual information:

*NPS-77 explicitly states that fossils found in parks are to be prepared by or under the supervision of professionals.

*The park Paleontologist and Geologist/prep/field positions (the whole paleo program) were targeted in 2002. In 2008 the park paleontologist is not on the hit list and supports upper management’s decision to eliminate a position that used to be under his direct supervision and control.

*This situation is no different than 2002- upper level park and paleo management has had 6 years to accomplish these same goals- why has no progress been made when those in charge are collecting the biggest salaries in the park? Why has this been a failure? Why have they prevented the park Geologist from helping to accomplish these goals?

*Park mgmt has had since 2002 to implement outsourcing of paleo work (excavation, prep, curation). What has it accomplished?

*Since 2003 when the park stopped Scott from doing in-house excavations, less than a week has been spent in the field by anyone at DNM actually doing excavation- this includes BYU who is constantly touted as the parks only outsource savior.

*Park mgmt has prevented the park Geologist from bringing in other institutions to help.

*Park management has loaned one unprepared block to BYU, and they collected a couple of their own modest blocks (most previously partially excavated by DNM staff). These were prepared by student help without the supervision of a professional preparator.

*The park Geologist/Fossil Preparator/Lab Manager/Field Coordinator has 30 years of experience as a professional preparator and is trained in the latest conservation and preparation techniques. Where would you want to send your most important fossils to be prepared- an amateur led by amateurs, or a professional?

*The park Geologist works at the park full time (at least 5 days a wk.).

*The paleontology program Curator/Collections Manager works at the park full time (at least 5 days a wk.).

A re-post for the convenience of the readers:

Monument or Park, the key word here is "Dinosaur".

Of course, the monument has lovely rivers, wildlife, botany and cultural resources. Park management has recently been using these other resources as justification for reducing the paleo program (see, article on 2/19/08). Clearly ALL resources need protection and interpretation. However, it isnt called Dinosaur National Monument for nothing! Paleo has been identified as its core mission as well as being part of the founding legislation.

What I want to know is:
-- Is the priority balancing a budget or keeping the park active and dynamic?
-- What sort of specific requests (and advocating for the need of a full paleo program) have been done by park management? That is, did anyone TRY to keep the program alive or merely favor balancing numbers?
-- How are these decisions being made without a FY2008 budget in place while there is talk of a $200 million increase?
-- Why have internal suggestions of alternative interpretive programs (since the quarry building closure) such as screenwashing demonstrations and re-opening of "outsourced" quarries not occurred? Did someone want to claim that "paleontology has lost its appeal"?
-- Does park management fully understand the pitfalls of relying on outsourcing to continue the program?
-- Do they know the value of the work currently being done by all staff?

Add comment


This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

National Parks Traveler's Essential Park Guide