You are here

What Ken Burns Left Out

Share

Ken Burns' wildly popular documentary on the national parks said a lot, but not quite enough.

On October 22, 2009, shortly after the Ken Burns documentary on America’s national parks aired on National Public Television, I was invited to make a presentation to the Santa Fe Rotary Club. My topic for the talk was, “What Ken Burns left out.” Here is a slightly edited version of my presentation.

Many of us watched all or parts of the latest Ken Burn’s film on KNME-TV, The National Parks: America’s Best Idea. It was typical Burns work—lavish production values, important talking heads, and an authentic star of the show, Ranger Shelton Johnson. I hope you also noticed that Santa Fe resident and Director of NM State Monument System, Ernest Ortega, was featured in one of the segments. The film concentrated on the early history of the creation of our national park system, with hundreds of gorgeous slow motion shots of early parks such as Yosemite, Yellowstone, Grand Canyon, Crater Lake and Glacier. The narrative made the point that most of our park areas would not exist today but for the passion and dedication of small groups of people who sold their fellow citizens and their congressional representatives on the idea that these areas should be preserved and protected in perpetuity. That is why there have been so few deauthorizations of areas once established. It is a matter of generational equity. Succeeding generations of Americans do not want to second guess the decisions that the preceding generations have made regarding our park areas. I know that I would hate to think that a subsequent generation of Americans would seek to deauthorize areas that my generation added such as Guadalupe Mountains National Park, Martin Luther King, Jr. National Historic Site, or Golden Gate National Recreation Area.

What interested me, though, about the Burns film is what it left out. I’d like to spend the rest of the time we have together discussing some issues that were not part of the film.

1. National park areas may face relevance problems in the future.

Our country is becoming racially and ethnically more diverse all time. My brother just retired as an elementary school principal in a well-to-do suburb of Detroit. His school population included children from 26 different languages. We know that few African-Americans visit national park areas; the same is true for Americans of Hispanic heritage. Will these and other racial and ethnic groups support continuing appropriations to maintain our national park areas if we do not find a way to make them feel like they are owners of the system?

Moreover, some observers have noted that younger people spend increasingly less time in the out of doors. In a recent book published on the topic, one young man was reported to have said, “Why would I want to go outdoors? There’s no place to plug in my computer.” If that is representative of his peers, then our parks may suffer from decreasing public support as these kids grow up and become voting adults. Will they be satisfied, as some have suggested, with virtual hikes in Bandelier National Monument instead of actually walking the trail system? Will an I pod photo of Old Faithful be a satisfactory substitute for the real thing?

This is a very real problem. Burns made the point that early park managers recognized that they had to build a constituency for parks if they were to survive. Now, the constituency exists—after all, Yellowstone broke its all-time visitation record this year—but can we hold on to it as we become increasingly diverse and our kids are distracted by computers, flat screen TVs and game boys?

2. The National Park System is much more diverse than the Burns film suggested.

There are now 392 areas that are a part of the system. Parks are situated as far east as Acadia National Park in Maine and as far west as War in the Pacific National Historic Site in Guam where the sacrifices of American and Japanese soldiers in World War II are commemorated. The farthest south is National Park of American Samoa, which is actually in the Southern Hemisphere, and the farthest north is Gates of the Arctic National Park, a portion of which is 200 miles north of the Arctic Circle. The parks vary dramatically in size. The smallest is Thaddeus Kosciusko National Memorial in Philadelphia, two hundredths of an acre. The largest is Wrangell-St. Elias National Park, at 8.3 million acres. If you could explore a section of this National Park each day—640 acres, an almost impossible task—it would take you nearly 36 years. That completed, you could then spend another 21 years exploring the adjacent Wrangell-St. Elias National Preserve, which is also a unit of the National Park System.

More than 60 percent of the areas of the System preserve and protect sites important to us for their historical or cultural associations. In the System, we can hear the drums and cannons of the Revolutionary War at Minute Man or Colonial. We can sense the excitement of nation building at Independence Hall in Philadelphia. We can trace the bloody trail of General Grant as he clashed with General Lee at places such as the Wilderness, Spotsylvania Courthouse, Petersburg, Richmond, ending, finally and mercifully, in the stillness at Appomattox. We can trace the contributions of individuals or groups of people at these sites. The contributions of Black Americans are celebrated at places such as Booker T, Washington National Monument, Frederick Douglass Home National Memorial, or Martin Luther King, Jr. National Historic Site Sites with Hispanic associations are Castillo de San Marcos, De Soto, Coronado, El Morro, Chamizal, San Antonio Missions, and Cabrillo. We can think about the contributions of American artists at NPS sites such as Carl Sandburg Home, Eugene O'Neil, Longfellow, Poe, and St. Gaudens. American women are commemorated at Clara Barton, Susan B. Anthony, and Women’s Rights National Historical Park in New York, the scene of on early suffragette meeting. We can contemplate the genius of our American Indian ancestors at Mesa Verde or Chaco, or sense their pain at Little Big Horn Battlefield or Canyon de Chelly. We commemorate presidents, some great such as Lincoln and Washington and some perhaps not so great like Hoover and Taft. We celebrate scientists such as Edison and inventors like the Wright brothers. It is, in sum, a remarkable collection of places.

But that's not all. In 1936, Congress ordered the NPS to study the impoundment behind Hoover Dam, Lake Mead, for its recreational potential. It was our first recreation area. In the public works days of the 1930's, several parkway projects were authorized and begun. The NPS now manages such places as the Blue Ridge, Natchez Trace, and the George Washington Memorial Parkway in D.C. In 1937, Congress authorized the first national seashore, Cape Hatteras. In 1972, the first urban recreation areas were created and the NPS assumed management responsibilities at Gateway National Recreation Area in New York/New Jersey and Golden Gate National Recreation Area in San Francisco.

3. The debate about what is appropriate in our national park areas is becoming increasingly shrill.

The use of snowmobiles in Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks has prompted an unprecedented outpouring of public comment during the various plans that have been put forward to control the machine’s use. Something like a half a million letters and petitions have flooded the offices of the Department of the Interior and its bureau, the National Park Service. Even after all the plans and scientific studies, it appears that the federal court system will be the final arbiter.

A similar controversy has erupted about the carrying of weapons in national park areas. A Bush administration rule that would have allowed the carrying of concealed weapons in parks was overruled by a federal judge. Her decision was rendered moot by an amendment to the credit card bill proposed by Senator Tom Coburn (R-Oklahoma), and signed by President Obama that allows the carrying of weapons in national park areas consistent with state law. This will go into effect in February 2010. 130,000 comments were received by the Department of the Interior during the rule-making process.

4. National park areas are important economic engines in the areas in which they exist.

When I was the superintendent of Carlsbad Caverns National Park, I made an annual appearance at the Chamber of Commerce and the City Council meeting. At that time, Carlsbad had approximately 800,000 annual visitors. The AAA estimated that the typical family of four in the mid-80’s spent $160 dollars per day while on vacation—gas, food, motels or campsites, souvenirs, and the like. If you take the 800,000 visitors to the Caverns and divide them by 4, that is an estimated 200,000 families spending $160 a day—or something like $32 million dollars. And, as I pointed out, these dollars circulated through the community in unique ways. These visitors did not make the same demands as regular residents on services such as police, fire, school and health. In other words, the community received but did not incur the same costs. I don’t think I ever gave presentations that were as well-received as these.

5. America’s creation of a system of protected areas such as national parks has spurred other nations to do the same.

The International Union for the Conservation of Nature reports that there are now over 100,000 established protected areas in the world, not all of them national parks, of course, but all established to preserve and protect natural and cultural resources. These areas cover approximately 11.63% of the world’s terrestrial and marine areas. Yellowstone was the first such area created in the world; more than 140 nations have followed suit. In the developing world, such areas are often looked at as a way to promote the sustainable use of resources to assure a brighter future for young people. Protected areas in these countries are also the focal point for environmental education.

As community leaders in your businesses and industries, you have an important role to play in assuring that our National Park System remains healthy and vigorous. Contact Senators Bingaman and Udall and Representative Lujan and tell them that you support your national parks. Become active in the park areas that surround Santa Fe. Within a 100 mile radius, you have Bandelier National Monument, Pecos National Historical Park (including Glorietta Pass National Historic Site), and Petroglyph National Monument. If you add to those only the ones in our state—Carlsbad Caverns National Park, Chaco Culture National Historical Park, and El Morro, El Malpais, White Sands, Fort Union, Salinas Pueblo Missions, Gila Cliff Dwellings, Aztec Ruins, and Capulin Volcano National Monuments, you have a rich diversity of areas to visit.

Take your kids and enroll them in the Junior Ranger programs in these areas. I spent two weeks volunteering this summer at a museum in Yellowstone and was surprised at how enthusiastic the kids were about the park’s Junior Ranger program. Buy them a national parks passport and help them get the passport stamped in as many parks as the family visits. Sit with them at the computer and go to www.nps.gov and have them pick out the parks they would most like to visit and then go there.

The noted ecologist, Aldo Leopold, once said that the first rule of intelligent tinkering is to save all the parts. That’s what we are doing in our national park areas—we are saving all the parts. Leopold told a story in his famous Sand County Almanac. I wonder if you remember it.

Let me tell you of a wild river bluff which until 1935, harbored a falcon’s eyrie. Many visitors walked a mile to the river bank to picnic and watch the falcons. Comes now some planner and dynamites a road to the river, all in the name of recreational planning. The excuse is that the public formerly had no right of access; now it has such a right. Access to what? Not access to the falcons for they are gone.

Only eternal vigilance on peoples’ parts such as those in this audience will make sure that our children and their children’s children will inherit all the parts and not a road with no falcons. Remember that outside our parks and other protected areas, we have transformed nature to our purposes and chewed up our history. As Ken Burns noted, it is in the parks where we find out who and what we are as Americans.

Comments

While I'd think some use of eminent domain has been controversial, there have been some more amicable. Recently the Flight 93 Memorial has completed its purchases without having to resort to eminent domain.

There are inholdings too where the NPS has decided it wasn't worth the effort to use eminent domain. Yosemite has a couple including Foresta and Wawona. Kings Canyon has Wilsonia.


Anonymous:
I spend considerable time in the National Parks each year. As said above the Major Parks are experiencing growth each year to their demise. Plans are under way to restrict car travel and go to mass transport systems. Why would we want to encourage more visitors? With the baby boomers out in full force a campground cannot be found a majority of the time. Why don't we spend the park budgets on improvements for the 3+ million visitors who are visiting the major parks instead of promoting more visitation?

Not all NPS units are that heavily visited.

In addition, the demographics might be different too. I suppose the worry is that while visitation in some parks is at an all time high, the visitors tend to be older (you mentioned boomers) and the proportion of new park visitors to support our parks politically may be declining.


In a manner similar to great art, great music, and great halls of higher learning, I believe that our national parks will remain inherently relevant to our society as long as the visitor experience is not impaired by traffic congestion, overt commercialism, or a substandard, unfirendly encounter with uniformed (and non-uniformed) staff.

I would surmise that it's possible to build a strong public constituency for parks, even among those who have never had the personal chance to visit a major unit of the national park system. For example, I believe that National Parks Traveler is doing a terrific job reporting on all aspects of our parks, including problems faced by park visitors and park managers. The fact that readership has surpassed 100,000 hits per month is a very good sign of progress and success.

The Ken Burns special focused on the historical significance of John Muir, Ansel Adams and many others. These legendary greats, through their writings and photography, built a large public constituency among many who themselves had never seen Yosemite or Yellowstone.

Today, we have the enormous added power of the internet to increase the public's awareness of park values and park issues. One thing I like about the new National Parks Facebook page is that it, like National Parks Traveler, keeps park ideas and issues alive in the minds of many of us who may reside many miles away from a major park. This will make a difference, both in terms of future park visits and in terms of building a strong voter base of support for continued park funding.

At present, I would say that the subgroup representing the strongest advocates for a quality national park experience are repeat park visitors who frequent the front and back country of one or more parks on a more or less regular basis, as well as present and former employees of the NPS. This subgroup is well represented by those who have commented on this article and others posted on National Parks Traveler.

By contrast, the subgroup who measure park relevancy by small fluctuations in park visitation are usually those who depend on park visitation for their economic livelihood. This includes owners and employees of park concessions, commercial establishments within gateway communities, and stakeholders within the outdoor recreation/travel industry.

I would contend that those who equate park relevancy with increases in park visitation will be unlikely proponents of plans which attempt to establish visitor carrying capacities for specific areas of parks. Yet, in parks where traffic congestion, over-crowding, and resource damage from excessive visitor use are evident, some form of visitor carrying capacities is necessary to protect resources and prevent impairment of the over-all park experience.

Owen Hoffman
Oak Ridge, TN 37830


Rick,

Thanks for this insightful piece. I thought the neglect of non "park" areas, especially historical sites, was especially unfortunate. It caused the series to mostly overlook (with the exception of that final segment that had a bit on the Lincoln Memorial) the Park Service's role as our nation's most important historical classroom and that meant that it gave almost no attention to the fascinating matter of how we, as a nation, decide what history to remember, what the forget, what to "commemorate," and what to mourn. These issues are every bit as interesting and important for us as conflicts over nature and land use.

I also agree with the writer above (Lee Dalton) who lamented the lack of attention to present-day debates, pressures, and dilemmas (including the unconscionable underfunding of our parks). The series didn't do much to help people understand what is at stake now, and how they (we) need to step up in our time to protect and preserve our parks.

Thanks for an interesting and thought-provoking post!

Anne Mitchell Whisnant, Ph.D.
Historian & Author of Super-Scenic Motorway: A Blue Ridge Parkway History
and When the Parkway Came (a book for children, with David E. Whisnant)
Chapel Hill, NC


A strange bit of hand-wringing in a day when everything causes division and depression. I suppose if Ken Burns had wanted to present a series on the struggles and challenges that face the parks, rather than the struggles and challenges the parks and their supporters overcame so that the parks have come into existence, he would have made a different film.

It seems odd to take exception with the fact that he didn't make the film that you wanted him to make. It likewise doesn't seem fair not to take the film at face value, and judge it for what it is.

Dirk Hurst
[email protected]


Dirk Hurst:
It seems odd to take exception with the fact that he didn't make the film that you wanted him to make. It likewise doesn't seem fair not to take the film at face value, and judge it for what it is.

Certainly a lot of people have their own feelings about what is important. In the leadup to the series, I kept on hearing questions from certain interest groups. One was of a someone who didn't like Yosemite NP's telling of the story of native peoples in Yosemite Valley and was hoping that the Burns series would tell their side of view.

He did go over a little bit of the history of land takings and people forced out of their homes. However - it frankly would have been a consistent downer to spend more than a few minutes on the topic.

There was more than just the telling of the grand natural areas. A good deal was devoted to Gerard Baker, who is the superintendent at Mount Rushmore, as well as time in the series about how National Battlefields (and other designations) were transferred from the War Dept to the NPS.


Dick Hurst--

Please understand that I was not criticizing the Burns film. In fact, I liked it a lot. The title of the talk, "What Ken Burns Left Out" was meant to be an attention grabber--it appears to have worked here on NPT--and to expose a group of people who probably don't think very much about parks to some issues I think are important. I would never accuse an artist of not making the film I wanted. After all, he/she has to make the film that he/she wants. Otherwise, we are not talking about an artist but about a commercial film maker.

Thanks to all the people who have commented on this thread. I have been fascinated by the scope of the comments and the passion they show for parks. Now, if I can only do the captcha

Rick Smith


On January 12th, 2010

While I'd think some use of eminent domain has been controversial, there have been some more amicable. Recently the Flight 93 Memorial has completed its purchases without having to resort to eminent domain.

There is no amicable seizure of property that is not for sale. Acquisition for the Flight 93 Memorial in rural Pennsylvania was in the news several times because of the controversy over NPS threats of eminent domain against unwilling sellers. Eventually they all gave in under the threats, with one owner "agreeing" to valuation determined by the court. NPS falsely insists that this heavy handed process is all "willing seller".

NPS automatically has eminent domain authority unless limited by the specific current legislation for a particular park. Court cases in eminent domain are futile for anything but disputing the so-called "just compensation". The owner has no choice to not sell.

When NPS wants the land and decides to go after it, the owners are forced to become "willing sellers" under the overt threat of eminent domain, or through provisions in the legislation that not do permit the owners to use their own land, forcing them over time to give up and sell to NPS -- the only buyer possible (or a land trust fronting for NPS). This has, for example, been the case at Acadia for years. Acadia is one of the parks that NPS and Burns/Duncan claim is based only on "willing sellers". It isn't true.

An owner giving up under these threats and pressure tactics does not make him an "amicable" "willing seller" whether or not he can afford to go to court to argue over the "price".

There are inholdings too where the NPS has decided it wasn't worth the effort to use eminent domain. Yosemite has a couple including Foresta and Wawona. Kings Canyon has Wilsonia.

NPS has tried to remove the communities at Yosemite several times spanning decades, including under Ridenour (Director under the first President Bush) using the fires at Foresta as an excuse. It has run into massive outcries that temporarily made the government mostly back off until the next round. There are still inholders (and many other owners targeted for park expansion) all over the country, but NPS and its backers like NPCA want to get rid of them as soon as funding and the controversial takings rolling over the owners becomes politically feasible.

If the backers of the proposed Federal entitlement for acquisition get their way and NPS becomes an independent agency with even less accountability to Congress, then a lot more property owners are going to be wiped out. With guaranteed funding and no way to legally or politically stop the seizures, people will not only lose their rights but any means to try to defend them. A lot of people who otherwise like the parks are repulsed by these processes, threats, and the constant disingenuous denials and cover ups.

Burns and Duncan did not report on any of this abuse by NPS because the film was intended to promote NPS and lobby for more power and money for the agency.


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.