You are here

What We'd Like To See Across The National Park System in 2010

Share

A fresh, new year is upon us, full of promise and possibilities for the national parks. Photo of sunrise through Mesa Arch, Canyonlands National Park, by QT Luong, www.terragalleria.com/parks, used with permission.

A fresh new year is upon us, one still brimming with hope, confidence, and high expectations. So, what better time to sort through our list of things we'd like to see happen across the National Park System in 2010?

To help fine-tune this, we're breaking our wish-list into two categories, one that's somewhat big picture and system-wide, and the other that's more specific in terms of definable actions and park programs. And we'll count on you, the readers, to help flesh out this list.

System-wide Needs

* Bring all National Park Service websites onto the same 21st Century page. Let's see all park sites offer photos and multi-media from their parks, as well as "factoids" specific to their parks. Let's see at least a bare minimum of consistent information such as geology, nature and science, history and culture, and things to do.

* Bring sanity to the chaos that revolves around the ridiculous number of designations for units of the National Park System. Do we really need both "National Military Parks" and "National Battlefield Parks", or both "National Rivers" and "National Wild & Scenic Rivers & Riverways"?

* Let's hope that Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, upon seeing the boost in visitation to national parks last summer when he ordered the National Park Service to waive entrance fees on three weekends, permanently ends entrance fees. Keep the rangers at the entrance gates to welcome visitors, answer questions, and hand out brochures and pamphlets, and install a donation box. We think the NPS would be amazed by the amount of donations it would receive.

* That the NPS find a way to push introduction of wilderness legislation where necessary. There's no reason that today, nearly a half-century after passage of The Wilderness Act, that neither Yellowstone nor Glacier have officially designated wilderness.

* Let's hope we find more rangers --full-time and permanent-- across the system to answer our questions, lead us on hikes, patrol the trails, staff the visitor centers, and entertain us around evening campfires.

* May we find that members of the congressional committees that hold sway over the National Park Service actually have an interest in bettering the parks, not using them as pawns.

* That a stronger investment, dollar-wise and personnel-wise, is made in resource managers to help track climate-change impacts on the parks and investigate ways to help the parks and their resources adapt. There should be a happy ending to this wish, as Interior Secretary Salazar wants $10 million invested in this very area.

* That the upwelling of interest and support in our national parks created by The National Parks: America's Best Idea continues unabated.

* That the legalization of carrying firearms in many national parks does not produce a single accidental shooting.

* That Congress pass legislation that provides adequate, long-term funding for the National Park System and eliminates the existing $8 billion-$9 billion backlog in maintenance needs.

* That youth find an interest in national parks not through their iPods and iPhones but through interpretive programs and working in the parks through groups such as the Student Conservation Association.

* That the Vanishing Treasures program, designed to preserve vestiges of the past such as rock art and turn-of-the-century cabins that are disappearing from the National Park System, is reinvigorated.

* That National Park Service Director Jon Jarvis re-establish an ethic of principled leadership and decision-making in the NPS that reduces or eliminates the recent tendencies to favor political whim and narrow special or commercial interests.

* That Director Jarvis elevates workforce (especially leadership) development to a higher priority to, among other things, improve the morale and satisfaction of the dedicated NPS staff.

* That the NPS and Interior Department work very closely with the Congress to begin to implement key recommendations of the National Parks Second Century Commission.

* That the NPS, Interior Department, and the Obama administration make observable progress toward re-establishing the significance and importance of the National Park System for all citizens of the nation.

Specific Needs

* That Director Jarvis, who has a science-background and believes science should play a pivotal role in the National Park System, makes a strong statement underscoring that belief by seeing funding provided to restore the two paleontological staff positions that were cut from Dinosaur National Monument last spring in the name of "core ops" budgeting. At the same time, funding should also be provided for a staff geologist at Grand Canyon National Park and a landscape architect at the Blue Ridge Parkway, just to name two glaring deficiencies.

* That funding is found to update outdated brochures as well as interpretive panels and displays and to replace vandalized roadside exhibits that can be found across the park system.

* That a solution to the dispatched Flamingo Lodge in Everglades National Park is found.

* That visible, and meaningful, progress is made on arriving at a sound development plan for the Yosemite Valley.

* That the unceasing litany of lawsuits over winter-use in Yellowstone ceases and officials identify a science-based and supported plan that keeps all parties happy and provides the strongest protections for the park's resources, visitors, and employees.

* That mining threats to the north of Glacier National Park and to the west of Waterton Lakes National Park are quashed by Canadian officials.

* That Asian carp are kept out of the Great Lakes and so don't imperil the fisheries that are part of the many national park units that dot the lakes.

* That funding be found to open additional cliff ruins at Mesa Verde National Park, such as the Mug House, to the public.

Thanks to Bill Wade and Rick Smith of the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees for their contributions to this list.--Ed.

Featured Article

Comments

I, too, want to chime in on the side of retaining entrance fees to parks. Simplifying:

-- philosophically, things that are free are not valued (this goes with the "riff-raff" argument stated earlier).
-- generally speaking, I've personally never seen a fee that is not competitive with private sector entertainment. Even state campgrounds charge nightly fees.
-- in a nation of heavy deficits, overspending, and unwillingness to pay taxes, the notion that "our tax dollars are already paying for this" is bogus. It's like saying "I own my house" when it's still under a 30-year mortgage, or "how do you like my new wide-screen plasma TV" when it really belongs to your credit card company (who's happy to pay you 20% annually to rent it). Your tax dollars aren't paying for the parks, borrowed money from China and other countries is paying for the parks.
-- per Kurt's own list, Congress doesn't responsibly fund or run these parks. Time to get them out of the equation by making them self-sufficient. Think NPR: NPR used to be funded almost exclusively by the federal government, but now it is almost entirely funded by individual donations and corporate sponsors. It manages to hold its integrity regardless. The same model should be applied to the parks, and fees need to be part of that model.

============================================

My travels through the National Park System: americaincontext.com


Re: Barky's comments about American spending habits: I don't go along with the "things that are free are not valued" idea. A park is most often used for leisure, so I "cruise" to a park to "hang out" because it's a pleasant place to "hang out"; relax, picnic, hike, etc. I sure do value my leisure time since I have so little of it. Does that make me "riff-raff"? When I do go to a park that charges a fee, I gladly pay it. Does that take me off the "riff-raff" list? Does paying a fee make me an acceptable patron?

Referring to China's investment in Treasury bills is a canard. China didn't pay for my parks - I did. The sad fact is, the local user with limited funds is SOL for access to the vast majority of the public lands he has ALREADY PAID FOR with his tax dollars. From where I sit, only the well-heeled can afford to travel to your "gem" parks. Sure, all the items on the wish list are great - but only if everyone can have access to the benefits. What part of "all Americans" is so tough to understand?

His best argument is "take Congress out of the equation" - I'll buy that - if that happened, NPS might be better able to fulfill its mission without political (or corporate) interference. But that's just another wish, isn't it? I hope Mr. Jarvis will be allowed to improve the parks to the high standard NPS was always meant to have. Thanks for letting me post my two cents.


The entrance fees present a difficult issue. On the one hand, whenever you have a scarce resource, like Yosemite road space and parking, entrance fees are an optimal rationing device. The NPS could have an online waiver program for people who certify they're low-income.

On the other hand, I dislike the fees to the extent they convert American highways into toll roads. I had to pay $20 to drive through Zion some years ago on my way east. I did not want to see the park, but it was either pay $20 or detour many miles. I paid, but I remain irritated to this day. Same with Yosemite: the $20 fee cuts off a through route to Lee Vining and eastern California.

I realize some will be appalled that anyone would want to enter a national park merely for purposes of transiting it. But sometimes it's desirable—that's why public highways traverse some of them.


It might be possible to issue a temporary non-visitor entrance pass. It could have a short duration depending on the park and the road traversed. Tioga Road would take at least an hour, while Zion would take less time.

I've gotten around entrance fees before for legitimate uses. I remember some state park where one could tell them that we were going to this restaurant, which we did. There used to be controversy that Yosemite visitors would claim that they were there to go to the post office. There might have also been some law cited. I don't think the entrance fee at Yosemite was more than $5 though.


The temporary nonvisitor pass is a good idea.

I tried to persuade the Zion ranger that I wanted just to drive through, but it did no good.

Ironically, the $20 fee notwithstanding, the road through Zion was packed with vehicles going 20 mph. It would have been faster to take a 50-mile detour.

The next time I drove in the area, I went all the way up I-15 to Utah Highway 20 in Iron County and back down U.S. 89 through Panguitch to get to where I was going (probably the Thunder Mountain Trail, west of Bryce Canyon, for mountain biking).

On a completely different topic, are others finding Internet Explorer 8 as bug-filled as I have found it to be? The first captcha does not work with it; you have to do it twice. I switched to Apple Safari a few weeks ago but made the mistake of opening IE8 for this post.


imtnbke:
Ironically, the $20 fee notwithstanding, the road through Zion was packed with vehicles going 20 mph. It would have been faster to take a 50-mile detour.

The next time I drove in the area, I went all the way up I-15 to Utah Highway 20 in Iron County and back down U.S. 89 through Panguitch to get to where I was going (probably the Thunder Mountain Trail, west of Bryce Canyon, for mountain biking).

On a completely different topic, are others finding Internet Explorer 8 as bug-filled as I have found it to be? The first captcha does not work with it; you have to do it twice. I switched to Apple Safari a few weeks ago but made the mistake of opening IE8 for this post.

The road is only about 12 miles until you get to Springdale. Unless it's a night it's rather remarkable scenery too. When I went the first time we ended up waiting behind an RV. We had to wait until the escort (for one-way traffic) was available and were able to drive down the center of the tunnel. I believe oversized vehicle drivers pay $10 more for the escort.

I'm on an Apple and generally use Safari at home. I find Captca somewhat inconsistent. Sometimes it takes several tries including modifying my cookies setting to allow all cookies.


It is interesting to read the comments regarding the removal of entrance fees.

One of the best thoughts on fees for public lands is "Let those who use it pay a bit more"- credited to T. Roosevelt. (though undoubtably a paraphrase)

Some parks make tremendous amounts of increased funding from the revenues at entrance stations. I understand the "Fee Demonstration" efforts which were tested around 1995 and implemented following that were a change in policy. Prior to that time, all monies taken in by the parks was returned to the US General Fund. The NPS requested funding for maintenance of the considerable numbers of structures that were degrading and were denied. The counter-offer involved retaining control of the fees collected to use for that task. The arrangement settled upon was a retention of 80% for the parks, the rest returning to the General Fund. This money is rather specifically earmarked for maintenance/upkeep on park structures, employment of new fee collection personnel, or special projects that need Congressional approval. So, the higher fees (I remember a $3 entrance fee at Devils Tower NM) should be helping maintain the structures used by the park visitors. That being said, intake often does not pay for its own collection in parks.

As far as an increase in visitation as a result of removal of fees, I have some doubts. There are areas that cease charging fees for part of the year and visitation still maintains its normal fluctuations seasonally. Hetch Hetchy in Yosemite NP charges no fees from mid-October to mid-April, but sees no increase in visitation. The Blue Ridge DID charge fees in sections at one time. The great length is too crossed by other roads to make this feasible for a good bit of it.

To keep out the riff-raff, I would have to stay away as well...

Happy Travels in the New Year!


I am highly conflicted about fees. Basically, I think achieving the Mission of the NPS is the most important thing, and the NPS should do all the innovative things it can to get the money to achieve the Mission, short of undermining it.

It would be better for everybody if park professionals did not have to spend time trying to fund the parks and deal with the Politics, and instead could just do the best possible job managing the parks. But in a Democracy the NPS needs to find ways to keep the people who control the money interested in the Parks. We learned to our horror that if you are ONLY dedicated to the Mission, the politicians who respond to the anarchists will cut you out and cut you up. So, park managers, and would-be managers, were forced to be entrepreneurial about a lot of things.

But even if we must have alternative sources of income, like fees, the current system has real problems.

I think Marshall Dillon's point is silly, that Democrats should govern like Republicans, in anticipation of a Republican return ! [Perhaps that is part of the reason Democrats in power in the past governed so much like Republicans, but it is just as likely the reason is the power of key Republican staffers when in the Majority and staffers in the Office of Management and Budget who oversee the NPS. It was astonishing watching President Clinton's Assistant Secretary for Budget in the Dept of Interior dance to the tune of these Republican and OMB staffers!] Elections should matter, or the people will become hopelessly cynical.

Wandering Wonderer is right about the fee demo program, created by Republican House appropriation staffers. It is targeted at facility maintenance. Big, 'Destination' parks are the primary beneficiaries. All this is wrong. It is part of a larger conservative bias AGAINST conservation, and FOR buildings, trails and facilities. I would guess most visitors paying a fee to get into a National Seashore would assume their fees are paying for the lifeguards or for the people keeping the beach clean and safe. I would think visitors would not mind paying to buy up inholdings inside park boundaries. I would guess visitors would not mind if their fee money would go to hiring permanent interpreters and biologists, to protect the park and tell the story for visitors.

The slickest thing accomplished by these congressional staffers was to convince the Media and others that the primary problem in national parks was the facility backlog, and then to keep the full funding of that backlog just out of reach.

Meanwhile, cultural resource specialists, interpreters, seasonals, maintenance people, Historians, biologists, archeologists, land acquisition professionals, park planners, and river and heritage preservation people working with communities outside park boundaries -- the people primarily responsible for the things most of interest to the public -- these people were being eliminated.

If the park service loses its Professionals, and becomes an agency of contract managers and procurement specialists, it will be no different than the GSA or other faceless government agencies.

Already, we have people making decisions on construction and service contracts who have no special park expertise. The people who invented the fee demo program have turned the 1916 Organic Act of the National Park Service on its head: although the Act was clearly intended to professionalize park management with a professional cadre of dedicated professionals, these people use the concessions clause to say everything can be outsourced.

So, although i would rather have no fees, it would be my goal for the next 10 years to re-professionalize the parks, protect and interpret park resources themselves, and buy all the park land you can. Redistribute the fee funding, so that it can pay for permanent and seasonal park staff, to the primary preservation priorities of the National Park Service. Or, get rid of the program. Force the conservatives out in the Open, as the people who do not want to protect America's heritage.


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.