What are the top issues confronting the National Park System? A slew of answers could be tacked onto that question, ranging from sprawl outside park boundaries and habitat fragmentation to pollution.
The other day someone pointed out a list on National Geographic's website, and while it's certainly a good list of candidates, there's no apparent date to which you can attach the list. The fact that the story mentions "392" units of the system somewhat dates the list, as there currently are 394. Still, the authors came up with a nice Top 10:
* "Untold Stories" stemming from the vast archival resources of the National Park Service that are collecting mothballs somewhere due to a lack of space to display them and curatorial staff to catalog them and tell their stories.
* "Crumbling infrastructure." This is in reference to the Park Service's estimated $9.5 billion backlog of maintenance. Still, the infusion of more than $750 million through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act has made some inroads into this backlog.
* "Wildlife Management." This is certainly a key issue in light of fragmenting habitats and human pressures through development that are impacting wildlife from Everglades to Denali.
* "Foreign invaders." Exotic species -- plants, animals, insects, fish -- all are creating problems in various corners of the park system.
* "Adjacent development." See "wildlife management" above.
* "Climate change." Impacts of an altering climate already are being noticed in the parks, from the melting glaciers in Glacier National Park to bug infestations in Rocky Mountain, Grand Teton, Yellowstone, and other western parks made possible by warmer weather.
* "Water issues." There perhaps is no better example of what happens when natural water flows are replumbed by humans than the struggling "river of grass" in Everglades National Park.
* "Air pollution." The National Geographic article mentions Great Smoky Mountains National Park, but you could easily add Acadia, Sequoia, Grand Canyon, and Mesa Verde to the list of parks impacted by air pollution, whether it arrives in the form of high ground-level ozone levels, particulates, or acid rain.
* "Transportation Troubles." The article links this to poor roads in the parks but much progress has been made, and is continuing, in parks such as Yellowstone, Sequoia, and Great Smoky.
* "Visitor Experience." This entry hinges on how people enjoy the parks. Debate continues to swirl over how appropriate different uses -- snowmobiles, ORVs, overflights, mountain bikes -- are in the parks, and yet these forms of recreation are popular with many visitors.
There certainly are other strong candidates that could be added to this list. For instance...
* Diversity in the Parks. If overall visitation is weighted towards any one demographic, such as Baby Boomers, who will advocate for the parks when the Baby Boomers fade away? Strides are being made in this area as evidenced, for instance, in efforts being made by Yosemite National Park staff to interest more visitors of Hispanic descent in the park.
* Overall funding. This perhaps should be at the top of the list, for as long as Congress fails to adequately provide for the parks the maintenance backlog will continue to grow, stories will go untold, species will suffer, natural, cultural and historic resources will be impacted, and visitor services will decline.
* Under-staffing. It can be argued that there are not enough full-time, professionally trained staff in the parks, whether they be interpreters, law enforcement rangers, or curatorial staff. Volunteers are great, but they should complement, not supplement, full-time staff.
* Employee recruitment. Surveys have shown that NPS staffing, overall, is tilted toward white males. If visitor diversity efforts are to succeed, it would seem that diversity in staffing is important, too.
* Political interference. Under this you could list politicians who try to legislate management of the parks and require the Park Service to spend incredible amounts of time and dollars studying prospective park units that on first blush probably don't deserve to be added to the system.
* Illegal immigrants. Whether the source is drug runners or illegal aliens traveling through Southwestern parks such as Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument or Saguaro National Park or Mexican drug cartels setting up marijuana groves in Sequoia, Yosemite and even North Cascades National Park, these are serious problems that are threatening park visitors and staff and impacting park resources.
Any other threats you would place on this list?
Comments
Barky has a great idea!
"I so wish the entire NPS could be turned over to a public trust away from the federal government."
I suggest not stopping at just the NPS turning away from the Federal Government. The implications are euphoric :):) !
"* Employee recruitment. Surveys have shown that NPS staffing, overall, is tilted toward white males. If visitor diversity efforts are to succeed, it would seem that diversity in staffing is important, too."
I find it very offensive for someone to tell me that a big problem for the NPS is lack of minorities as employees. As with Anonymous above, I too am a non-veteran white male who worked hard to gain the skills, degrees and knowledge to perform my job. I had to jump through many hoops to gain my position after watching the NPS offer it to a minority without any hoops to jump through. Without a doubt the thought process of hiring someone just because they are a minority will pave the road to destruction of any agency. Common sense tells you to hire the best person for the job no matter what race they are. Its reverse discrimination is offensive and it’s not right. It just so happens that the majority of people who want to dedicate themselves to a life of protecting our national treasures just happen to be white. Is that so wrong? I don't really care what race the guy or gal is working beside me, I just want them to be the best person for the job. Until we as a nation can get off this stupid race thing and start hiring on merit, we all lose out.
I also agree with the vast majority of people.. Funding is a huge issue. Lack of funding and proper management of the funds the NPS receive. First off, kill the end of year spending. It's wasteful and stupid. I don't need colorful post it notes on my desk nor do I need another 1000 file folders sitting in the closet. What I do need is proper equipment, reliable vehicles, better services for our visitors and common sense when it comes to budgeting. The age old fear of losing your budgeted money because you didn't spend every last penny is just plain dumb. Why not reward the parks who manage to achieve all of their goals while coming under budget. Remove the fear of losing money next year, because you saved a buck this year. Allow parks to bank the extra dollars for future projects without losing future budgeting.. This would prevent the need for Stimulus Pork or at least reduce it. I know this goes against all accounting practices ever invented, but maybe that was the change we needed in Washington instead of the change left in our pockets.
Why is there a need for more rangers with enviros wanting to restrict national park access to the non-handicapped, in perfect shape, adult only environment.
I liked your comments, Another Ranger! You represent the thoughts of a broad swath of the middle ground that voted in November. It's so logical and fresh....it's threatening to many that embrace and have prospered in the disfunction :).
Rock On, Rangers!
Another Ranger and George, the reference to diversity in the workforce was not to imply rules or standards should be weakened in hiring, but rather that the NPS somehow find a way to cultivate a more diverse pool of qualified candidates system-wide in all fields within the NPS.
Just hire the best and allow those that got the positions realize they got it because of their own achievement and not diversity quotas. There's much evidence that opportunity is available for everyone given that one realizes that it's not a right but determined by their own efforts. That's a cultivation method I could embrace. Individuals planting a seed of encouragement in another individual rather than the government spending dollars even if we had them to spend.
Thanks again for the great discussions!
Bureaucratic and regulatory overload that has lead to inertia. Even the simplest things seem to be in the too hard to do category.
Leaders, decision-makers and managers that are far too risk averse and afraid to make even the simplest decision without having consensus. Too much CYA.
I don't really think funding is an issue. If you eliminate most of the BS that we spend 80% of our time doing, there is plenty of $$$ and FTE to get the job done and then some.
B
No comment but Tim Geitner just announced that $14 Trillion in DEBT isn't enough.