Would it make sense to turn management of Bryce Canyon National Park entirely over to a business?/Kurt Repanshek
With a park system that is being strangled by its maintenance backlog and operating costs, would the National Park Service, and the system, be better off if the agency outsourced entire parks?
That isn't necessarily a ridiculous idea on its face. Already the Park Service contracts with others to manage its lodgings, restaurants, and many campgrounds, and it relies heavily on volunteers to cope with visitors. So why not go all in? Would it make a stronger, more efficient, and better managed park system if individual units were treated, say, as franchises that were independently managed?
The idea was raised last month in Bozeman, Montana, during a three-day workshop the Property and Environment Research Center held on the next century of the National Park Service. The topic certainly is timely, as the Park Service's centennial arrives on August 25, 2016, and, at least outwardly, more emphasis so far has been placed on how to celebrate the agency rather than what can make the agency better going forward.
Understandably, with a maintenance backlog estimated at more than $11.5 billion, congressional appropriations relatively flat, and unwieldy concession operations, fiscal fitness should be a key aspect of any long-range planning by the agency.
From the perspective of one of the workshop's presenters, Holly Fretwell, the Park Service appears to be an inefficient agency that likely could benefit by placing the day-to-day operation of some, if not many, of its units into the hands of the business community.
'To me, if we thought about this from some sort of economic perspective, the point of the National Park Service, the reason that you would want sort of that umbrella entity, is to lower the transaction cost of having these parks function," Ms. Fretwell, a research fellow at PERC and an adjunct economics instructor at Montana State University, said in a follow-up interview. "If it's not doing that, if it's actually increasing the transaction costs, then it's not serving its purpose. And I think at this point it might be increasing those transaction costs."
Whether the Park Service's staggering fiscal morass is due to managerial pitfalls or congressional underfunding has been, and will continue to be, debated. By placing some units under outside managers -- franchisees could be one descriptor -- not only could lead the units to become economically viable, but also help control Congress's appetite for creating park system units that might not quite fit the mold.
Would a First State National Monument be any less if a non-profit organization ran it, much like the Mount Vernon Ladies Association runs George Washington's home? Should $8 million-$26 million in tax dollars be spent in the coming years to fund the proposed Blackstone River Valley National Historical Park in Massachusetts and Rhode Island, or should an outside group step forward with a plan to raise those funds on its own and operate such a park under the NPS umbrella?
'Why do we have a National Park Service anyway? What is the NPS, and what is it doing for us?" questioned Ms. Fretwell. "Is it providing a great service and helping us lower the transaction costs for us to have these wonderful parks, or is it not?"
There still would be a need for a Park Service, she went on, to manage park units that don't quite fit a business model but which we as a society still want preserved, either for their historical significance or natural resources. Units that might fit that description could include Buck Island Reef National Monument in the U.S. Virgin Islands, Mojave National Preserve in California, or St. Croix Island National Historic Site in Maine.
"I have a concern for these areas that are worthy of protection, but they can't pay for themselves. I don't want to cut those out and say everybody should be able to run as a franchise and everybody should be self-sufficient and everything's fine and dandy," Ms. Fretwell explained. "I do think that there are places worth protecting that will not be financially self-sufficient. I do think there are places for protecting that we do want people to recreate in that, sort of as a general populace, if they were privately run and managed the fees to go in there would be so high that most of us wouldn't be able to go.
"... I guess my big goal is to try to say how can we manage for those that can be better managed as a private sector or as public entity with sort of this franchise idea, because I don't think it's politically feasible or even politically appropriate at this time to say privatize them. I think that just turns too many people off. We're not going to get anywhere that way."
Buck Island Reef, which protects "one of the finest marine gardens in the Caribbean Sea," might not lend itself to private management/National Park Foundation
While she sees possibilities for creating "franchises," if you will, Ms. Fretwell also believes prospective units of the park system could be better evaluated than they currently are if they had a groundswell of support and also met a currently undefined set of standards or parameters for being a "national park."
"If there's a big enough group that says we really should be protecting this because it's a wonderful recreation area and we don't want it to be developed ... in that sense then we should be able to make it reasonably self-sufficient and then by golly let's create a business plan," she said. "The way that you get into the National Park System now is you create a business plan and you figure out how you're going to manage this, and you apply for a franchise."
That approach already can be seen, to a certain extent, across the country. The Nature Conservancy manages many of its own properties, and even owns the majority (nearly 11,000 acres) of the Tallgrass Prairie National Preserve in Kansas and co-manages it with the Park Service. The Audubon Society owns and runs the Wellfleet Bay Wildlife Sanctuary on Cape Cod. These non-profits have developed successful business plans to operate lands that would seem natural additions to the National Park System.
"If it really is worthy to be there, then people need to see it's worthiness and its value for the long-term period, and you need to be able to generate revenues for it to cover the costs for the long-term," said Ms. Fretwell.
While the "national park" cachet is potent, and has led to efforts to rebrand units of the park system as "national parks," Ms. Fretwell doesn't fear that a unit operated by a business rather than the National Park Service would lose its drawing appeal.
'In my mind, it's still going to be a national park. It's under the National Park Service, and if you've gotten that franchise then you've said, 'I am worthy and this area is worthy of National Park System status,'" she said.
'Is it (the NPS) helping us, helping the parks be more functional today, or is it making them more costly? I don't have an answer to that, it's sort of a rhetorical question. But I think it needs to be addressed.'
Story Categories:
A copy of National Parks Traveler's financial statements may be obtained by sending a stamped, self-addressed envelope to: National Parks Traveler, P.O. Box 980452, Park City, Utah 84098. National Parks Traveler was formed in the state of Utah for the purpose of informing and educating about national parks and protected areas.
Residents of the following states may obtain a copy of our financial and additional information as stated below:
- Florida: A COPY OF THE OFFICIAL REGISTRATION AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION FOR NATIONAL PARKS TRAVELER, (REGISTRATION NO. CH 51659), MAY BE OBTAINED FROM THE DIVISION OF CONSUMER SERVICES BY CALLING 800-435-7352 OR VISITING THEIR WEBSITE. REGISTRATION DOES NOT IMPLY ENDORSEMENT, APPROVAL, OR RECOMMENDATION BY THE STATE.
- Georgia: A full and fair description of the programs and financial statement summary of National Parks Traveler is available upon request at the office and phone number indicated above.
- Maryland: Documents and information submitted under the Maryland Solicitations Act are also available, for the cost of postage and copies, from the Secretary of State, State House, Annapolis, MD 21401 (410-974-5534).
- North Carolina: Financial information about this organization and a copy of its license are available from the State Solicitation Licensing Branch at 888-830-4989 or 919-807-2214. The license is not an endorsement by the State.
- Pennsylvania: The official registration and financial information of National Parks Traveler may be obtained from the Pennsylvania Department of State by calling 800-732-0999. Registration does not imply endorsement.
- Virginia: Financial statements are available from the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, 102 Governor Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219.
- Washington: National Parks Traveler is registered with Washington State’s Charities Program as required by law and additional information is available by calling 800-332-4483 or visiting www.sos.wa.gov/charities, or on file at Charities Division, Office of the Secretary of State, State of Washington, Olympia, WA 98504.
Comments
First, I hope all readers will take a few moments to explore the web link for the Property and Environment Research Center so you'll know right where they are coming from and who they really represent. Then decide if you agree with them or not.
Second, let's get Congress out of the picture. It's not so much the National Park Service that has messed our parks as it is Congress with its continual pork barrel legislation and attempts to micromanage. Get rid of the political forces that continually tug the parks back and forth as Congress tries to keep every special interest group in the world happy and ensure maximum profits for GOP's socialists and maximum income into campaign coffers. (GOP Socialism = Socialize expenses, Privatize profits)
Third, let's indeed run our parks (and forests and BLM lands) as businesses. Let's let those who use and abuse them pay for the privilege. People willing to spend nearly a thousand dollars a day for a family to visit Dizzyworld or tens of thousands for ultrahuge travel trailers shouldn't complain if they are asked to pay for their fun on public lands.
Fourth, remember that if PERC and Congressional Rob Bishops and others like them prevail, our public lands will no longer be public and we'll be paying much more than we'd probably pay if we simply ran our parks and recreational outdoors like a good business.
Here in the west, the phrase "Property Rights" means I got mine, it's mine, gimmie what I'm demanding or NO TRESPASSING. What should happen is that land that is already private remains private. Land that is public needs to be supported by the public.
While I am not in favor of privatizing the NPS I do think something needs to be done. It makes no sense to me to read about the huge maintenance backlogs and budget shortfalls over and over again and at the same time reading how they want to expand, often into areas of questionable or debatable value. I'm all in favor of more natural area's because once they are lost they are hard to get back but the NPS needs to demonstrate they can manage the ones already on their plate first. It does appear to me the NPS has grown too large to be efficient.
So let me get this straight, park service biologists, climatologists, geologists, and archeologists have to wear disney logos and answer to mickey mouse stockholders? You do realize this idea comes with a big of ridiculousness, right? I think the "maintenece backlog" is well over stated. A lot of that can be solved, by simply designating more wilderness in National parks, and keeping them wild, and not attempting to accomodating the auto crowd at every whim.
I'd rather stick to the ideas and weight them on their own merits. For someone that complains about factions not cooperating, it is kind of ironic that the first thing you do is challange an idea because of who it came from.
100% agree - especially the micromanage part
100% agree
Some lands might not be public and probably shouldn't be. Other lands including some Park units as noted above might be very well better run by a non-profit organization. As I have noted before they do quite well with the likes of Mount Vernon, Monticello, Mountpelier, Ash Lawn, properties under the domain of the National Trust for Historic Preservation, et (many) al. To use scare tactics to imply all our public lands including our national parks will dissappear is just dishonest. Noone is suggesting that including PERK and Congressman Rob Bishop.
Right, wild. But again, how much of the expansion has been driven by the Park Service and how much by Congress? Is it that the NPS has grown too large to be efficient or that the resources available -- money and personnel -- make it impossible to operate properly or efficiently? If your lawnmower breaks down and you have no choice but to replace it with a pair of scissors, how efficient and effective will your efforts be?
And Gary, remember 2003 when the only people in the visitor center at Bryce Canyon were wearing Ford Motor Company logos on their shirts as part of President Cheney's push to "privatize" the parks?
Gary--The maintenance backlog is not a myth. All one has to do is to closely observe the crumbling infrastructure in many of our parks to know that. You don't replace roofs on buildings by declariing more wildernesss. The really sad part is that the lack of adequate appropriations often means that routine, cyclic maintenance cannot be completed, thus adding to the backlog. It's not a pretty picture.
Rick
How often do we see the NPS saying "No"? Do they frequently appear before Congress and say "we don't want that unit"?
Honestly I don't know the answer but I am not aware of it happening. A question that needs some research but I would love to see examples from so of those with more intimate knowledge of NPS operations.
Congress is indeed at fault but I suspect the NPS is a willing accomplice. Like any entity, the natural propensity is to expand and ask for more money not contract and reduce your budget.
EC, if you will check the NPS Morning Report on Mondays, you'll find the weekly Legislative Activities Report. If you do, you will find it's not at all unusual to find a note regarding a proposal currently being considered by Congress. The note will say "The Department Supports the Bill," or "The Department Opposes the bill."
http://www.nps.gov/morningreport/
It's also essential to remember that Congress is the 45-Ton gorilla in the living room. What might happen if the director or Secretary of the Interior tried to stand up and loudly say NO?
Lee, when was the last time the NPS opposed the addition of a unit? Searching the site for the word "opposes" returns no hits.
Gosh, Buffalo Bob, I just searched for "opposes" and found bunches and bunches of hits.
Did you spell it right?
Sorry, no results found for 'opposes'. Try entering fewer or broader query terms.
That's what I get, but since you got returns, you should be able to tell us the last time the NPS opposed the addition of a unit.
PS - I am talking about searching the morning report site, not NPT
Yup. Morning Report site. Using the Search box in upper right corner.
So what did you find?
I can't allot the time to a lengthy search on this subject, but my [unsupported] impression is by the time a proposed NPS addition has gone through the "study" process and been found to meet the criteria for "national significance," DOI rarely voices opposition to the authorization bill.
A quick Google search did find a couple of interesting exceptions. I suppose the second item, which would use NPS dollars for a private operation, could even be viewed as an example of "outsourcing" in reverse:
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-110shrg40674/html/CHRG-110shrg40674.htm
"S. 1941, a bill to direct the Secretary of the Interior to study the suitability and feasibility of designating the Wolf House, located in Norfork, Arkansas, as a unit of the National Park System....the Department opposes this bill. Because the Wolf House has a predominant significance in the political history of the State of Arkansas, we believe it would be more suited for inclusion in ... State Park."
"S 2220 would authorize funding for the National Tropical Botanical Garden for Fiscal Year 2009 and beyond.... The Department opposes S. 2220... as critical as the Garden's work is, we believe that the use of limited National Park Service appropriations to fund the operation and maintenance costs of a private organization is inappropriate."
Teachers know that students learn best when they do their own homework.
And any student of logic will tell you that being able to evaluate your sources helps to validate or invalidate your material. PERC's website, on the first page, has links to explain why recycling doesn't work, why the EPA is bad, and why "market solutions" are best.
What was not transparent was who funds PERC.
Lee, the NPS websites in general are difficult at best if you're searching for items. The Morning Report site is particularly bad. I've been following it for years and a quick search this morning failed to return any specific legislative proposals, let alone the Park Service's position.
I can tell you that originally the agency opposed Paterson Great Falls National Historical Park, and that it supports the proposed Blackstone River Valley site.
Rick, we don't need necessarily to credit or discredit the source of the idea, but to consider the idea by itself as a possible solution for the Park Service's funding issues. The idea offers more than a few possibilities, both in the profit- and non-profit worlds, as well as state park systems.
Three cheers to Kurt for writing this article. It proves that The Traveler believes in ideas and not just a "party line." The ideas we oppose deserve to be debated, too. Now, what is so bothersome about the idea of "privatizing" the parks? Simply, they would no longer reflect a national consensus that our heritage deserves PUBLIC care.
The point is: It is not just the privatizers questioning that consensus. It is rather our "educators" often leading the pack. Beginning in the 1960s, college revolutionaries taught that everything American was suspect, then in response to the Vietnam War. By the 1980s they were in charge. Don't think for a moment that all of this is coming from conservatives, i.e., Republicans. There are as many "liberals" who would do away with the national park system as a "taking" from minority groups. They teach at the University of Wisconsin, Stanford University, Brown, and many others. These faculty are the direct opposite of what we had before 1960 when we could take pride in American "exceptionalism."
If we want to solve the Park Service's funding problem, we have to BELIEVE in what the agency does. If someone cannot teach that, how can we expect the Park Service--or the national park idea--to survive?
The point about PERC is that they invited Kurt to the table knowing full well what he believes--and believes in. Think about that for a change. Of course, there goes Kurt's chance of ever speaking at a college commencement. However, somehow I think he doesn't mind.
Teachers know that students learn best when they do their own homework.
Which just shows the "teacher" in this case doesn't know.
At least Jim made a stab - although in that case it never got through Congress. Lee, you made the case that a burden has been put on the NPS by Congress driving the expansion. With the exception of Kirk's Patterson Great Falls - which "initially" was opposed, I have yet to see an example of a Park unit designated by Congress over the NPS's objection.
How can a government agency actually stand up and oppose Congress? Kinda like standing on the railroad tracks to oppose that oncoming freight train.
Exactly, Lee. NPS can oppose it; they can also piddle on the carpet of those who fund NPS. A well reasoned science-based fact filled argument will only theorhetically change the course of those politicians who have been bought and paid for.
By saying "we don't want it" as the military has done in many instances. They don't always win, but at least they take the stand.
Please "teacher" show us where NPS's objections to a unit have been overruled.
[edit] - I have discovered that if you expand the search option to all of NPS.gov rather than to the site you linked, you do indeed get many hits on "opposes". And in fact, many of those hits discuss the NPS opposing legislation - mostly legislation that interfers with their management. Apparently unlike others, they do have the backbone to oppose and aren't afraid to piss on the rug. They just don't oppose proposals to expand their domain.
Does anybody have a few stats about how the NPS spends its money? Like, how many % spent on salaries, pensions, infrastructures, consultant, etc? How much is spent in the parks vs administration?
All bureaucracies have this innate tendency to tend to operate for their own benefit over time. I'm sure some of it is true at the NPS. Not that a chronic underfunding helps any.
I'm with Kurt and EC. We should debate the merits (or lack thereof) of the idea rather than using an ideological prism to judge it first.
For a country that spends $ 600 Billion + annually on defense spending, an $11.5 billion backlog seems almost trivial. I guess we need to decide what our true priorities are in this country. I am a person who loves to utilize my public lands and I don't mind paying more for the privilage. I also believe for all the faults in the NPS, it is neccassary and truly underfunded.
The tight budgets and dearth of new national parks in recent years is due to a lack of political will, not available funds. The National Park Service budget is about $2.6 billion a year, or a mere 1/15 of 1 percent of the total federal budget. The average American household pays only $2.56 in taxes annually for the operation of our park system — a little more than a cup of coffee at Starbucks.
The public supports adequate funding for the National Park Service: 90 percent of respondents in a 2012 bipartisan opinion survey said they support maintaining or increasing the National Park Service budget. This is because the agency's spending priorities are in line with those of the American people. About 85 percent of of the National Park Service budget goes directly to park protection, education, and recreation programs. In contrast, only 40 percent of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service budget is allocated to the National Wildlife Refuge System, 6 percent of the Forest Service budget goes to protection, education, and recreation programs, and 6 percent of Bureau of Land Management funding is devoted to the National Landscape Conservation System.
The National Park Service budget could be expanded by reallocating federal funds from unpopular and questionable programs. Examples include annual subsidies of $8 billion to the nuclear industry, $16 billion to the fossil fuel industry, $17 billion to industrial agriculture, and $20 billion for the problem-plagued F-35 Joint Strike Fighter plane. The budget of any one of these extravagant programs could fund the National Park Service many times over.
We can also afford to expand our National Park System. Most potential parks are already administered by other federal agencies, which have operating budgets that can be transferred with the land. Parks authorized to encompass private lands can be acquired through the federal Land and Water Conservation Fund, landowner donations, and private contributions.
For major sites and landscapes of national significance, National Park System designation is usually more protective than state, local, or private ownership. Some state parks and municipal lands provide robust safeguards and excellent programs, yet the vast majority of these lands allow a variety of damaging industrial uses and have budgets that are far more limited than national parks. Private landowners and nonprofit organizations have preserved many important places, but they cannot offer the permanency of public ownership and — with the exception of a few high-profile sites — are chronically underfunded.
Thank you, Mr. Kellett, for a fine post.
There are just two problems with it.
It's true.
It makes sense.
Sorry about that.
Sorry Zeb. Evaluating the quality and motives of a source of information is not an ideological prism; it's a valid and necessary tool of scholarship.
We all know what other government programs COULD fund. However, chronic underfunding of the national park system was a problem long before the twentieth century, let alone the twenty-first. The railroads stepped in because they had to. Uncle Sam would not fund the parks.
What about American culture explains the phenomenon? Giving up an extra Starbucks for the parks is fine, but that is exactly the point Kurt is making. Given that Americans have never thought that way--and the parks are allegedly struggling to make ends meet--how would you convince the American public to make the investment, again, an investment they have never fully made?
Deep within our heart of hearts, we don't believe in the investment, either, as was pointed out at the conference. How many of us pay extra at the gate? How many of us are willing to dispense with our senior pass? Now 67, I have not paid an entrance fee at any national park for all of the past five years. PERC is asking us to put our money with our mouth is. That is what the article is all about.
Granted, our military obligations are out of control. And just wait until Ebola hits our pocketbooks. Then is there no merit in fanchising some of the parks? We essentially already do that with park concessions. Again, if you can convince America to give up a cup of Starbucks for the national parks, I'm with you. But you can't even convince wealthy seniors to give up their pass. So where does that leave us--still with no money for the parks. What I would like to know is how we solve that problem without blaming everyone else for being "frivolous."
Of course, you make valid points. My main point is that there is a disconnect between public opinion and the amount of money that is allocated to the National Park Service. And, that the amount of money we are talking about is miniscule in the context of the whole federal budget. And, that vast amounts of taxpayer money is being spent on wasteful projects that most people do not support.
If we put that all together, the missing piece is strong leadership for the National Park System, including both funding the existing system and expanding the system. The last time we saw robust, nationwide leadership on this issue, we passed the 1980 Alaska Lands Act and more than doubled the size of the National Park System. That, despite the unanimous opposition of the Alaska delegation and strong political opposition from many other directions. The reason ANILCA passed was because conservationists got serious and worked together for that goal.
We need to revitalize the national parks movement. That means building a base of grassroots support. Otherwise, we will continue a downward spiral of inadequate funding and park expansion and end up with increasing privatization, along the lines of PERC's suggestions. I believe we can, and must, to do better. We did it with ANILCA and we can do it again.
Best,
Michael
Michael, if I am not mistaken I think you are off by a factor of 10. I think it is closer to $25 per household. The latest figures I could find were for 2013 estimated number of households at 122,459,000
Hi wild,
Thanks for your comment. That was a 2013 figure from National Parks Conservation Association.
http://www.npca.org/news/media-center/press-releases/2013/new-infographi...
It also appeared in a number of publications.
/2013/11/npca-releases-new-graphic-support-calls-better-funding-national-parks24318
I have contacted NPCA and asked then for a citation for their figure.
Thanks for the sources Michael. I was just doing the math after a quick check of the number of households and the NPS budget. It doesn't solve the problem either way of course but it does influence my opinion somewhat. It could also hurt the credibility of the source. I hope it’s my numbers that are off somehow and not the NPCA’s. It is odd to me that they site so many different sources for their figure.
The number you sited didn't surprise me while mine did. $2.50 vs $25 is not insignificant. Then take into account how many households don't pay any federal taxes and the number would increase even more. Factor in those who don't care or visit the parks etc. and the numbers could get really interesting. If privatizing is an option certainly something any buyer would want to understand.
I am not a fan of the argument that the parks add to local economies. While I don’t dispute that is true, it opens the debate of who then should be paying for the parks or how much. That is, should a special tax be levied on those businesses that benefit from everyone else’s tax dollars? I liken it to the professional sports teams that argue cities need to build them huge new stadiums because they are so good for the local economy.
I also see a graphic from NPCA stating new parks aren't part of the problem. I think this is short sighted as any new park is certainly going to eventually add to the maintainence backlog sometime in the future.
I do not know much about NPCA but am a huge fan of the parks.
"What was not transparent was who funds PERC."
Three guesses...
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Property_and_Environment_Rese...
NPS budget: http://www.nps.gov/aboutus/budget.htm
According to Third Way, in 2011 my tax dollars sent $8.23 to NPS. $397 went to Iraq and Afganistan operations. I wish I could reverse that.
http://www.thirdway.org/taxreceipt
And I suppose you will call a park ranger when the dirty bomb goes off in your home town.
That is because "opinions" don't cost anything. Make them pay at the gate and the "opinion" changes substantially.
BTW, I too would like to see more funding for the parks but not until our fiscal house is in order. And while there certainly are wasteful and ineffecient programs in the military, I don't think the defense of our country (a Constitutionally granted power to the Federal Government) should take precidence on the chopping block vs non or even unconstitutional expenditures elsewhere.
I am glad that you want to see more funding for the National Park System. However, you are presenting false choices.
Putting off funding the NPS until we "get our fiscal house in order" is a goal that will never be reached. Defining when our fiscal house is in order is totally subjective. If you mean balancing the budget, that has not happened for many decades, it is not likely to happen in the future, and many economists do not believe that it is even necessary — or even desirable. So waiting until we "get our fiscal house in order" is a recipe for doing nothing for the NPS.
There is also no comparison between funding the NPS or funding national defense. We are talking about 1/15 of one percent of the federal budget for the NPS vs. 19 percent of the federal budget for the Pentagon — which wastes far more money each year than the entire NPS budget. Even if we agreed that the Pentagon budget were sacrosanct, there are — as I pointed out — many incredibly wasteful non-defense projects absorbing taxpayer dollars. The Green Scissors report, issued by Taxpayers for Common Sense and Friends of the Earth, lists a whole slew of such wasteful expenditures.
So my point is that we do not need to go without vital public programs to fund the NPS. The NPS is a vital public program, and we should be funding it instead of wasteful programs that do not benefit and are not supported by the public.
BTW, in case it is not evident, this comment was replying to ecbuck's previous comment.
Michael
Thanks, dahkota. From that source:
=====
Funding
At some point since April 2003, PERC recently underwent a name change from Political Econonomy Research Center. According to Mediatransparency, PERC under its old name, received $603,600 from Bradley Foundation and $640,775 from Olin Foundation.
Other funding has come from Sarah Scaife, JM Foundation, Lambe Foundation, McKenna Foundation, Earhart Foundation, Koch Foundation, Carthage Foundation and Castle Rock Foundation -- the guts of a force of roughly a dozen or so foundations that, since the 1960s, have coordinated their efforts toward forging national policy favorable to deregulation of industry and to privatization. According to Mediatransparency's records, PERC received $4,175,875 from all funding sources combined from 1985 to 2002.
Since 1998 PERC has received $80,000 (unadjusted for inflation) from ExxonMobil.
=====
He who pays the piper calls the tune. That's why I evaluate my sources.
So what Rick? Do you have any rational counter to their argument?
I agree - those monies would be better going to non wastefull defense projects. National defense, one of the enumerated powers, accounts for about 1/5 of the budget. The other 4/5ths are largely non-enumerated powers.
I hope you don't manage your household budget that way, i.e. "we are spending more than we can afford but we will never get our spending down so lets just spend more".
Yes we need a balanced budget and it can be done if there is a will.
But Rick. When I was on the board of NPCA, we never turned down a conservative's money, either. In fact, we had so many entangling alliances I couldn't recognize the place anymore. Just for the record, environmentalists have no problem with big corporations pursuing their agendas--most recently solar power, wind power, and the abatement of climate change. In fact, back to my days on the board of NPCA, our magazine was running ads for Jeep Cherokee, while Audubon Magazine sported an ad of a Chrysler SUV pounding up a wilderness streambed. I am all for criticizing "dirty money," but you know what? Much of ours is dirty, too. Great fortunes are built by stepping on toes. Ouch! You shouldn't do that, Mr. Rockefeller, but yes, we'll be glad to take your money for Jackson Hole, the Smokies, and Acadia.
America is a messy place--full of contradictions and inconsistencies. The question remains before us: How do we fund these things called national parks? One of these days, we will have to stop pointing fingers and resolve the issue. I am all for starting the process now.
Alfred...
Yup. I live in a town with a tourism-based economy. I know about dirty money, literally.
There is a world of difference between a Jeep or a Chrysler and an organization formed with the precise purpose of working against things I believe in.
Rick,
All you've done is pointing out that you don't like the goals and funding of the organization, but you've said nada about the idea. You got your thinking priorities backward. Ideas and principles should stand or fall on their own, not based on who supports them. We already see too much of this in current politics with both parties who only like ideas that they came up with.
Now, that's not to say that we can like an idea while questioning the motives of the supporters. But, that's a separate debate.
So, who's going to debate the original idea or answer my question about how the NPS spends its budget? :)
The case of CHNSRA, managerial pitfalls, NGO political influence, and inflexibility has dramaticly increased cost of managing that park. Many feel they increased the size of thier beauracracy simply because they can, with little benefit to the park or it's resources.
The same can said about Cape Lookout and Assateague, where they are reinventing the management plans solely because of NGO influence and management inflexibility that will raise the cost of managing these parks as well.
I would prefer allowing States to own and manage these parks instead of privatizing.
You see what I mean, Rick, in your statement: "There is a world of difference between a Jeep or a Chrysler and an organization formed with the precise purpose of working against things I believe in." Indeed there is. My grandfather once said the automobile would destroy America. And if the machinations of the automobile lobby in Washington, D.C., are not intended to do just that, what are? The biggest battles environmentalists have lost have been funded by the auto industry. That "maintenance backlog" the Park Service so boldly announces is almost entirely roads and parking lots. In Yellowstone, that backlog is an estimated $560 million.
Just who are we kidding here? Ourselves. I have always wondered why my book, ALLIES OF THE EARTH: RAILROADS AND THE SOUL OF PRESERVATION, never caught on with the environmental community, for which it was written. Now I know. Environmentalists never see the problem as having anything to do with themselves. It's always the other guy's car, and the other guy's airplane flight, and the other guy's second home in the mountains, and the other guy's investments in corporate America. We are clean because our motives are clean.
No, we're not. We are just as tied up into knots--and full of inconsistencies. We want to preach from a comfortable pulpit just as much as "the other guy." Edward Abbey hated cars in the national parks, but loved ramming his pickup truck through the desert just outside. All of my friends have done "low impact" hiking in Nepal, but how in God's name did they get there? "We have met the enemy, and he is us," said Pogo, that famous cartoon character from the 1960s. That still sticks with me today. We get nowhere by pointing fingers. We rather concede that all of us are guilty and need to mend our ways.
End of sermon, and yes, my pulpit is very comfortable, thanks to central heating run with oil. I am about to get in my car and get a cup of coffee. I should walk but it is four blocks away. So again, we see what Pogo meant.
Absolutely true, Dr. Runte.
However, if each of us does all we can to minimize our impacts by walking or biking when possible, by reducing home fuel use through good insulation, by turning the thermostat down just two degrees in winter and up two in summer, using solar power any way we can, buying fuel-efficient vehicles and literally hundreds of other available options, what can happen?
Yes, we are all part of the problem. But if we are willing to try just a little, we can all be part of the solution.
Let's not forget the F350 diesel truck used to pull the horses to the trails... I usually ride from my house to the trails.
With fuel oil at $4 a gallon, you bet I have good insulation, and yes, I know that most of us try our best to reduce our footprint on the planet. As for air conditioning, we don't have that in Seattle. My wife and I just run a fan. But I sure had it when I taught in Texas! As we agree, we get so used to all of these things we forget how tied to "progress" all of us are. I don't begrudge anyone the fruits of their labors; I just want all of us to use common sense. So much of what we call our "needs" these days were truly luxuries in the past. Every time I start feeling sorry for myself, I remind myself that I have ten times more than my father and mother ever had. Bridging that disconnect between our true needs--and our false ones--remains the greatest challenge we face today.
Dr Runte hit the nail on the head, and that was what I was trying to state with my original comment. The elephant is in the room... A lot of the backlog is for roads, or some other form of infrastructure to accomodate automobile traffic. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy being able to take my car to a trailhead in places like Glacier, Yellowstone, Yosemite, etc, but there are times where I think they have overdone it in the NP's with too much road buildling. Many times I think it would be better if more parks were like North Cascades (where the boundaries are roadless wilderness), and less like Yosemite, or Yellowstone where they cater first to automobiles, and second to the wilderness experience. Then again, Yosemite/Yellowstone attracts millions, while North Cascades just attracts a hundred thousand or so. Imagine how different the "awe" and wow factor would be if Yosemite Valley was a wilderness with trails instead of roads leading into its confines, and it took 2 to 3 day excursion to make it into there! To me the effort of making it into some immaculate places is greater when done on foot then it is by having a car propel you there. Unfortunately, the NPCA has a mission where one of their 4 objectives is to create and enhance the roads in the parks. Of course, they never factor all the dead wildlife that is killed on park roads by those same automobiles, and thier impacts. Some of us do though.
Another good example is the water pipeline that needs enhanced in Petrified Forest because the old one is failing. Once again, millions are needed to upgrade the pipeline so that water can travel many miles back to a visitor center. If i'm in the desert, especially in remote parts of the desert, I sort of expect to have my car stuffed with water and wouldn't need or expect free flowing flush toilets where 5 gallons of precious liquid is used to flush urine. Sinks should be seen as a commodity in places like that. But then again, i'm not a normal person by any means. One would hope the pipeline isn't a deal breaker that would destroy and privitize the extremely beautiful Petrifed Forest, if visitors were all the sudden forced to bring their own water to the show. Already one senator entertained such a thought.
Pages