The clock is ticking down to the National Park Service's centennial in 2016, and the focus of the PR campaign has been on attracting a new generation to the parks. But how far should the agency go in trying to lure millennials and a more diverse visitor?
At least one Park Service veteran wants to see the agency "regain the spirit of John Muir and Teddy Roosevelt."
And that's the dilemma the Park Service and its New York City advertising agency face. Should they hot wire the National Park System for Wi-Fi so visitors can share their latest snapshot or selfie with their Instagram or Facebook friends and present more interpretive programs for digital delivery and send fewer rangers into the field to interact?
Or should the Park Service focus on why national parks exist in the first place: to preserve sublime settings and remind us of our poignant American history and rich cultures?
The other day a column popped into my inbox from the Traverse City Record-Eagle, a newspaper in Traverse City, Michigan, just outside Sleeping Bear National Lakeshore. Written by a retired Park Service veteran of 40+ years in the system who uses the pseudonym "Max Old Bear," the point of the column seemed to be that the Park Service doesn't need to reinvent itself.
Now, Max's specific gripe in last Saturday's column was focused on a ribbon of asphalt the lakeshore has laid through a section of its forests to accommodate cyclists and hikers. Come winter, Max went on, the multi-use path is even groomed for skiers. ("The skiers even have the chutzpah to whine about snowshoe users on 'their' tractor-packed trail," he huffed.)
And where there first were cyclists and then skiers, the trail now is even used for races, he noted.
"The people were smart enough to set aside this land as a national treasure and entrust it to the stewardship of the National Park Service because the National Park Service had the trust, history and obligation of resource preservation," wrote Max. "I urge the Park Service to go back to its roots. At least, do no harm. Regain the spirit of John Muir and Teddy Roosevelt."
In the months ahead, this sort of debate will surely surface again and again. How far should the Park Service go in trying to bring in younger generations and different racial audiences to the parks? Is the agency losing touch with the spirit of John Muir and Teddy Roosevelt? Muir's legacy recently was called into question recently during a conference in California. As far as we know, no similar shrug of the shoulder has been given to President Roosevelt, arguably the greatest conservationist ever to have called the White House home.
But as the drive towards the centennial in 2016 grows, how much will the Park Service leadership give in in the guise of building a visitation base to succeed the Baby Boomers? How much should it?
What do you think?
Comments
I'm also part of the "MTV Generation" and I do think as time rolls on, you'll see the transition from the baby boomers to gen x over the next few years as the boomers retire and gen xers and millenials become the prominent role players in politics, government, and the corporate world. Heck, the Smokies just hired a gen xer as their Superintendent.
Dahkota, my issue with cell towers is two fold. One they are only temporary. I don't see them serving a purpose beyond this generation because things are changing very fast. Second, cell towers are not always providing "safety" as everyone thinks. I don't want to see roads built up mountinsides in our national parks to put up cell towers. I like to see unblemished skylines in natural areas, and those natural skylines are a receeding commodity. This was a heated debate in one of the mountainous areas of Idaho a few years back when the USFS was planning a cell tower. The one side stated it was all about "safety", while the other side stated it was more about protecting the landscape and keeping it as unblemished as possible. The stats sort of show that when people are connected they tend to pay more attention to their phones vsx when they have no connection, they pay more attention to the roads. National Park roads can be very dangerous. Anyone that has driven over the passes in Yosemite, Glacier, and various points in Utah can attest to that.
Regardless, it won't be long till satellite technology overtakes everything. Heck, almost all cars today have voice command technology in them.
If you want to read, in full, Max Old Bear's Forum piece that is quoted in Kurt Repanshek's article above, it is posted on the Sleeping Bear Naturally Facebook page.
What a great idea. Let's have the Park Service go back to it's 1916 roots and 1916 fees. in 1916, the seasonal fee for cars in Glacier and Mesa Verde was $2.00 that would be about $40 today. Yellowstone was $10.00, about $200 in today's dollars.
Which, other than the GPS data, is primarily cellular based. Once again you pontificate on a subject of which you appear to be clueless.
http://auto.howstuffworks.com/onstar2.htm
Marilyn,Do you have those wetlands and fragile dunes locations?
EC, get a life. Seriously. Once again, I stated most things will be satellite based in the future. Obviously, like usual you pick and choose what you want to read. And yes, my wife and I own a car that has voice command recognition. It's not all cellular based. In fact, a cell phone is not needed, nor is a cell phone tower necessary. Freakin' derp.
Your speculation. You also stated:
"Heck, almost all cars today have voice command technology in them." as a follow up implying that it is based on satellite technology today. It isn't. If you knew anything about the technology, you would understand it will be a long time, if ever, that satellite will dominate cellular. If it ever does, the towers can always be taken down.
Whatever you want to believe, I could care less, EC. Now go find someone else to troll... loser. Satellite technology is quickly on the horizon. Obviously, i'm a lot more techonlogically savy then some washed up realtor. Now go away.