National park concessionaires, deeply concerned over what they see as three decades of stagnant visitation to the National Park System, want Congress to authorize better marketing of the parks, longer "high" seasons in the parks they believe would generate more revenues for infrastructure improvements, and expanded concessionaire opportunities in the parks.
Those items were among a list of nine that Derrick Crandall, counselor of the National Park Hospitality Association, recently presented to a House appropriations subcommittee with responsibility for Interior, Environment and Related Agencies.
"Mr. Chairman and Members, I know you would agree that we need to get Americans back in touch with nature, engaged in physical activities and outdoor recreation, and connected to the magnificent culture, heritage and landscapes that are celebrated by our National Park System," Mr. Crandall said in remarks prepared for his appearance before the subcommittee on March 19.
"We need to reach out to youth to encourage them to share in the wonder and enjoyment of our National Parks and discourage the increasingly sedentary lifestyles that are contributing to our health care crisis. We need to expand park visitation to encourage minorities, disadvantaged communities, new Americans and urban residents to see their national parks for themselves and to build a broader constituency for America’s great outdoors. And, we need to find new and innovative ways to reinvest in the maintenance, restoration, and expansion of critical park infrastructure – much of which was built either by private investment when the national parks were first created, or in conjunction with the work of the Civilian Conservation Corps more than half a century ago."
While visitation to the National Park System reached a record 292.8 million in 2014, an increase of more than 19 million from 2013, NHPA officials say visitation has "actually declined if you discount new units added to the system."
The solution? According to NHPA, a range of initiatives should be implemented, including:
* Extend the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act for two years to allow the Park Service to continue to collect fees for entry into park units and a variety of recreational activities, including backcountry usage, campgrounds, and boat launches;
* "(C)ontinuation and expansion of the Centennial Challenge Program. Encouraging non-profits, corporations and individuals to contribute toward important national park programs and projects...";
* Creation of a "National Park Outreach and Promotion Fund," funded by a transfer of 10 percent of the concessionaire franchise fees to "support NPS outreach and marketing efforts in partnership with states, gateway communities and concessioners;"
* Expanding the seasons at national parks, a move that would lead to increase visitor spending and franchise fees for the Park Service. These revenues, coupled with "investment requirements under new concessions contracts and appropriate use of existing Leasehold Surrender Interest" should be used to improve infrastructure in the park system.
"There has been a loss of rooms, of restaurant capacity, of services and of retail space in national parks over two decades, producing a corresponding decline in overnight stays and in the average length of visitor stays," Mr. Crandall told the subcommittee.
* More national park campgrounds should be managed by concessionaires "to improve visitor services and reduce operating costs";
* Concessionaires should be allowed to qualify for "historic tax credits from investments in structures" in the parks, and;
* Programs such as Youth Conservation Corps utilized in Yellowstone and Shenandoah national parks should be expanded across the system to "undertake construction, reconstruction and maintenance projects," possibly at a savings for the Park Service.
During a conversation with the Traveler last week, Mr. Crandall said the concessionaires don't expect the Park Service to "dramatically" expand road systems in national parks, but would like to see facility improvements and additions and believe it can be done without posing a great competitive threat to lodging and dining options in gateway communities.
"We seem to be headed in just one direction (in the parks): No increase, reduce, reduce," he said. "While that may be appropriate for Yosemite Valley, while that may be appropriate for portions of Yellowstone, I think for the park system overall, that's not a wise tactic.
"... I think what we're really saying, there is still an opportunity to enhance the ability of visitors to enjoy their park experience in a small portion of the footprint of our National Park System, and by doing that, just have a more robust experience when they're in the parks," Mr. Crandall went on.
"We're not talking about adding dramatically to the road system of the national parks because people now by and large see the parks out of their windshields. The last thing I would ever say is that that's justification for building more roads. But I would say that when you look at Yosemite Valley, and you have 1,500 rooms, which is down dramatically from what we used to have, and only 800 of those have bathrooms, I'm not afraid to say at some point we should look at how we upgrade those rooms so that 1,500 rooms have 1,500 bathrooms."
How Congress responds to the concessionaires remains to be seen, but Mr. Crandall plans to continue discussions with the appropriate committee and subcommittee chairs and ranking members.
"I'd say we got an enthusiastic level of support from all of the members of Congress that we talked to," he said in reference to his recent appearance before the subcommittee. "And that includes even people on the minority side. They all agree that they want to continue a successful pattern of providing services for the visitors in the parks through private sector investment in things like lodges."
Comments
The NPS hired a contractor with min-excavator to "remove" many of the trails by dragging the excavator bucket to a depth of about ten inches to make the trails difficult to walk on and to encourage plant growth. The trail removal project cost $80,000. Trail removal left just as bad or a worse scar on the earth as did the trails. Some trails that were removed were just blocked with trees debris and trail closed signs. Some of the trails were never used by horseback riders and only used by wildlife like bison and elk when using ancient migration routes. The wildlife just goes over the trail removal debris/removal and signs or makes a new trail. Signs that the trails are closed were posted on the trails. Maps were made of all the so-called horse trails and the removed trails, but those maps are secret in that they are not readily available to the public on Park maps at any Park Information Center. The so-called horse trails are used by Park conscessioners, but they are public trails in a public Park and should be noted on the maps of the Park that the Park gives to the public. Most of the trails would be great for hikers to enjoy.
I have asked about trail abandonment and lack of maintenance at the Grand Teton Park Visitor's Center and I was told that they are 2 years behind on trail maintenance and that they do not take suggestions from the public on trails. It seemed to be a very touchy subject based upon the haughty reaction I recieved. My guess is that the NPS does not want to patrol and care for the trails and it's easy and cheap to let the trails go. The NPS had $80,000 to remove trails, but not enough money to timely maintain trails which makes me think the NPS has a goal to limit public trail access to the Parks. Why?
I don't see anything in that link about an abandoned trail. Perhpas you could be more specific and provide a quote noting that.
Sorry to disappoint the gung ho NPS crowd, but there are those of us who are critical of the bloated bureaucracy known as National Park Service. Last I knew, we had the freedom to speak our minds as well. And the freedom to expect NPS and concessionaires to work togehter instead of butting heads in improving the quality of services in our parks.
I speak from the experience of someone who is very aware of what guests are asking for these days. I speak from the experience of someone who has had more than one person in my face because they had certain expectations not met, and may never return to a national park as a result.
Not everyone can hike the trails for prolonged periods of time. Many elderly and young children are limited in the amount of time they can explore, yet don't want to avoid exploring altogether. Others want to get away from it all, but, unfortunately, do have to spend a certain amount of time each day checking in with the office so to speak. Are we supposed to deny these people the right to enjoy the beauty of our national parks? Are we supposed to tell them to go home at the end of the day, especially if they have family members that might want to continue exploring?
What if a hiker is injured or ill at the last moment? Are they supposed to stare at the four walls? On days when the weather is beyond horrible, do we offer nothing? Just expect a rock hard bed, lumpy pillows, substandard food, and four walls to stare at? Expect unsympathetic, untrained employees who may not even have the skills to communicate with them?
I think everyone has a right to enjoy our parks. Those of you who want a camp like atmosphere aren't being denied just because others have needs for a few amenities. Feel free not to bring your computer along. Feel free to book a place that does not have wifi, television, and cell phone services. But don't deny others the right to explore with limitiations. And, unless you know their individual stories, don't label them as fat and lazy.
Jim Burnett, what is the NPS definiton of "social trails"? Does "social trails" mean they are trails that the public or society likes to use and some NPS bigshot dislikes? Why does the NPS have such an obsession with removing the "human footprint" from the Parks? Maybe the humans (the Public) likes where they are footprinting? Who in the Public really cares about the removal of the human footprint projects? Future generations? No one knows the future or what people will appreciate in the future?
This might be part of the problem.
Whipperin1: I'm guilty of helping us get off the topic (concessioner investments), but I try to answer your question. There will always be tension between those who want more recreation in parks (that includes trails or concessioner facilities) and those who want more protection of resources. The NPS' challenge is trying to find a balance, and everyone will never agree with the result.
Well-designed trails allow the public to get to locations with the least, long-term disturbance of resources and in the safest and most enjoyable manner. They require money to build and maintain, and parks never have enough $ to do so. That means they have to pick and choose which routes to offer; most parks, including Grand Teton, have many more miles of trail that the majority of visitors will ever use.
There are plenty of problems with unofficial or "social" trails, which usually result when visitors want to take the shortest route, or go to places where there is no official trail: erosion; trampling of meadows, shorelines and other fragile sites where soils are thin or wet, or growing seasons are short (places like Grand Teton); disturbance of vital resting or nesting sites for wildlife, and more. Hikers on official trails can get confused by unmarked junctions with social trails; the Traveler will have a story on Sunday about an expensive rescue that resulted from a hiker who got off an official trail onto a network of social trails and got stuck in a very dangerous situation.
Sometimes parks try to close some social trails to avoid the problems mentioned above. When they do, it's certainly reasonable not to show such closed routes on public maps; if the intention is to avoid using them, why advertise the closed trails and invite continued use?
Yes, some of the "public" thinks it's okay to create their own routes, but that doesn't mean the result is the best one for the public as a whole. I define "best" as ways that seek to balance public access and use with preserving the resources that are the reason the park is there in the first place. For resources held in common by all of us (such as parks) to be most successful for the long term, all of us have to be willing to compromise at times by not insisting on getting everything we want - and that includes making our own trails to every possible destination. We may not agree on this topic...and that's okay.
You'll find some good info about social trails and their problems here, and at this site, and this one. Google will point you to many more.
Well put Jim