You are here

Op-Ed | How To Create A National Park Without Taxpayers Footing The Bill

Bison at Tallgrass Prairie National Preserve/NPS

Can the model used to create Tallgrass Prairie National Preserve in Kansas be replicated in Maine?/NPS

Should the federal government create a national park in the North Woods? It’s a question that divides many in Maine. Some fear the effects of more federal control in the state. Others say a new park will bring economic growth to a depressed region.

The topic was discussed at a conference last week at Colby College on “Community, Culture and Conservation.” Conference panelists debated whether the National Park Service can afford to add more red ink to the park system. The agency will celebrate its 100-year anniversary later this year with a $12 billion backlog of unfunded maintenance projects — an amount five times higher than the agency’s latest budget. With such an enormous maintenance backlog, adding another national park would stretch park resources even thinner.

Conference presenters explored several innovative alternatives to the traditional national park model. Pete Geddes of the American Prairie Reserve in Montana, for example, explained how his organization is creating the largest nature reserve in the continental United States. The reserve is funded entirely by private philanthropy and is open to the public. The group is proving a new model for conservation in which private organizations protect and manage public parks themselves — with no federal funding needed.

Or consider the Tallgrass Prairie National Preserve in Kansas. The preserve is jointly managed by the Nature Conservancy and the National Park Service. Just 30 acres of the preserve’s 11,000 acres are owned by the federal government. The rest is owned and co-managed by the nonprofit conservancy.

These alternatives suggest how a national park in the North Woods might gain wider support: Suppose it were operated as a national park franchise. The idea is described in a recent article by Holly Fretwell in the George Wright Society’s National Park Centennial Essay Series, a publication that explores the challenges facing national parks. Fretwell is a research fellow at PERC, a nonprofit research institute that promotes free-market solutions to environmental issues.

Under a park franchise, a private landowner would retain ownership of the land but would operate it under the national park “brand.” The Park Service would specify certain management terms and conditions and monitor the franchisee’s operation. This would be much like any other business franchise, in which a restaurant or hotel owner operates independently under a company’s brand name with strict obligations for maintaining the chain’s quality of service. The franchisee — whether a nonprofit organization, business or group of individuals — would be responsible for funding all management and maintenance of the park.

Such an approach just might work in Maine’s North Woods. Under a franchise system, groups such as Elliotsville Plantation Inc., which is proposing to create a national park on its land in the Katahdin region, could negotiate a management plan with the National Park Service. The group has already offered to establish a $40 million endowment to support park operations and maintenance. The landowners would benefit from the national park brand, and the Park Service would avoid having to fight for funds in Washington.

In February, the director of the National Park Service, Jon Jarvis, called for “continued engagement” on the North Woods national park proposal. But as the agency enters its centennial year with a $12 billion maintenance bill, it is clear that the Park Service cannot afford to expand as usual. A national park franchise system would provide a low-cost way to create and protect parks, all while helping to ensure that the Park Service has the resources it needs to succeed in its second century.

Terry L. Anderson is a senior fellow at the Property and Environment Research Center (PERC) and Stanford University’s Hoover Institution and was a speaker at Colby College’s conference on “ Community, Culture, and Conservation: Sustaining Landscapes and Livelihoods” on April 7-9. Shawn Regan is a research fellow at PERC and co-author of the new report “ Breaking the Backlog: 7 Ideas to Address the National Park Deferred Maintenance Problem,” published by PERC.


American Prairie Preserve is working to acquire 500,000 acres or so thru leases and purchase of private land.  The remaining 2,500,000 of contiguous land is already publically funded land ... the Charles M Russell NWR...1,100,000 acres, The Missouri Breaks National Monument...500,000 some acres, other BLM and State land and Reservation land.  Please state the facts as they are..this preserve is a combination of private funding i.e....The American Prairie Preserve....and federally funded public lands.  Working together to make the largest preserved area in the USA.  The article reads that this area Paul Gedde talked about s totally privately funded and it is not.

The franchise will not create national parks. It will create private parks endorsed by the National Park Service. There would be no permanent protection of the land and its resources under such a system and there would be no national ownership of the park. Calling such an enterprise anything other than a federally endorsed,or possibly a federaly subsidized, private venture is a farce. I understand that this is PERC's ultimate goal, I just wish they would not beat around the bush about it. 

here would be no national ownership of the park.

So what?  A prime example of how for some the stated goal and the real goal are quite different. 

Kurt - love the new feature.

So what?  A prime example of how for some the stated goal and the real goal are quite different. 

 Isn't that called lying?

Yup, the stated goal and real goal are often completely different when our politicians start their backroom dealings to repay their campaign contributors and uphold their commitments to Republican Plutocratic Socialism. 

Politics as usual.

Yup, the stated goal and real goal are often completely different when our politicians start their backroom dealings to repay their campaign contributors

Care to give an example of that or will you just accuse and run again as you have with oil subsidies, walmart subsidies, unglued conservatives re bottle bills etc, etc, etc

Add comment


This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

National Parks Traveler's Essential Park Guide