For many young adolescent boys growing up in the 1960s, the cold winds, ice, and snows of winter met a thaw in February, when a softer, not quite so lusty version of Playboy showed up in mailboxes across the country: Sports Illustrated's annual Swimsuit Issue.
With bikini-clad models such as Elle Macpherson, Christie Brinkley, Cheryl Tiegs and Rachel Hunter gracing covers and multiple-page spreads within the covers, the Swimsuit Issue quickly became a marketing success. By 2005 it was estimated that that issue alone generated $35 million in revenue for Sports Illustrated. As the years passed, the editors and art directors have gotten more and more risque, dressing their models in skimpier and skimpier swimsuits, and finally painting suits on them.
In 2002, a representative for the National Organization for Women said the issue, "promotes the harmful and dehumanizing concept that women are a product for male consumption."
Until recently, national parks have been left out of the Swimsuit Issue, and generally have been promoted by media as wonderful family destinations. But in 2014 the sports magazine requested, and received permission, to shoot in Yellowstone, Grand Teton and Bryce Canyon national parks for its 2015 Swimsuit Issue.
An outtake from the Yellowstone shoot (above) was used by National Geographic this year in its May issue, which was dedicated to Yellowstone.
Now, as the Park Service is confronting an issue of sexual harassment and misconduct within its workforce, a watchdog group is questioning whether the agency's decision to permit the pictorials doesn't "undermine" its commitment to root out an institutional "culture of tolerance for sexual harassment." In addition, the Park Service's approval of the photo shoots illuminates the gray area in interpreting the agency's management guidelines and recalls a magazine shoot four decades ago that a former park ranger deemed "extremely offensive."
Back in August 1977 Grand Canyon National Park made a splash in Playboy in a river trip pictorial that raised more than a few eyes, as Roderick Nash noted in Wilderness and the American Mind while discussing the issue of river trip permit allocations:
The Grand Canyon allocation controversy raised the deeper question of what kind of use is most appropriate in a federal managed wilderness. One point of view regarded the large, motorized commercial trips as little more than outdoor parties. Beach volleyball and cold beer highlighted these trips. The customers neither expected nor wanted a wilderness experience. The whitewater rapids might as well have been located in an urban amusement park. The highly publicizied and much photographed river trip that Playboy staged came to represent the problem in many minds. The fact that this kind of Grand Canyon trip used part of the limited visitor quota, and in effect kept wilderness enthusiasts off the river, rubbed salt in the already tender wounds of noncommercial boaters.
Grand Canyon resurfaced early this year in another sexually charged saga; not based on titillation, but rather sexual harassment and misconduct. An Office of Inspector General report given to the National Park Service last year and released to the public in January detailed a 15-year-long chapter of sordid behavior in the park's River District. In the end, the park superintendent retired and the Park Service recommitted itself to root out sexual misconduct and harassment, promising to set up a hotline to which complaints could be voiced, anonymously if desired, and to conduct a service-wide survey to determine how prevalent the problem might be.
Last last month, Interior Secretary Sally Jewell traveled to the Grand Canyon with Park Service Director Jon Jarvis, Intermountain Region Director Sue Masica and incoming Grand Canyon Superintendent Chris Lehnertz to meet with the park's employees, hear their concerns, and discuss how the matter would be addressed.
“That’s unacceptable behavior. It is a failure of leadership. It is something that we have got to address," Secretary Jewell told a small pool of reporters gathered at Hopi Point on the South Rim after meeting with roughly 300 park employees. "I will say that this is a team of employees that wants to move on, that does not want to be defined by the actions of a few."
Objectification, Art, Or Freedom Of The Press?
Ironically, as the National Park Service tries to determine just how extensive sexual harassment and misconduct might be across its workforce of 20,000, questions about the appropriateness of Sports Illustrated's use of national parks in 2015 to show off scantily clad models have surfaced. Not only did the sports magazine stage photo shoots in Bryce Canyon, Grand Teton, and Yellowstone national parks, at least, but it also produced videos of the models and crews at work in the parks.
Some Park Service employees were disturbed by the Lower Falls image that appeared in National Geographic's May 2016 issue.
"Many permanent and seasonal NPS employees (male & female) object to this image, and the message communicated. It could be inferred by Dan Wenk in NPS uniform (elsewhere in the issue) as NPS endorsing or sanctioning this type of behavior," one employee told the Traveler. "At the very least, if NPS says it had no control over what Nat Geo publishes, I believe the powers that be at National Geographic AND the National Park Service would be singing a different tune if it had been Dan Wenk in his underwear instead of his carefully planned and orchestrated NPS Class A dress uniform on the preceding pages."
At National Geographic, Director of Communications Anna Kukelhaus pointed out that the swimsuit photograph was just one of 70 images of Yellowstone contained in the issue.
"As a journalistic publication, we tell multiple aspects of a story. For our Yellowstone issue, we did not want to just showcase the natural and ageless beauty of the park, but to look at how the park is used and how people interact with it," she said. "We think this image represents one of the ways the park is used. It is also important to note that any photo shoot in a national park cannot take place without park permission. Park rangers accompanied the teams to various locations throughout the park during the course of this shoot."
Concern about the propriety of the photo shoots, in light of the ongoing issue with sexual harassment and misconduct in the Park Service, led Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility to file a Freedom of Information Act request with the Park Service for:
* All permits issued by NPS to Sports Illsutrated or its employees to conduct a photo shoot or photo shoots on NPS land;
* All records indicating where each Sports Illustrated photo shoot took place, including any NPS staff briefings;
* All correspondence between NPS and Sports Illustrated or its employees regarding photo shoots and/or the publication of photos;
* All correspondence between NPS and Nat Geo or its employees regarding the publication of the Jessica Gomes photo in the magazine’s May 2016 issue.
"We are interested in the records for several reasons," PEER's legal counsel, Laura Dumais, told the Traveler. "First, Jon Jarvis and NPS leadership are currently under fire for fostering a long-term culture of tolerance for sexual harassment, where perpetrators enjoy protection while victims fear to report wrongdoing. If it is true that NPS managers found nothing inappropriate about authorizing the publication of a photo of three fully-clothed men literally in the process of objectifying a near-naked woman in front of an iconic Yellowstone waterfall, then it’s not difficult to understand why NPS has a problem."
In its FOIA request, PEER stated that, "If, in fact, NPS condoned the actions of Sports Illustrated and National Geographic in taking/publishing photos that undermine NPS’s stated commitment to ending sexual harassment in national parks, then this is very important information that the public should know about prior to the centennial celebration. Presented with such information, the public may choose not to attend such celebrations, or individuals may choose to exercise their First Amendment rights to engage in informed public discourse on the issue prior to or during the celebration."
Secretary Jewell's office did not respond to a Traveler request for comment on the appropriateness of using national parks as backdrops for the Swimsuit Issue that, after it's arrival, drew harsh criticism for its cover photo being "100 percent inappropriate" and "obscene," along with more graphic descriptions. The National Center on Sexual Exploitation was so shocked by the covergirl on the 2015 issue that the executive director sent letters to retailers asking that the magazine be removed from public display.
At the Park Service's Washington, D.C., headquarters Tom Crosson, chief of public affairs, would not comment on the appropriateness of the photo shoots or whether the agency approved of the images and videos.
"The National Park Service is obligated to protect the public’s right to free speech in national parks, as guaranteed by the First Amendment. We do not apply a 'morals test' when granting access to our parks for legal activities," he said. "When issuing permits, we do consider factors such as the potential impact to park resources and visitor use. If it is determined that a particular activity would constitute impairment to the park and its resources, or would generate unacceptable impacts as defined by NPS Management Policies, or is prohibited by law, the park would deny the request."
Does Sports Illustrated's Swimsuit Issue Uphold National Park "Values"
The management handbook for national park superintendents, the 2006 Management Policies, contains a section on "Appropriate Uses" of the parks. In that section on page 98, the narrative specifies that, "In exercising its discretionary authority, the Service will allow only uses that are (1) appropriate to the purpose for which the park was established... (emphasis added).
Under the Code of Federal Regulations that discretion was trimmed somewhat, removing the wording pertaining to the purpose for why a national park was established. It does, however, state that permits can be denied if the activity results "in unacceptable impacts or impairment to National Park Service resources or values...'" (emphasis added)
Mr. Crosson would not respond directly to whether the swimsuit photo shoots were appropriate to the purpose for which Yellowstone, Grand Teton, or Bryce Canyon were established, or whether they diminished the values of the parks.
At Yellowstone, Superintendent Wenk said his staff followed guidelines for issuing commerical photography permits when approached by Sports Illustrated.
"Because the project met the legal requirements for this type of permit, specifically that there were no resource or unacceptable impacts to visitor use, we issued the permit," he said in an email.
The guidelines set down by the Management Policies can be difficult to interpret, said Superintendent Wenk.
"We looked at this permit process objectively in 2014. Perhaps we would look at it differently today," he wrote, adding that through the years he has been told "content could not be a reason for denial of a permit as long as other conditions were met."
"The application of NPS policy that you cited can be interpreted many ways," he continued. "What purpose are you saying is not appropriate to the purpose for which the park was established? If you apply your definition, would advertisements for cars, outdoor gear, swimsuits, pain relief or insurance be appropriate? Where do you draw the line if a manufacturer wanted to advertise kayaks and the model wore a swimsuit that was as revealing as the SI model, appropriate or not?"
At the Coalition To Protect America's National Parks, some members thought the swimsuit permit request should have been denied.
"I don’t see that photos/videos of scantily-clad women in any way is consistent with park values. Moreover, I don’t see how this kind of photography or videography for commercial purposes in the public marketplace is considered freedom of the press or speech under the First Amendment," said Bill Wade, whose 30-year NPS career included the Department of the Interior Meritorious Service Award. "I’m sure the (Interior) solicitors – with much more knowledge of the legalities than I have – reviewed all this and approved it, but it seems to me to be a big stretch. One more example of how the policies and laws are gradually becoming more diluted, at the detriment of what national parks stand for."
Added Rick Smith, whose Park Service career included a stint as acting-superintendent at Yellowstone: "Park values are being degraded with this kind of activity. It reminds me of the Playboy shoot on the Colorado River through Grand Canyon, topless models and all. It was extremely offensive."
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
We can expect a lot more outrageous exploitation of our parks after the Trumpocalypse:
http://grist.org/politics/trump-jr-wants-his-dad-to-put-him-in-charge-of...
what does Trump have to do with any of this? I would think your liberal God haters would be responsible for the lack of morals in this country!
You (Tahoma) sure about that? With Hilliarly's husband as Director of Artisitic Expression in our Parks, the White House and across the country, one can only imagine. Probably would be just limitied to outdoor slumber parties leaving the Secret Service at the gate:).
This is very disturbing for numerous reasons. This year the NPS invited every fourth grader in the U.S. and their families to visit parks and provided a park pass to enable this. Surely this is not the image the NPS wants to display to millions of American families they have expressly invited to visit. Allowing commercial photography of near naked models in provocative poses with iconic and internationally recognizable park features as backdrops and distributed to millions is wrong and sends a terrible message worldwide. Using park features for commercial gain is counter to the very essence of the NPS mission. Blocking public access to very popular park destinations for commercial purposes, filming permits, etc. is against NPS management policies and 36CFR. Increasingly it appears the NPS is losing its way, allowing commercial and political pressures to force things prohibited by law and policy in national parks. There is NO justification for permitting these commercial photo shoots in these iconic locations.
Thank you Jane Anzelmo, so much for keeping the National Parks free from commercialization, I feel this is the product of the current disregard for the policies long established for our parks. shame on the NPS Director A sad day indeed.
One important detail that is not included in the article is the fact that during the photo shoot at Yellowstone Falls, three husbands were tossed into the canyon by their wives because they were looking too long at the scenery.
But this is probably a logical extension of NPS endorsement of various beverages that "remove NO from your vocabulary . . . "
And with Trump Jr. as Secretary of the Interior, nothing will be off limits.
After all, isn't it all about MONEY?
Wow, some people really go out of their way to be offended. The shoot did no harm to natural resources and given that anyone that was going to be looking at the issue presumably finds the pictures appealing, how does is "hurt" the parks image. Seems to me it would be enhancing the image for those that like the swimsuit issue. For those that don't, they would never see it. For once I agree with Gary, this is just another commercial shoot. Don't like it, don't buy SI.
Oh and argalite, if it is climate "science" why have the predictions been so wrong?
What I see here is not a swimsuit issue. One of the photos doesn't even have all the swimsuit pieces! And these poses. Really?! They're not how real people look when they're outdoors in active wear. In my opinion, it cheapens the NP image... I'd prefer the family friendly one.
I've never had any use for Sports Illustrated, and am not in their target market. Even less so, now.
You know what hurts the National Park Service image? Slaughtering bison & poisoning streams and lakes.
People pay to preserve and see the natural beauty of the national parks. We don't pay to preserve it so that Sports Illustrated can make money off of it at our expense. These preserved national parks should be kept natural and undefiled.
Unbelievable. The NPS is really going downhill and I hope PEER gets a full answer to it's FOI. It remindes me of how the 100th aniversary is being used to promote visitation with little mention of the purposes of NP's and the Service as laid out in the founding legislation and subsequent legislation.
"....the Service will allow only uses that are (1) appropriate to the purpose for which the park was established... (emphasis added).
Under the Code of Federal Regulations that discretion was trimmed somewhat, removing the wording pertaining to the purpose for why a national park was established."
I wonder who made the changes?
Hell YES!
Jon Jaris's "Zero tolerance" policy regarding sexual harassement is off to a great start, with apparent NPS approval of these sexually provocative poses using Yellowstone National Park as a backdrop. The NPS Public Affairs guy may not have a problem with this, but I agree with others who believe that using a National Park in this context is offensive. Joan Anselmo's post is right-on. This new fiasco doesn't give creedence to the Director's already shaky words, nor does it bode well for the Director's promotion of increased commercial utilization of the National Parks. This is not the family-friendly concept that I think of when taking my family to visit the Parks.
Repeat after me: This happened under the Obama Administration. So far, at least, Donald Trump has taken no oath of office that binds him to protect the parks. Mr. Obama, Mr. Salazar, Ms. Jewell, and Mr. Jarvis have. That's point number one.
Point number two is that the responsibility for this falls right back on the voters. We get the government we deserve, and obviously we don't want good government. Hillary Clinton is no prize, either, unless you overlook things just as bad (or worse) than what Donald Trump portends.
Simply, why the outrage? We allow Hollywood to sell our kids tons of garbage, and then, at the Academy of Awards ceremony, blame everyone else for buying it. What? You don't believe in LGBTQ? Off with your head! Just allow us, in our self-righteous indigation, to sell sex, drugs, and violence like Kellogg's cornflakes.
A country with a moral compass requires that everyone obey the Ten Commandments. But no, we instantly forgive "our" side, rationalizing it is better than "their" side, overlooking that both sides are immoral.
I happen to think that Donald Trump might make a very good environmental president. Why? He is from New York--the state with the longest tradition of environmental stewardship. Billionaires there (adjusted for inflation, of course), as distinct from billionaires elsewhere, were the original friends of public parks, among them Theodore Roosevelt, Edward Harriman, and John D. Rockefeller, Jr. A great culture rubs off on anyone, even a jerk like Donald Trump. Meanwhile, think Central Park, the Catskills, and the Adirondacks. Think the Hudson River and Niagara Falls. Who saved them? New York's wealthy. Simply, New York isn't Arkansas.
I know. Hillary Clinton claims to be from Illinois. Well, let's look at her record there. None. Skip to Arkansas, her adopted state. Consider that when her husband was Governor of Arkansas (and she his chief adviser), he allowed unregulated farming and animal slaughtering, backed by Tyson's Foods, to pollute half of the streams in the Ozarks with fecal matter, entrails, and blood. It was all in THE NEW YORK TIMES before his election in 1992.
However, don't take my word for it. Below is a link to one of those articles.
http://www.nytimes.com/1992/04/21/us/1992-campaign-candidate-s-record-ar...
Here is another 1992 article from THE WASHINGTON POST.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1992/03/22/in-arkansas-t...
Who really believes that Hillary Clinton--or Donald Trump--will ever forget their "debts?" The Clintons were made by Tyson's Foods--and Wal-Mart. As for Mr. Trump, he claims to be a self-made man. Yeah, right, starting with $250 million from his father, but again, at least he is from New York--where you don't get the time of day advocating polluting half the state.
Kurt always chides me for reading THE WALL STREET JOURNAL. Well, these articles are from his favorite papers. When it comes to industry, Hollywood, or professional sports, I trust both Mr. Trump and Secretary Clinton to do whatever they're told. Next up? How about a swimsuit edition photographed at the White House? Outrageous, you say? They will say it is creative, while tying another ribbon on their lapel. What victim are we celebrating this week? Unfortunately, it will never be good taste.
Alfred, I know you like to stir the pot, one of the reasons I read your posts. On this one, I am not going to go there. .
No one is asking you to go anywhere, Ron. The history speaks for itself. If you don't like the history, there is nothing I can do about it. Certainly, when Americans start calling history "stirring the pot," our problems go deeper than we know. As for my interpretations, they are still based on observable history. In that case, tell me where I am wrong.
And while we're on the subject, here is my pet peeve about these blogs. In the old days, a letter to the editor was as carefully vetted as anything a newspaper did. You got called and the editor verified whether your facts were accurate. "Mr. Runte, when you say this, might you actually be meaning that? Is there any way our readers might misunderstand?" Now, anyone can vent; anyone can rage, but no one needs the facts.
You call it stirring the pot, but my signature on the letter says otherwise. As does yours. So again, if I am wrong, tell me where I am wrong. But don't call it stirring the pot just because you don't like the facts. I happen not to like some of them, either, but I am prepared to live with the truth they tell.
Nice response Alfred, the issue however was the SI article and the loosening of the commercialization standards in our National Parks. I felt your response, as much as I agree with most of it, was not on subject, I understand it is difficult to discuss some of the issues without bringing in the political realities. The NPS Directors Office has seriously diminished the standards for "events" such as the SI shoot, I am very much opposed to these new policies and feel it is a poor reflection on the current leadership of the National Park Service.
Call me silly, but I kinda think "you liberal god haters" sounds pretty ad hominem for these halls.
I'd be pretty happy if we could keep the mud blood and beer of the Presidential campaigns out of NPT. Once either the candidates wins we can contemplate the projected effects on the NPS.
its a vicinity shoot. Not playboy or penthouse or hustler. SI is going down hill. More trash than beauty. And the women lower their standards. Sad and Pathetic. Leave our national parks out of your trashy magazines.
That would be nice, Rick, but consider this: http://www.eenews.net/stories/1060037104
We need to stay alert because there are real threats out there.
Understood, Lee, but I don't think they should take pictures for "Killing Endangered Species Monthly" in the parks either.
Mr. Runte, "facts"?! Or sheer speculation? Please point us to a clear policy statement by Mr. Trump on National Parks, public lands, conservation or natural resource issues. I am unable to find one.
On topic, Donald Trump Jr., who appears to be speaking for his father's campaign as its "Secretary of Interior", favors increased corporate sponsorships of National Parks. However, Trump has not yet stated whether he rates the SI models as "10s".
More embarrassment for the NPS on their 100th anniversary. Jarvis is providing us with more prostitutional fodder. Beer and bathing suits. Muir and Mather. Rich heritage.
Call me crazy, but I don't see the big deal. This thing has been going on the entire 13 years I worked for the parks. I've seen lingere shoots, bathing suits, other fashion shoots, music videos with scantly clad women, etc. Is it only causing a stir now because it's a big name magazine and it's the Centennial year? Where was the outrage 9 years ago when there were women in lingere in Death Valley?
I would call it "hopeful" speculation, RodF. So far, the three men (dare I say men?) New York State has sent to the White House have been splendid conservationists. The distinguished historian Samuel P. Hays, observing that "fact" years ago, linked it to New York State's environment. States with a gifted natural environment of great rivers, mountains, and waterfalls were invariably the leaders in conservation. Starting with the Hudson River school of art, the constant" talk" about these features within the culture "made" great environmental leaders, so to speak. Note that Mr. Obama rarely talks of any such heritage--or Ms. Clinton, for that matter. Nor Mr. Trump, we must admit. But Professor Hay's hypothesis remains a valid one. You generally get the best environmental leaders from stunning states with something to lose.
I am not saying Mr. Trump is one of those leaders. My point was to remind those raising his name in this thread that there could be another "side" to his presidency. As for the irony of the issue at hand (the swimsuit edition), there appears to be no other side. The current powers that be allowed it. We need engage in no speculation there.
Then what might we wish for from our current president, and no, I will not allow that he doesn't "know." He seems to know plenty when it comes to his daughters. Is this the image of the future he wants for them? Believe me. Men in universities are getting fired for far, far less. Where is the outrage, this man wonders, when the national parks become an official stomping ground of what is alleged to be sexist behavior elsewhere, led by the bastions of liberal dogma.
You mean our current president is not interested in that? Too far above it, as the argument goes? I bet Theodore Roosevelt would have been interested, and Grover Cleveland, and Franklin D. Roosevelt, too. Those great men of New York would not have given their Interior Secretary (or Park Service director) a pass. The history rests its case.
Ahh boy, I'm so offended.
Who remembes when Indiana Jones stole an idol of a false god from some relic diggers in Arches National Park? Or when some droid that stole the rebels plans ran across the sand in Death Valley. Or when sylvester stallone was running waste deep in snow with the Tetons in the backdrop so that he could train to beat a russian in a boxing match... Or when Charlton Heston trudged through Glen Canyon in that film about apes? Or when some alien took a little boy on a bike ride through Redwoods National Park.
I'm sure each time, someone could take offense to each of these scenes that were in prominent movies. But to say that national parks haven't been used as commercial backdrops before is a BIG STRETCH! Thats been going forever now.
Either way, it's summer time in the south. I can go right down to any of the lower rivers and see the same exact thing... Should I close my eyes if I see a girl in a bikini in a national park? Should I scream and say "YOURE OFFENDING ME, this is a National Park, now go put on a long sleeved plain dress and cover your head with a scarf and quit being such a liberal. Those at the national parks traveler demand it"!
Gary,
I agree, the Politically Correct Rangers are now out in full force. This is getting silly now. If you don't like, don't look. And quit trying to push your values onto me.
Good points, Gary, and Illex, and yes, the national parks have always been used as "backdrops." And always will be. What's the difference here? The elevation of a "backdrop" into a sales pitch. Does it matter what the "product" is?
Imagine if the White House were used for a similar photo shoot. Or even the Statue of Liberty. As a backdrop for a movie set in Washington or New York, yes, that would be expected. But are Americans now to expect that everything is a legitimate "sales pitch?" Forget the part about being offended. Just think what that means when the culture is all about making the sale.
I can tell you this. If I were to use any of these pictures in a university lecture, I would be fired on the spot. I'll buy the argument that this is "free speech" when my career is protected speech. It no longer is, and so again my point. If we can't do it, why can "they" do it? The answer to that is much deeper than backdrops.
Can one get arrested for wearing a bikini in a National Park? No. So, the permit is pretty straight forward in my opinion. If this same woman in the photo was seen firing an arrow into a grizzly bear, or using an axe to cut down a redwood tree, or whacking a salamander with a stick, then that would be harmful to the park resources and that would be a violation of the commercial permit. PEER would have reason to grind their axe, but tying a photoshoot like this to an isolated incident in Grand Canyon National Park is a STRETCH.
Sorry, but having a human specimen standing in front of a waterfall in a bikini, in which most of these photos look like they were shot from an overlook or parking lot does not harm the park resources. So I don't see how any laws are being broken here and I don't see any harm being done to park resources.
I don't get offended when women look at calendars of scantily clad firemen either. And if it was shot in a national park, i'm not going to get my feathers ruffled over that either. If they were using those shoots to destroy park resources, that is another story.
If a human specimen standing in front of a natural setting offends you, then take it to your clergy. But the NPS should not be trying to legislate what they percieve is "inappropriate depictions of immorality" by acting like a clergyman.
Busineses pay for comercials in parks. Which is sicker, showing people, or showing the instrument that enables climate change (cars with internal combustion engines)?
Al Runte says Trump might make a good environmental president?
Does not "believe" in science (climate change)
Seleted an energy advisor that does not "believe" in science (climate change)
Yes, that should be good
Believe everyone believes in "Climate Change." It's the contrived and outright manipulated models directing the conclusion that it's all because of man bringing political agendas into the Science/Career activism realm, that's deceptive. Reasonable people consider that many people don't have the best intentions or reject independent thought because of group think.
No doubt, some folks are offended by the SI photos, and some aren't. At a time when the NPS is grappling with how to root out sexual harassment in the workforce, the question of the propriety of these photos, and their approval, is pertinent.
Would any NPS employee be fired or reprimanded for using some of the photos as wallpaper on their computer?
But also not to be overlooked, whether you're offended or not, is whether these images -- and yes, Gary, the movies -- reflect and uphold the "values" for which the parks were created and, indeed, those that the National Park Service strives to reflect. That's what the 2006 Management Policies and the Code of Federal Regulations call for.
Indeed, Congress gave the Park Service the authority, through the National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, to decide what is "necessary or proper for the use and management of the parks, monuments, and reservations."
It's long been said that the national parks are America's Best Idea and contain exemplary places that represent America's beauty as well as its rich cultural, and even painful, history. Shouldn't the "values" reflect that? Or should the parks be flung open to all comers who want to market their product or story against their backdrops, and denigrate those values, as long as they properly fill out the forms, pay the fees, and don't do anything illegal?
If we hold up the national parks as iconic, reverent, even hallowed, places, shouldn't we treat them so and not as just another backlot sound stage?
Would the NPS issue a permit for a commercial depicting a hunter using the latest spotting scope to close in on a bull elk, grizzly bear (they can be hunted on those private inholdings at Grand Teton, after all), or bison in the Hayden Valley as long as the trigger wasn't pulled?
How about a Viagara commercial shot against the backdrop of Old Faithful...timed appropriately enough, of course? Would the Park Service approve a Budweiser commercial that superimposed a bottle of beer in the outstretched hand of Lady Liberty?
Now, back in 2003 corporate marketers did draw the ire of then Yellowstone-Superintendent Suzanne Lewis with a Meamucil commercial "that showed what looked like a National Park Service ranger pouring a glass of it down Old Faithful and announcing that the product keeps the famous geyser 'regular.'"
Would that draw outrage today?
In the book that got Director Jon Jarvis in trouble wth the Interior Department's ethics officers, the director writes that national parks are expressions of our values. With that said, the question that needs to be revisited is what are the values of the national parks and the NPS and how are they upheld?
On its training website, the Park Service states that its core values are not "cultural norms," and that they, in theory at least, are not "changed in response to market/administration changes."
Those core values are supposed to:
If those indeed are the Park Service's core values, does the Sports Illustrated swimsuit shoot meet or reflect them?
The 2003 laxative commercial Kurt mentions was rightfully criticized then, as it would be now. NPS employees have worked hard to educate visitors not to throw coins and others objects into geysers, which can interfere with their internal plumbing systems, and this commercial was at cross-purposes with Park values. Whether you agree or not with the appropriateness of the swimsuit photo shoot in Yellowstone, its approval is questionable in light of the Service's ongoing problems with sexual harassment.
It seems like you are trying to oversensationalize this by tying the sports illustrated photo shoot to the Grand Canyon incident. These are not anywhere related, and it is a BIG STRETCH to tie them together! If seeing a woman in a bikini in front of old faithful is going to turn a person into a rampaging degenerate, then that person has mental issues and I doubt the photo would be all that it would take to set that person in motion. These photos aren't going to make most human males run out and start harrassing women. At least not normal people with any sense of morality. So to state that seeing a woman in a bikini is an act of indencey and promotes a culture of sexual harassment is a big stretch, Kirk. I don't see the SI shoots as jeopardizing the NPS mission to preserve cultural and natural resources and leave them unimpaired. If I visit any of these spots where these shoots were done, can you please tell me what harm occured from these shoots? I can't think of any.
I'm sure many get offended when they see a women in a bikini or a muscular guy without his shirt on, but there is nothing illegal about that image.
Also, those on this thread claiming the National Parks are "Family oriented"... well that's their perspective, but as someone that has seen many national parks before I had a family, I believe it encompasses more than just families and saying that the NPS has a mission to create a "Happiest place on Earth Adventure Park for Families", like it's something out of Disney World also doesn't hold merit and represent the core mission of protecting and preserving the cultural resources.
As for permits, and what to permit. That's done on a case by case basis, and I don't believe the National Park Service would issue a permit that would promote hunting in Grand Tetons by having a hunter point a rifle at a bear that is within a park boundary, since those bears are protected. So that would violate most commercial use permits since it would promote an illegal activity. A woman in a bikini or even a male standing in front of a waterfall does not jeapordize park resources.
However, wildlife within National Parks are used on the covers of hunting magazines. Some of the biggest bucks in Cades Cove from Great Smoky Mountains National Park have antlers that are 13 points or more, and they have graced the cover of those magazines. It is a bit ironic that the reason they get such large racks is because they aren't permitted to be hunted within the park boundaries, and so they live longer complete lives that most deer do not get to have since most of them stay within the boundary all year long.
It's very much a grey area to say that films like Planet of the Apes, Star Wars, Star Trek, Rocky, ET, etc etc meet any sort of NPS core objective, and in those films it was very much the landscapes that served as the backdrop for the film. In one of the Mission Impossible films, the beginning shows Tom Cruise climbing a prepicise in the Grand Canyon and making it to the top and getting picked up by a helicopter and getting flown off.. Does that meet any mission? In Star Trek, Captain Kirk free solo's El Cap and falls and is saved by Spock who has levitation boots. Other than fantasy, what core objective did that serve, other than Captian Kirk attempting to solo El Cap? That activity is somewhat common in that park, but the use of levitation boots? The only thing those films do is promote the odd or striking beauty of the area in the backdrop and expose them to the masses.
But, there is a difference that should be explained as some here seem to think that rules that fall under the wilderness act should also apply to other areas in National Parks that do not fall under those guidelines. In areas that fall under the wilderness act, different rules apply, and these sort of commercial shoots wouldn't be permitted unless it serves an educational purpose, and that is definitely opened to the oversight of the administration doing the permitting. However, since these areas next to pavement are not wilderness, and do not fall under the wilderness act, then yes, they can use them as a backdrop, if they get a commercial permit.
Very well said, Kurt, and thank you for not bringing up climate change. I notice that when anyone seems to be losing an argument these days, they bring up climate change as a rebuttal.
But yes, let's talk about the internal combustion engine for a moment. Argalite is right. No American industry has ever done more to force change on the national parks. When visiting the national parks in 1959, my family traveled on 35 mph roads. Now they average 45 mph, but really 65 mph, since so many have been widened and straightened to accommodate bigger loads.
If we must rail against ladies in swimsuits (can we say ladies anymore?), should we not equally rail at what remains the deeper issue driving the commercialization of our national parks?
Simply, where is our cultural tipping point? This morning at coffee, I asked my friends if the swimsuit issue offended them. "Get over it, Al," they all agreed. Liberal and conservative women alike all found nothing offensive about the act of posing in front of Yellowstone Falls.
Then what would you find offensive, I asked? Posing in front of the 9/11 memorial? the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier? the altar of St. Patrick's Cathedral? "Now you're being ridiculous," they exclaimed. "No one would ever do that!"
Call me Ridiculous, then. The point is: If there is a limit--and if you see a limit--someone else's limit needs to be honored, too.
Once upon a time in America, we were all about respecting those limits. No more. We have rather learned the power of disrespecting limits. The person calling for them is made to feel like a fool.
Until--and this is the worst part--we see how well the process works. Then we impose our limits, and not merely ask for them. "Al, why would you want to show those pictures in your class?" "Because they are now history," I answered this morning, "no different from a railroad or an automobile ad." No, I was not to show those pictures in any class, because then yes, they might prove offensive.
In other words, they get to censor my idea of information--and I don't get to censor theirs. They get to determine what the "limits" are--and the rest of us don't have a say. Win or lose, if you want to understand Donald Trump, there is the frustration he has unearthed. If you want to understand how and why our culture is falling apart, you have to understand our growing disrepect for the "other" side.
Fine, I said to my friends. Anything goes. Just don't complain when the barbarians storm the gates.
It's "Kurt," Gary, not Kirk;-)
You largely skirted the entire "values" discussion and how the SI shoot stands up to NPS/park values.
As for tying the SI shoot to the Grand Canyon situation, there is no direct tie...other than the argument that the SI Swimsuit Issue objectifies women, and, as NOW stated, "promotes the harmful and dehumanizing concept that women are a product for male consumption."
Check out our Facebook page for further discussion. This article drew more than 400 comments, and it would appear that most oppose using the parks for such photo shoots.
Kurt writes "Check out our Facebook page for further discussion. This article drew more than 400 comments, and it would appear that most oppose using the parks for such photo shoots."
Would most oppose if the photos were in full burkas? It'd surely offend some. Heck, Trump would exploit it as a campaign issue! But is this to be decided by poll?
Kurt also asks if bikinis (and I ask, burkas) "reflect NPS' core values"? But this is not an NPS photo shoot, not an NPS activity, and these are not NPS employees. The question is can NPS forbid either dress? What if NPS did deny the permit, and the applicant (and the ACLU) sued NPS citing the First Amendment? What would a Federal court decide? This certainly is not France (where even bikinis are optional, but the burka is banned). And I wonder whether it is the 21st century or the 19th.
Alfred Runte: People don't bring up climate change to those who understand.
Here is another thing you don't understand
Direct Mortality of Birds from Anthropogenic Causes Scott R. Loss,1 Tom Will,2 and Peter P. Marra3
As I stated, are you just trying to oversensationalize an issue? For what purpose? For site hits? What purpose does it serve to oversensationalize this and tie it to something completely unrelated? Do you think the people that approved these shoots, also were tied into the Grand Canyon incident? Really, how so? Sorry if i'm not following the horde on this one.
I'm not morally offended by women that choose to pose in bikinis, nor am I offended by men, who at this stage in my life are more muscular and more fit than I posing for photos, if they choose to. Nor would I be offended if you or alfred wanted to go pose in the same manner and post it on the traveler. Now if they were forced beyond their will to do such an act, that is a different story, but I don't believe that is the case here. America is filled with all walks of life, and if the NPS is representative of "American values" then other walks of life should be represented too. It's their park too.
Alfred, the Pokemon Go app did come under fire recently when it was discovered people were finding pokemon characters in the Hiroshima Atomic Bomb Memorial. Some Japanese officials asked Nintendo to remove the characters from the park, and I believe that occurred. I don't know if the same thing is occurring at the 9'11 memorial or Gettysburg.
Gary, if you think it's entirely unrelated, I suggest you Google causes of sexual harassment.
Here are some other stories for your edification:
http://national.deseretnews.com/article/17494/see-why-some-are-calling-s...
http://www.beautyredefined.net/our-issue-with-the-swimsuit-issue/
http://www.lauriehaller.org/an-open-letter-to-sports-illustrated/
It is unrelated. Very much so. Only people with a political agenda, or those that are trying to oversensationalize unrelated events to drum up site hits are trying to tie them together.
And if you are somehow trying to say that because I looked at these images, and don't care if these women were photographed in a National Park, that it somehow means I support sexual harassment, well then you are wrong. Sorry, but the human body doesn't offend me. I see it simply as a vessel of millions of years worth of evolution, and yes, we are no different than the animals.
But I get it... some see the human body, and it's offensive to them, because subconciously it makes them realize they are no different from animals. But, I film animals and their behaviors for a living. Smiling human specimens, no matter how good they may look to males or females of the same species, are no different to me than 399 or other famous creatures that walk the Earth.
So, animals and their bodies do not offend me! Sorry if I don't find the concept morally reprehensable.
Hubba, hubba :-J
Seriously though, I fail to see how NPS could bar this unless it bars any and all commercial photographers. This appears to be an all or nothing thing. I can see NPS losing in federal court if it were to pick and choose.
Argalite, I understand climate change just fine. I also understand how it is being used to censor those scientists who don't agree. If no one is allowed to disagree, there is no science. It is then called propaganda, whether for good or ill. From Webster's "2. the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person 3. ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause, also: a public action having such an effect."
My cause, if you will, is the environment. Suddenly, my cause stands in the way of "their" cause, led by Vestas, Google, and General Electric. Their "science" tells me not to worry when my science is suppressed. How is it suppressed? Note the definition above. When it is alleged, and hardly proven, that wildlife and the landscape can "survive" the loss of habitat brought about to "reverse" global warming.
Fortunately, the courts are not buying it--even the most liberal judges. They still insist on good science. Now, what does this have to do with swimsuits? I've got it! Sports Illustrated should say they are preparing us for global warming, when even Yellowstone Lake will not freeze. This is a patriotic message, in other words. Perhaps so, but I could never get into one of those suits.
Gary, no political agenda, no need to drum up site traffic.
Let's face it, America has no standards any more.
I asked "What would a Federal court decide?" Federal rulemaking could (but does not) ban bikinis. There is no ban on bikinis (or even nudity) throughout the NPS system. 36 CFR 7.87 bans public nudity only at Kaloko-Honokohau National Historical Park in Hawaii. Supplementary rules for the BLM California Desert District Office ban nudity in visitors centers, campgrounds and picnic areas only. State or local laws do not apply, because Yellowstone NP is an area of "exclusive Federal jurisdiction". So I suspect a Federal judge would determine this is a legal activity and order NPS to issue SI a permit for this photo shoot.
I suppose NPS could undertake a rule-making process to ban it, as it did for drones? But I think it would have to apply to everyone, not just to SI.
Rod, thanks for taking the time to address the values question I raised.
The point I was making was that from the National Park Service Organic Act forward, the NPS was given the authority to manage the parks in the best interests of the parks for the reasons they were created, and, as the Management Policies and CFR state, specifically, for the "values" of the parks as well as "appropriate uses" that uphold those values.
The "core values," as the NPS training page says, apply to how the NPS operates and manages the parks, not the values visitors hold.
Would SI sue if the NPS declined to issue the permits, citing the CFR and the Organic Act directives? I doubt it.
And you're right, it's not a vote of what the public wants. The NPS has made that clear many times, perhaps foremost on the issue of Yellowstone snowmobiles. Rather, the agency looked at the directives of the Organic Act and Management Policies, and crafted a winter use plan that, at the end of the day, the various groups could live with.
The question I've been seeking an answer to is whether the SI Swimsuit shoot somehow upheld the values of the NPS and the parks.
Thank you Kurt, I agree that is the question. For the NPS to allow a filming permit that is so transparently commercial in its purpose with no intention of educating anyone to the ecological, historical or culture issues inherent in the area is a mistake, at least in my opinion. Having been involved in many such discussions including a filming of TV series involving rangers working in a park, whoa, it was extremely impacting on both the employees and visitors, not to mention the resource. In another case, some filming was permitted to depict the native american lifestyle in the early 1800s, huge difference. SI must have loved this one, it is always their biggest selling issue. That is fine but it is not in keeping with the policies of the NPS or the purposes for which the National Parks were created.
The National Park Service rangers who were "required" by the stipulations of the permit must have really loved this assignment.
Pages