You are here

Are National Parks An Appropriate Backdrop For Sports Illustrated's Swimsuit Issue?

Share

Yellowstone National Park's Lower Falls served as a backdrop for Sports Illustrated's 2015 Swimsuit Issue. This image appeared in National Geographic's May 2016 issue dedicated to Yellowstone.

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.

Model Jessica Gomes posed in various locations in Yellowstone for the Sports Illustrated shoot.

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)

Sports Illustrated's crews and model also visited Bryce Canyon National Park for the 2015 issue.

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."

  

 

Featured Article

Comments

Gary, your list of "damaging" commercial intrusions is itself politically correct. You left out wind and solar farms impinging on park boundaries, viewsheds, resources, and wildlife. But I digress.

As a historian, I can tell you, in no uncertain terms, that pictures are powerful communicators. Remember that ancient proverb: "A picture is worth a thousand words." For my lectures and books, I am always searching for just the right photograph, painting, cartoon, or drawing to convey the ideals and/or foibles of American culture.

Stop and think how our culture has changed. The f-word is our favorite adjective, like, you know, Dude, what I mean. Awesome pictures! Awesome babes! Boy, would I like shagging them! You know, like, in the movie starring Mike Meyers. If Hollywood says it, it must be okay! Like, what's to get so upset about? She's just another object on a pixel, and we didn't really say the f-word.

As I listen to the Millennial generation struggle to speak and think past the third-grade level, I wonder what their struggle portends for the national parks. A cultural expression, the national parks will indeed become vulnerable to everything the culture allows or tolerates.

You allow that anything is not being debased so long as it is just a pixel. Well, your society seems to agree with you--now including two 70-year old women that I know. "Al, get over it," they say. "It's just a picture." Right. Just a picture. Nothing to worry about there!

Then what picture of our culture will we start worrying about? At what point does the culture forget entirely what it means to be a culture at all?

These are serious issues to the historian, if not those being flippant on the Internet. You would like to think you are being serious, but to be serious means to GET serious. Seriously, then, getting somewhere past the third-grade level, do you think that the national parks, let alone American culture, can survive the concept--so blatantly obvious today--that taste is nothing we need worry about, so long as we have it in our mouths? 

 


Alfred, you continue to present yourself as out of touch with the daily reality that goes on in our National Parks.  I have to admit, I find myself questioning when the last time you went off on a trail and had a real adventure in a park?   It doesn't sound like you venture out very often, so I find a lot of what you say as highly aloof and out of touch with what I see on a daily basis when i'm out in the field.  Unfortunately, I didn't see any supermodels, or even any women walking around in bikini's yesterday, so the immoral corruption that the "art" from SI has brought to the National Park service hasn't taken hold of our culture just yet.  At least not on this day.

Regardless, as I was out in the field yesterday, I did take note of the many millenials, as well as a few boomers along a popular trail.  Many seemed happy and enjoying their moment in a National park. Along the trail, there were a few bears, and sure enough there were some of those blasted young millenials stopping to photograph them.  Although, I was dissapointed that the bears kept their distance, and none attempted to harass or feed on those ungrateful and unintelligent millenials, as you constantly put it. 

I'm sure at least a few hundred pictures were taken in the process, and I know I added to the intrusion.  It was quite similiar to experiences I had a decade ago when I walked along trails and encountered genxers, boomers, and the WW2 generation heading out to have a moment along the trail.  One thing I tend to notice in National Parks is that very little changes.  Sure the seasons change, but how humans interact with the parks hasn't changed much in my lifetime. What I saw yesterday, was almost the same as what I would see 10 to even 20 years ago.  Maybe the styles in sunglasses and hiking boots were a touch bit different, but that was about it.


Gary, the good Dr. Runte was on a Traveler adventure back in June, when we spent four days floating the Green River through the Gates of Lodore and Lodore Canyon in Dinosaur National Monument. He was a real hit with the ladies! And last summer he floated with us for five days down the Yampa through Dinosaur. Those trips, plus his annual speaking engagements spring and fall at Zion National Park, ensure he gets into the parks.


Unfortunately, he also needs to get to the gym more often, but yes, he takes to the trails every year in Zion--and remains a hit with the ladies! (Only don't show this picture to my wife!)

Gary, I have seen enormous changes in my culture--and the parks--these past 60-odd years or so. And perhaps the biggest change I have seen is the lack of tolerance for people with "traditional" views--love of country, love of family, love of church, and yes, love of place. I will grant that in a country of 325 million people every generalization fails. But I doubt I am wrong about the coming Big Picture of a country shattered into countless tribes. Press one for the language of your choice is just the start.

The trail, as you put it, has already filtered out those who want to be there from those who don't. Thank goodness, millions still want to be there, but what of those we still need to convince? And it would seem we need to convince the majority of Americans now that the parks--like our entire infrastructure--have fallen decades in arrears.

If I thought for one moment that a beautiful woman in a bikini helped, I would say bring her on. "Now, boys, while you're off drinking and bar-hopping, don't forget your national parks!" In 1973, ARCO used such a personality (in tight shorts), telling men to go easy on the gas. "Now, boys, jackrabbit starts waste fuel. Push the pedal gently rather than floor it. Your country needs more fuel." She became part of my subsequent lectures on the energy crisis, just as, were I teaching today, I would be tempted to use the Sports Illustrated models as a cultural "expression" of the national parks.

The trouble is: I would get in trouble--BIG TROUBLE--with every feminist group now on campus. They see it: Sports Illustrated is exploiting women just to make the sale. Then are they not at the same time exploiting our national parks just to make the sale? Of course, I do object to the censorship of feminists telling me what not to teach--or how to teach. But I certainly get their point. If you turn something into an object, you get an object. If it is no longer sacred, it is just for sale.

I love to flirt. See photo above. I am not a prude. That photo is censored--and just for my wife. But I do not like to see American culture inviting any image that cheapens or demeans our sense of place.

Some months ago, a few readers objected to my fondness for railroads, pointing out that the railroads, too, were profit-motivated when it came to the national parks. That they were. But they never cheapened or demeaned the parks just to make a sale. The auto industry has--and does. The alcohol industry has--and does. I should think that any American, wishing to protect the parks, would ask every industry so inclined to think of what they're really saying.

A friend of mine, a cultural historian, insists I'm wasting my time. As Lily Tomlin says, "Things will get worse before they get worse." Those are value judgments, no doubt about it. But to express value is what a culture is. Because I value the national parks, you will forgive my outrage whenever I see less of John Muir and more of P. T. Barnum. I love the circus, baseball, football, and yes, beautiful girls posing in bikinis. I just think we should know when to say that they are distractions from the purpose of our national parks.


Sorry Alfred, but i've been in National Parks for quite a lot of my life. Now, i'm in one full time, and I don't see more PT barnum, and less John Muir.  I just don't. I meet a lot of people that care about nature, and practice conservation. We all try to reminisce about a past that seemed more elegant and less confusing than it does now, however I fail to see how it was a greater time period when Yellowstone National Park would feed bears garbage for the tourists amusement, or at Yosemite when they would dump ashes off the top of Half Dome to create a sparkling fireworks display as the cinders dropped to the ground and left a giant black scar on the face of that mountain.  I'm sure if PT Barnum was alive today, and spent time in the parks, he would have enjoyed those "good ol' days" and lamneted about the current culture that would never think of performing such activities today.  However I don't want to come off sounding like i'm revising history, so who knows what PT Barnum would have thought since I never actually knew the guy.  But, I suppose acts like that were more pure and disruptful to park resources, than a temporary click of a camera as it takes a temporary snapshot of some super model in front of Yellowstone Falls.  Yes, how far the NPS has fallen from its mission of preserving and protecting the resources for future generations.  


P.T. Barnum?

How about creepytings and her acrylic paintings in the parks?

Or the guys who walked along the edges of Grand Prismatic Spring in Yellowstone?

Or the dude who crashed his drone into the spring?

Or the guy who borrowed his friend's 250cc dirt bike and headed into Great Smoky Mountains National for a joy ride soon after the government shutdown and national park closure of October 2013 took effect. From that escapade --including a trail through Parsons Creek -- he wrote a story for Road & Track magazine's website, which he edits, and titled it A 250cc middle finger to the government shutdown: Civil Disobedience on Two Wheels.

Or the Texan who recently carved his initials into Roosevelt Arch at Yellowstone?

Or the idiots who vandalized Devils Hole at Death Valley National Park?

Or those who hacked down the saguaros at Saguaro National Park?

Or who vandalized the Joppa Church at Mammoth Cave National Park?

Or the guy who illegally camped out atop Half Dome, and also climbed a sequoia in Yosemite's Tuolumne Grove?

All of the above occurred within the past three years; most in the past 12 months.

Point is, no generation has a monopoly on miscreants or bad ideas, and there are plenty of examples to cherry-pick from.

At day's end, regardless the generation, there's always room to remember the special places that national parks are and treat them that way.


Unfortunately those acts of vandalism were not park approved activities. I was thinking more along the lines of activities that the NPS approved for the time period, which has led to this debate.  

There's definitely no shortage of idiots, and attempting to curb idiotic behavior is always going to be a challenge for the park service.  I just feel the NPS has a lot more dedicated mission today in preserving resources within a National Park, than it did in the previous eras. Heck, I see it daily where I work.  

We can all argue to death the value that the mission 66 era brought to parks, as i'm sure many of us would say it had positive and negative benefits, but today the Park Service is a lot more cautious at approving structures and amentities that were common place during that period.  It's rare for them to even build new roads, or even consider it.


But Gary doesn't want to remember, Kurt. He wants to be selective. And is that not the point? He wants to select for what he approves, while condemning others for what they disapprove. And to make sure we accept his values, he reminds us of what we, too, must disapprove. If you think that pretty girls are so bad, and the parks in the past so great, just look at what the firefall did--and the bear feeding shows. See? I also know how to be critical of the Park Service. You guys at The Traveler have nothing on me!

Think again, Gary.  It took a century to eradicate those practices, or have you read anything but the crib notes? What new impositions on the resource might possibly originate from what you approve? More spray painting in the parks, perhaps? How do young people get those ideas if not from mimicking what they see? You tell me, all-knowing full-timer. Obviously, you have thought about this a lot.

Or not. You assume I don't get into the parks, for example, rather than bother with a lick of homework. Over the years, I've had a good many students like you, making it up as they go along. Well, this isn't Disneyland. This is the National Parks Traveler. And here we start by doing our homework.

As for history, you cannot begin to revise what you don't even know. For example, the Yosemite firefall was pushed off of Glacier Point. The summit of Half Dome is nearly 1,600 feet higher--and accessible only by cable. It's all in YOSEMITE: THE EMBATTLED WILDERNESS, should you ever care to read it. Come to think of it, it's also in NATIONAL PARKS: THE AMERICAN EXPERIENCE, along with McCauley's chicken.

The Park Service eradicated those practices because they were destructive, but how is ANY distraction not destructive? There is also a thing called "mind pollution," as Roderick Frazier Nash observes. A thought is itself a thing. "As a man thinketh, so is he," says the Bible. If we think that babes in Wonderland are a wonderful thing, is it any wonder that the next person will want his idols--even spray paint. After all, who are "we" to say no?

The proper management of our national parks is saying no to all of it, other than places to sleep and eat. If nature doesn't do it for you, please stay home. It's not a hard standard to follow--just an impossible one now that Americans want all their toys. John Muir himself got it, but that is not to say he liked it. But do read his books before you argue with him.


The Essential RVing Guide

The Essential RVing Guide to the National Parks

The National Parks RVing Guide, aka the Essential RVing Guide To The National Parks, is the definitive guide for RVers seeking information on campgrounds in the National Park System where they can park their rigs. It's available for free for both iPhones and Android models.

This app is packed with RVing specific details on more than 250 campgrounds in more than 70 parks.

You'll also find stories about RVing in the parks, some tips if you've just recently turned into an RVer, and some planning suggestions. A bonus that wasn't in the previous eBook or PDF versions of this guide are feeds of Traveler content: you'll find our latest stories as well as our most recent podcasts just a click away.

So whether you have an iPhone or an Android, download this app and start exploring the campgrounds in the National Park System where you can park your rig.