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

Allfried, is there any day where you can go by without the self-promotion and especially hawking your books on this site?   The more I read you here, especially in regards to anthropogenic global warming, along with and many other topics, the more I pity any millenials that have to put up with you as a professor.  It has to be hell sitting in one of your classes listenting to your constant self-righteous droning.

It's evident to me you've been stuck in academia most of your life, and you have never spent any real time slaving amongst us commoners that work in the real world trying to counter the many threats and problems National Parks face.  Do you think only young people write graffitti on park walls?  Also, do you think I find that activity acceptable?  Do you think I approve of it, because i'm much younger than you?  Do you really think that's a culturally accepted norm amongst the younger generations?  You couldn't be anymore wrong, once again. And yes, my organization has come up with some potential solutions to help the park service combat grafitti.  But of course, guys like you don't ever want to listen to younger people because you already know everything and always have better solutions than everyone else.  

I never trust those that spend too much time dreaming up the world in academia, because most of the time when the rubber hits the road, they fail at applying real world solutions to real world problems.  But then again, you haven't spent enough time working in the real world to realize this.  Nor do you spend enough time getting out in the parks walking amongst the riff-raff, and the millenials, and those that try to find nature.  Maybe instead of telling everyone how it is, you should take some time to maybe open your ears and listen to them.  I've already heard more than my share about YOUR opinions and how it should be in YOUR world.

But that's what a lifetime achievement in academia does to one stuck in the system.. And I appologize in advance that I had to bring the butterknife but I hate having to constantly slice through the constant BS on this site.

 


Can't believe this thread is still going on.  Must be everyone like scrolling through the story (pictures) to get to the comment section;)

One we haven't heard from is argalite - Like Rick B, rmackie, Rick S et al - all we here is crickets when asked why the climate "science" has been so wrong.  We have also heard nothing but crickets from all those that predicted mass destruction from a bike ride in Zion but were faced with the reality of no negative impact. 


I agree EC and for a rare moment we agree at least on one thing.  Unfortunately, there's a lot of people here that don't seem to comprehend the rules, and so they float their BS, and propaganda because they disapprove of the art, and can't see beyond the photo.  

Once again, i'll try this one last time. 

Commercial photographers that photograph or film with models to advertise products, or filmmakers shooting for documentaries, and hollywood films have a legal right to produce their craft using the National Parks as a setting. Artists can also legally produce their works in National Parks too.  Journalists like this media outlet can also legally obtain photos in parks.  The landscapes of the parks are not tradmarked, and the NPS does not own it as a trademark.  Their mission is simply to protect and administer the resources to keep them in tact for future generations.

There are a list of rules, and it's not standard across the board, but legally commercial organizations can produce their craft legally in National Parks.

I actually do work in the parks shooting media, and have worked with numerous media organizations, and very much understand the rules. (See Alfred, if you would stop and listen to some of us younger folks, you might learn something for a change, and fill that thick skull with some knowledge).  

As I stated, there is nothing in these photos that show harm to park resources, and i've stated that legally  these photos are no different than C3PO walking through the sand dunes in Death Valley, or Sylvester Stallone running through the snows in the Tetons during the filming of Rocky 4.  It's still art, and the NPS is not in the business, nor have the authority to legislate the morality of the artwork.  Further more, regardless if they were shot in a National Park, these images do not represent the value system of the NPS.  The NPS is not producing this work, they are just allowing for a permit so that the environment can be used by the media organization.  Those organizations do have a legal right to film in parks and use the environments within their media, and the National Park Service will charge a fee to oversee the shoots to make sure that no resources are jeopardized or harmed in the process.  This is why you didn't see Mad Max Fury Road filmed in the National Parks of Utah, and they had to move it to Namibia since vehicles would be driving over the landscape.  However if some of the shoots wanted to show Max walking under the needles of canyonlands and he was simply walking along the desert and they were using it as a background and it didn't require a lot of hefty machinary nor props, they could more than likely get away with those shoots since no harm would be done to the resources.  Last year the movie, "A Walk in the Woods" was filmed along the Appalchian Trail in many spots and the NPS had to oversee the shoots..

In the end, as long as the permit states there is no harm done to the resources, and they meet some guidelines that doesn't promote illegal activity that would jeopardize park resources, they are legally allowed to use the environements for their work.  

So, I don't even see this SI shoot as a grey area.  This is actually a very basic and common media shoot with little complexity, and I don't even see any props, or use of them.


This is best article on NPT ever. I've read it dozens times now. I love to see how some folks are offended by this, just shows how delusional some are and thier ideology trumps rational thinking. 

If no resources were harmed, I totally approve.


Gary, when you're caught with your pants down (like the young ladies in this photo shoot), admit it. Just for the record, I have not been a full-time professor since 1987, and yes, I do mention my books from time to time, since all of that time I have been self-employed. You, too, must be self-employed to spend so much time on this website. Or are you fudging on your employer's clock? 

Your problem, Gary, is lack of respect. It's a generational thing, I know. The generation that raised me fought at Omaha Beach and Iwo Jima. Three of my best friends died in Vietnam. You don't respect what we are trying to say here because you don't respect American history. For your generation, the world began when you were born. For mine, it began at least in 1776, if not 1215 and Magna Carta.

Fine. Don't read Alfred Runte, but have you even read Joseph Sax? How about Michael Frome? Kurt tells me you work in Great Smoky Mountains National Park. Is there a copy of STRANGERS IN HIGH PLACES on your bookshelf?

You're right. No student got past me staying ignorant. After all, that was my job. On these pages, when you make a statement about your "knowledge" of the national parks, do expect that someone will hold you to account.

Joseph Sax, Michael Frome, Roderick Nash, Susan Schrepfer, Wallace Stegner, Edward Abbey, Terry Tempest Williams, and many others, have all sweated time and treasure to bring the nation a literature about the meaning of its national parks. Is it okay if I "hawk" them? Is it okay if they "drone on?" For starters, there is nothing new in Kurt's article about Sports Illustrated. It is only the latest example, among many written about previously, of exploiting our national parks for questionable gains. To you, the issue is closed. Of course, because you prefer listening to yourself. It's not that you're a "wage-commoner" working in the "real" world. It's rather because your generation believes in shortcuts, starting in college with Pass/Fail.

When you say that millennials love the national parks, I hope so, because they have now cost the taxpayers $125 billion (and climbing) as they default on their college loans. The National Park Service claims a $12 billion backlog. Do the math. We could pay for that at least ten times over if the millennials were paying their bills. Now that money is gone for good.

One last word about graffiti. Why should any national park need a program to "combat" it, as you say? Because yes, younger generations DO approve. It's now on the side of every railroad boxcar, bridge abuttment, and building in America that isn't protected with a razor-wire fence. At Kelso Depot two years ago, a California teacher in my presence called it "art." "I like graffiti on the trains," he said, watching one pass the depot. "I think it is so artistic." "I think it is vandalism," I replied. His reaction? Much like yours, Gary. Who was I to be so "insensitive" to young people trying to express themselves?

Who am I? That's now in every comeback, isn't it? No shortcut is complete without it. In high school, my driver-ed teacher, a Marine combat veteran of the war in the Pacific, would have put that teacher to shame. If you can't teach these kids respect for private property, you have no business being a teacher.

Sorry, Gary, but Sports Illustrated showed no respect for the public's property, whether it was "legal" or not. No harm was done? That's what everyone says when they demean an institution, rationalizing that no harm was visible to THEM. Walking the trails doesn't compensate for knowing the harm in not teaching every visitor respect. But just for the record, since personal experiences are your favorite shortcut, Kelso Depot is also part of a major national park.

 


I don't have respect for conmen.  At least those other folks you reference spent portion of thier lives in national parks.  So, please don't place yourself in the same league as people like Muir, Frome, Williams, or Cactus Ed. 


Nice shortcut, Gary. Now read their books.


King Alfie, I realize, you like to come off as a smug elitist, emulating this vast superiority over others, but the reality is I have read many books from those authors. The other reality is that many of those authors have spent a lot of time in solitude within the wilderness, and I definitely speak their language.   Do you?  Do you know what that is like?  Do you know what it's like to go out and venture off on your own into the wilderness.. With no one around, and you set off to bust your ass up some mountain, or high rocky gully and then finally reach the summit and to sit back and be overwhelmed by the moment?  I know Muir has. Ed Abbey surely lived plenty of those moments. In fact, one of the books he wrote with Elliot Porters photographs interspersed between the pages is one of my favorites.  

But, the more I read from you, the less I realize you have.  It's easy sitting in the confines of some urban dwelling in a major city and ranting from the pulpit of a backwoods internet forum telling everyone how it should be... But, I can smell the con.


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.