Editor's note: To conclude National Parks Traveler's Centennial Series, Editor-in-Chief Kurt Repanshek and Contributing Editor Alfred Runte offer suggestions on how to improve the National Park Service, and the National Park System, in the next 100 years.
The candles have all been blown out, the balloons popped, and nothing but crumbs are left from the many birthday cakes that marked the National Park Service’s 100th birthday. Now what?
Now it is time to restore the National Park Service into what it was always meant to be—an agency committed to protecting the crown jewels of America against anything injurious to their grandeur.
Let’s start with what we mean by crown jewels. We mean something so representative of the American wilderness everyone knows it to be representative. If its inclusion in the system has to be interminably argued, it is probably not representative. The same criterion applies to historical sites. They indeed must be representative of the entire culture and not merely splinter groups or individuals. A presidential birthplace, for example, may be nice to have, but it hardly represents the entire culture.
There is no better time than now, with new administrations due in both the White House and the National Park Service, to lay the groundwork for the agency’s second century by making some significant, dramatic, changes to how we manage, and even enjoy, our national parks. Above all, they must be national in character and not simply nice to have.
Second, what do we mean by injury—also commonly known as threats? We mean just that—anything that cheapens or demeans the system and forces it to part with wilderness. Once upon a time, Old Faithful Geyser was part of the Yellowstone wilderness. Well, just look at its surroundings now.
No more of that, whatever the excuse—or whatever the rationale. Yes, we want people to see the parks, but no, there is no justification for the Park Service to provide unlimited access if it cheapens or demeans the resource.
It is no longer 1872, but yes, Yellowstone National Park should look as it did in 1872. It should be wilderness and not rows of bleachers. It should be pathways and not ranks of parking lots. Obviously, the grand historical structures should remain, but again, set off by wilderness instead of asphalt. If you want to stay in Yellowstone, you should be willing to take public transportation, whatever kind is found appropriate to the resource.
As for the National Park Service itself, it should not be the nation’s chief enabler. Oh, we see that you have invented a larger mobile home. Well, come on in! No, park your rig outside. We have a shuttle bus and/or light rail system that both protect the resource and let’s you see it.
It’s coming to that, and we know it’s coming, simply by the growth of world population. When Yellowstone became a park, there were 30 million people in the United States. Now it is 11 times that. As for international travel, it, too, is up enormously, in part driven by such counties as Korea, Japan, and China.
The only way to accommodate all of those visitors is by public transportation—and limits. Historically, railroad travel imposed those limits naturally, selecting for people who really wanted to see the parks. Granted, most of the earliest railroad travelers were the rich, but the discipline was no less important. They committed to a community of travelers and a community experience that proved more protective of the resource.
There is no protection in constantly rebuilding the parks to accommodate millions of people in private automobiles. Every parking lot, and every widened roadway, only makes the situation worse.
As for the National Park Service itself, it, too, needs enormous reform. It was supposed to be a faculty of educators instead of enablers, at least, that is what America’s greatest educators dreamed. Led by Joseph Grinnell at the University of California, Berkeley, they called for a University of the Wilderness. Visitors would hear campfire lectures and attend guided walks. They would not simply be buzzing around in their automobiles.
Beginning in 1920, Grinnell’s idea caught on in Yosemite and other parks. The idea is credited to Stephen T. Mather, but it was really Grinnell that saw it through. He just wouldn’t give up, and wouldn’t give in, to the notion that the national parks were just for sightseeing. In Grinnell’s estimation, they were open-air classrooms and a glorious stage for teaching Americans about wildlife and landscape.
There again, every member of the wildlife community deserved protection and respect. For example, it was Grinnell who cautioned that predator control in the national parks was both biologically untenable and unnecessary.
Against that clarity—protection and education—just look at the mess we have today.
The crescendo to the centennial has been muted by a weary, demoralized workforce, revelations of sexual harassment in at least two parks, and a celebratory campaign that has jammed the iconic parks at times with so many visitors that at least one superintendent — Dan Wenk of Yellowstone — worried about the impact on the national park experience.
Moving forward, the National Park Service needs to move a bit backwards again, starting with Joseph Grinnell. Within the national parks there is so much to be learned, so many “ologies” — from archaeology and biology to paleontology and zoology — that tomorrow’s scientists and scientific discoveries can be nurtured and cultivated from the parks’ landscapes and marinescapes. And park visitors can wonder and be amazed by these things.
Simply and bluntly put, the Park Service needs to bolster its ranks of interpreters, botanists, fisheries experts, geologists, landscape architects, and even paleontologists. At last count there were fewer than a dozen full-time paleontologists in the park system, despite such fossil-rich units as Petrified Forest National Park, Badlands National Park, Dinosaur National Monument, Tule Springs Fossil Beds National Monument, Badlands National Park, Wind Cave National Park, Lava Beds National Monument, and another 200 or so units that have fossilized remains.
All these positions are significant, meaningful, and in many cases critical to a park's mission. They should be filled by full-time NPS employees, not volunteers or left vacant. While the Volunteers-in-Parks program is a magnificent way to leverage the country’s knowledge base, creating more full-time jobs in the agency will bolster the Park Service's science mission and give tomorrow’s park stewards incentives to seek a Park Service career.
Restructure the Directorate
Most fundamentally, the Park Service needs a director freed of political binds, one who isn’t led by the whims, desires, and political motivations of the White House or the Interior Department, one who can truly focus on the best interests of the National Park System.
To accomplish that, we recommend a structure similar to that of the Smithsonian Institution, where a Board of Regents helps provide oversight while the “Secretary" is in effect the CEO. Among the board members are three members of the U.S. Senate and three members of the House of Representatives.
With other board members selected from the nation’s top universities, and even the general public, this approach to managing the National Park System’s vast holdings would have the best minds in the business, academia, and foundations looking out for the best interests of the parks themselves.
A further reform would split the National Park System into two divisions — natural resources and history. Doing so would make it easier to not only track the Park Service’s vast holdings, but allow for a management structure that plays to a unit’s needs and a manager’s strengths, be they resource- or history-driven.
Let this board and its secretary, or executive director, run the parks as best they believe they should be run, with annual reports to Congress but without the need to placate politicians. And let this board decide whether every park in the system should be in the system. If it’s too late or fractious to cull the current 412 units, at least give this authority the final say on new units outside of those designated by the president via the Antiquities Act.
Manage the People For the Parks, Not Vice Versa
Even national parks need a “timeout,” and after the past two years of record visitation it’s abundantly clear that some parks need a break from visitation. Front country areas of some parks have been pounded by feet, and by tires of visitors who see no wrong in parking in “no parking” areas. Front country campgrounds and some backcountry campsites have seen so much traffic that they are breeding grounds of dirt and dust. Facilities are weary. Wildlife has been displaced.
As difficult as it might be to initially accept, some parks need to go into rotation — some closed, most open — until these problems can be addressed. And once the vegetation has recovered, once the leaky roofs, peeling paint, creaky water systems, and pothole-dotted roads are repaired, the parks need to be managed to preserve natural conditions, not to see how many visitation records they can break.
Park managers should be given until 2020, no later, to develop hard carrying capacities for their parks. Along that line, Yosemite National Park officials and perhaps some others should follow the lead of Zion National Park and allow only those visitors with lodging reservations to drive into the Yosemite Valley. All other day visitors should ride a shuttle. Granted, shuttle systems aren't the perfect answer for every park, but where they make sense they should be implemented.
The Park Service long has struggled from a decentralized management style. In many ways, that should change. While there certainly are some geographically specific challenges that should be reflected in a park’s management regulations, some top-down regulations should apply throughout the system. If Glacier, Yosemite, Grand Teton, and Grand Canyon — among other parks— don’t permit snowmobiling, Yellowstone shouldn’t, either.
To be sure, how people see the parks is what really needs to change. They need to see them again with a sense of wonder and not simply “check them off.” In a football stadium, we know the rules. No one asks for baseball while there is football. In a national park, we need to know the rules, as well. No one asks for civilization when in the presence of nature.
Too often in our national parks, everything revolves around the distractions having nothing to do with nature. That was never intended, even by Stephen T. Mather and Horace Albright (though they were too accommodating of the automobile). Ultimately things got out of hand. By the 1960s, and the 50th anniversary of the National Park Service, the agency had learned how to “win” in Washington. Ask for big bucks—and tie them to development. Then the agency will be secure.
If the parks are to remain natural environments, that no longer can be the case. The security of the agency is itself best insured by recommitting to education, interpretation, and scientific discovery.
Imagine 10,000 new interpreters with degrees in biology, history, anthropology, and archeology. Imagine every national park with at least one scholar holding a Ph.D. in the principal specialty of that park. Who will fix the roads? Who will repair the buildings? Who will set up the new facilities for public transportation? But of course, the same people doing all of those things today, only with the emphasis back on preservation.
It’s time, nor is there any better time than when the birthday cake is settling in everyone’s stomach. And yes, some of us probably drank too much champagne. The party was grand, but now let’s get back to work. What do we want from our national parks? Nothing more than we promised ourselves in the exuberance we showed 100 years ago. “War with Switzerland!,” declared Mark Daniels of the Interior Department. Well, we won that war. Now can we win another? Can we make the national parks, in every sense of the term, “the best idea we ever had.” We deserve it, after all. We are the United States of America. We are not perfect, but we always try.
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
Interesting piece. Spot on with your first point. The NPS needs to be heavily pruned. Making Yellowstone (and by inference all other crown jewels) look like they did in 1872 is probably a little overboard and like the currently popular toothpaste and toothpic PC fad, probably undoable.
I also question why you think you should define how others see parks. I understand the conflicts between preservation and access but believe access can be provided without significant insult to preservation. After all, is the purpose of preservation merely preservation for preservation's sake or is it preservation so that people can enjoy it in the future. I say the later and I am not going to dictate whether they enjoy it with a sense of wonder or a check list.
Your "time out" idea is interesting, but would be devestating to the employees and businesses and communities that have built up around those parks. In addition, remember the outcry we had when Zion was going to be closed for an hour. Think of the outrage that would accrue from closing a park for a year or two (it could take a decade to regrow the grasses you miss). Capacity limits would be more reasonable but again those that complained about Zion would bemoan the fact a families vacation may be ruined.
Finally, before spending a half a billion for 10,000 new interpretive positions, lets pick a couple of parks and add 100. See if there is demand. I have sat through far too many interpretive presentations where the audience was quite meager. Not all have your thirst for knowledge. I do agree however, that the quality of the interpretive rangers needs to be stepped up. On my recent visit to Yosemite, a volunteer ranger came through our campsite encouraging us to attend her presentation on why the Sugar Pines were dying. I asked her what kind of tree she was standing next to (a red fir) and she didn't know. Didn't give me much incentive to attend her presentation.
Lots of food for thought in this essay, a fine finale to NPT's Centennial Series.
I like the idea of removing the NPS from the Interior Department and giving it an independent status, though it's curious Dr. Runte proposes increasing the influence of the academia he's criticized so often in previous articles. I also agree with ec and this article that NPS Interpretation is in need of an upgrade.
Though I largely agree with this essay's sentiments, if not the details, I do have one quibble. The suggestion that there is enough, or even too much, development in the parks is contradicted by the proposal to increase the number of landscape architects. This is one of the highest-paid positions at many parks. In my career, the landscape architects were the leaders of the development faction, spearheading new construction at the expense of existing maintenance. Short of a wholesale removal of visitor centers and other infrastructure, in my opinion, the NPS has more than enough LA's already.
The drive to prune the NPS would include, perforce, the conceit that one can define how others see the parks.
Not at all Rick. The fact the "park" was state, or privately owned wouldn't change the visitors free will to enjoy as they wished.
I always love reading these articles - "If al runte was king this is how things should be" as he sits in his bunker in sealitter, and snipes the park service at every chance from a long distance... I can't take him seriously when he thinks major university researchers are absent from parks. That is far from the truth, as many university personnel work with the NPS to monitor park resources. For a supposedly esteemed academic, he sure doesn't seem to grasp that National Parks are very much "universities of wilderness" and have existed that way for some time. Many researchers are very much engaged with parks on research and I have spent numerous weeks in the field with university researchers working on their studies..
Also, there are plenty of guided walks in many many parks throughout the system. I see them occur on a daily basis at the park I work in, so once again, this seems like a rant from the far distance, that doesn't meet with reality. The interpretive ranger programs are very much in session during high visitation periods when they are ramped up to meet demand. When there are less tourists, those sessions are ramped down.
The National Park service has plenty of wilderness, plenty of backcountry, and it's evident this Runte character is nothing more than a windshield tourist that doesn't brave anything beyond the pavement. Almost every major National Park has designated wilderness, or areas managed as wilderness. In many of the parks, almost 90% of the acreage fit this criteria. Wilderness areas have limitations placed on them. Most wilderness areas have "campsite limits" or limits where one can camp. It's very much regulated.. It's hard to take anyone seriously that laments "the death of wilderness" in a place like Yellowstone, especially since most of the backcountry trails in that large immaculate place are rarely busy, and if one hikes into them they will more than likely not see another human soul. Once you get beyond the roadway of Lamar Valley, the Old Faithful clover leaf highway, and other areas like Tower, you can very much experience Yellowstone in a very primitive state if you venture more than a mile from the road. I had plenty of experiences in Yellowstone where it was just me and the wildlife. Also, there are plenty of geysers in Yellowstone one can hike into the backcountry to visit if it was 1872. Get out there and find them... instead of being a lazy slouch and trying to convince everyone here that wild wilderness within our National Parks don't exist! I have been on a lot of NPS backcountry trails throughout many parks in this country, and I would never make the foolish assumption the NPS doesn't have wilderness.
While I lament windshield tourists, and also want to see caps placed on the amount of emissions allowed in a park from transportation in any given day, I think it's unrealistic, and even haphazard for removing the windowshield crowd. Plenty of future children that will come to love and grow with National Parks could be seeing the parks through those windshields.
Nice point Gary about there being many Geysers you could hike to like it was 1872. Maybe its ok to serve the windshield crowd that might include the elderly, crippled, handicapped etc... to be able to see some of the natural wonders like a geyser or a waterfall but still preserving the vast majority of the back country for those that would be able to venture. Does that mean they should make a new loop in yellowstone? Or should they close a road to make it more natural? Not sure how i feel about those choices but your article made me ponder these to choices. You could probably write an article and create alot of discusion around that subject. I do agree with the way Zion was able to make tranportation a must in there valley. That should be applied where it makes sense. I always enjoy interpretive rangers that give me insight and would agree this is lacking. I also enjoy visitor centers most when they have someone to converse with that knows the park well, to inspire my visit. I dislike it when I know more than they do. Great article Kurt. It really provoked alot of thought in me to consider many points of view.
So, Gary. Your national park begins off the road. Sorry, but mine begins at the gate. The boundary is the national park--not what a developer wants. Agreed. There are many geysers and waterfalls in the backcountry of Yellowstone, but the entirety of Yellowstone, not just the backcountry, was supposed to be the national park.
Meanwhile, I am so pleased to learn that the national parks are crawling with interpreters. Sorry, but I don't see them. In Yosemite, there used to be 75 seasonal positions. When I was there, it had been cut to 36. At one point I heard it was 18. Positions in protection were up proportionally. That is where the "educators" went.
You're right, of course, that there are more seasonals in the summertime, and that college professors are still doing research. But I would have thought, with your searing intellect, you would have seen what Kurt and I were driving at. Young people need careers--and the national parks deserve a permanent staff. That is how you become good at what you do--by doing it over and over again. Seasonal interpeters are a wonderful thing, but just when they are getting up to speed their job is over and away they go.
The best I have talked to in recent years long for permanent status. Just last year, two walked away from Zion and became teachers after years of trying. I detect in your anger the same frustration. You are not doing what you really want. Well, I have done it, but it wasn't easy, either. I had to cobble together a career from many venues. Kurt is doing the same as we speak.
The point is: What you think is "obvious" about us is anything but. A windshield tourist? Actually, I prefer the train. Once at Gardiner or West Yellowstone, I would prefer a 17-passenger yellow bus. I wouldn't have to look out of the windshield, but would be free to look from side to side. And Old Faithful would be free of those massive parking lots, much as it was historically, and perhaps is arguably now in the winter months.
However, Stephen T. Mather would probably agree with you. And certainly Horace Albright. It was their argument, too, that 90 percent of the parks remained pristine wilderness. It's just too bad that the 10 percent they developed was what inspired the national park idea in the first place.
Yes, my best experiences were very much off road. Whether it was hiking rim-to-rim-to rim in the Grand Canyon, or going 35 miles on the Grand Teton Crest, or travelling the entire Bryce Canyon backcountry from one end to the other and encountering about 2 people the entire time, to bagging many peaks in places like Yellowstone, Glacier, etc, it's hard to get too upset about the windshield tourists, because once you get out there, one should be able to realize the parks are well protected with a lot of wilderness within those borders.
You are just projecting on the number of interpreters, and obviously, you didn't do actual research to find out if your projections had any merit to them. You seem to go by hearsay.. There are once again, no facts in this article. This seems to be a common approach here at the traveler, with poorly researched articles, that don't meet up with reality.
Either way, i've watched quite a number of those seasonals take on permanent positions after they put in a few years. I think that is sort of common in the world today - whether it's the corporate world, or within the NPS. You just don't get handed a career. You earn a career and the world is very much competetive. I think you have trouble understanding this concept.. I know this might shock you, but I see plenty of very intelligent Gen xers and millenials working in park positions. In fact, most of the boomers are retiring from their careers and there are many positions filled with people under the age of 40. I honestly wonder if you are actually paying attention? Social media, which I know you loathe can showcase that these careers are very much in session and being had by the younger generations. I see images, videos, and interpreters presenting information to the public on a daily basis through social media from many parks throughout our nation, so unlike how it was 40 years ago, today their message can travel well beyond the visitor center. But I admit, you seem pretty stodgy and out-of-touch from what is actually occuring in our national parks, so what I say won't sink in nor do I expect it to when it comes to people that seem to have a constant vendetta against the NPS.
And no, i'm not frustrated at all. I don't work for the NPS, and am quite happy with my career. So, dont imply that i'm frustrated, because i'm not. I'm just tired of reading these hit pieces that are lazily researched and not in touch with what is happening in our parks.
Very well, Gary. But where are YOUR facts and numbers? If it's so obvious Kurt and I lack the research, where in fact is yours? Many positions? Tell us where. What park is hiring "many" interpreters? For that matter, let's ask the readers. In your park, what do you consider "many," and how "many" have you hired? And please give us the name of your national park.
As for "hit pieces," Gary, I write history. You might try it some time. You might even try writing a book. I would certainly read it if it were about the national parks. Meanwhile, I hear crickets. Yes, you've hiked a lot--or so you say. But then, two people from India just claimed to have climbed Mount Everest, so where is the proof of that?
I have no vendetta against the NPS--nor does Kurt. We just want it to be a better agency. That we have proven over 40 years of writing--and then some. As I said, you might give it a try. But if this is what you call writing--and defending the Park Service--I have news for you. Social media, present company excepted, barely survives a day. NATIONAL PARKS: THE AMERICAN EXPERIENCE has survived for 37 years--and continues to thrive. No, I have never hiked the crest of the Tetons, but Paintbrush and Cascade canyons come to mind. From where I sit, you have never seen the inside of any library or archive. Not frustrated? Quite happy with your career? I notice you didn't say thrilled. Again, our young people deserve to be thrilled--and every visitor to the parks inspired. Out of touch? I have never been out of touch with that. Stodgy? Not on your life. I remain thrilled--just as you remain "quite happy." Again, look at your choice of words before criticizing mine.
My facts are from real world observations from working within a National Park. Not sitting off in the nose bleed section of the upper deck.
I don't write revisionist history books. I make films that are based on real world observations. My work has been published in numerous media outlets ranging from the National Park Service, BBC, PBS, NY Times, CNN, National Geographic, etc. You may have seen my work on social media, if not... it doesn't matter much to me if you haven't. So quit acting so smug. I guarantee my time spent in National Parks rivals, if not exceeds yours, and i'm close to half your age.
It's evident, you're out of touch, and living off the success of one book. If you want to write these sort of hit pieces expect some push back in the comment section, when the innacuracies are called out. You've pretty much admitted you didn't do research before you made these claims. It wasn't me that wrote this article and if I did, I would have called the NPS and asked for some data, not just shot arrows from the upper bleachers based on assumptions.
Problem is Al, you neglect the choices and platforms of the youth. Sure, social media is just a mere fleeting drop in the bucket in your eyes, but is that an accurate assumption? More than likely not. Social media can be a useful tool to educating visitors not just when they reach the park, but on a daily basis. It is the new interpretive ranger - and it's virtual. This allows every park to create outreach and educate and inform the public on key issues, as well as showcase resources. Some parks have millions attached to their social media platforms. I have never been to Biscayne National Park, but I sure have learned a lot about the coral reefs in Florida, thanks to their social media platforms. I've seen rangers in action doing field studies on lion fish, and teaching the public about these invasive species and how the park is working towards curbing their effects. There's so much information out on the web for many to discover. And there is a lot of engagement that occurs on a daily basis.
This article is proof of how far away you are from speaking to the culture of today's youth. I saw nothing in this article about the NPS strenghening it's knowledgebase by tying itself into a global network of parks and organizations to pull data and research from numerous facilities. Which means taking the University of Wilderness to the next level. There's plenty of researchers in the parks working on crucial studies. Taking that research, and creating a centralized knowledgebase that can be applied on a global basis can help strengthen a network of parks not just here in the states, but globally. This could help smaller parks that don't have as much funding pull research from larger parks to help them protect, and enhance resources.
I saw nothing in this article about expanding or protecting more wilderness areas within NPs and USFS lands, so that corridors between many protected areas like National Parks provide wildlife species room to migrate and roam, so that they aren't forced to evolve in isolated islands. But, you seem to neglect that there are vast wilderness areas in every park and you focus too much on things like Old Faithful, which have been major tourism draws for over a century. I can only recall Rocky Mountain National Park being the last and most recent National Park to have the wilderness act applied to a majority of it's proprety. A majority of Rocky Mountain National Park is now not only a National Park, but also declared wilderness. This also needs to happen to other major National Parks like Yellowstone, the Grand Canyon, Crater Lake, Great Smoky Mountains, etc. The more parks protected under the wilderness act, the better the chance to see new development in the future curbed.
Yes, you can complain about the handful of roads in a park, and I agree the speed limit should be 35 in every park - no question about that, this would curb the amount of wildlife being killed on roadways. Fast drivers in NPs is the bane of my existence. But, once you are beyond the road, there is plenty of wilderness in most of our major national parks, and the USFS has plenty of wilderness areas. Connecting these core wilderness areas is a problem we face. The Sierras are perhaps the best protected mountain range in the United States in terms of wilderness protecting and connecting a majority of its core areas. The Appalachians, and Rockies are fragmented, and this forces many species to evolve in isolated islands. This is something we need to think about long term. I saw nothing in this article about facing the challenges of climate change, but then again, you just shrug off climate change like it isn't having an effect on our NPs. Many many researchers in our parks, would more than likely disagree with you on that subject. Those are the challenges that the millenials, their children, and their grandchildren will face with handling our National Parks.
If you want to speak to the next generations, and provide them insight and a path into the future, then do more than shrug off social media. Instead, you have to engage them on it and take the lumps when they don't agree with everything you say.
"I don't work for the NPS?" Really Gary? So the GSMA is not affiliated with the Great Smoky Mtns National Park? Last time I checked the organization for which you work was incorporated into the organizational structure of the NPS.
We are very much affiliated, but that doesn't make me a government employee of the NPS.
We do provide the NPS millions of dollars per year in funding - most of which goes to research, and education. IE. interpretive ranger programs, and we definitely aid and contribue to many social media outreach programs. We also have a mission to support the perpetual preservation of the NPS by promoting greater public interest and appreciation through, education, interpretation and research - and that's where a lot of the funding goes.
Well, Gary, this wasn't bad--except the part, which you keep harping on, that we old folks don't do social media. What am I using now? And the insult about just one book, so again, how solid is your research? As you say, you're half my age, so you still have time to get off your derriere. Data you say? What do we do with the data? People still have to read it, after all. So, we're connected now to the world. Then why are people still so ignorant? There especially, the computer remains just a tool.
As for your "real world observations," a cliche is hardly research. Build a wall, Donald Trump is saying. Well, your cliche is another wall. The whole country is building walls these days, and refusing to call them walls.
You mention wilderness in the national parks. Why is it taking so long? Research would tell you--the National Park Service despises wilderness, which puts land off limits to ITS control. Fifty-two years (1964-2016) since the Wilderness Act, and you're telling me all of those parks aren't wilderness yet? Then you're criticizing Kurt and me for publishing "hit pieces," and engaging in a "vendetta" against the agency? You want us to put wilderness in, but leave the reason out? How do you do that, my friend, without the "revisionist" history that the National Park Service is not what it seems?
It most certainly is not, because again, education is no longer its priority. Bureaucracy is its priority--and interpreters chip away at that from below. Better they not be seen--or hired, at least not in the numbers they once were. They will be critical, and like me write books about it. God forbid the public know the truth. "We're doing the best we can," Nancy Reagan said. Well, you're right about wilderness, Gary, in which the best is forever elusive, while in the same breath the Park Service pleads global warming.
Social media will never solve these issues unless millennials also READ. And most don't--except for texting with their friends. They don't read in high school; they don't read in college, and that is not anecdote. It is "real world" research. We can have all of the data we want, but without reading it is worthless.
Please don't give credit where no credit is due. We've let two generations now escape the joy of reading, and believe me, it shows in our national parks, let alone our politics. Young interpreters--lots of them--would help us solve that, Kurt and I believe. And older interpreters acting as mentors. We may be wrrong, but we're hardly in the nosebleed section. Speaking of seating charts, you are still millions of words behind the two of us--and in Kurt's case thousands of miles, as well. Me? I shattered my right ankle when I was 22, and have been limping through the wilderness ever since. But I have been there, including weekly, interpretive hikes to Glacier Point while a seasonal ranger in Yosemite Valley. I never visit a park without taking a hike. But then I get serious about what I have seen--as does Kurt. The hiking is the easy sweat. If you want parks, you will need more than social media. You will still need a generation that reads and leads.
"Social media will never solve these issues unless millennials also READ. And most don't--except for texting with their friends. They don't read in high school; they don't read in college, and that is not anecdote. It is "real world" research. We can have all of the data we want, but without reading it is worthless."
Exactly! Some aren't reading the "data" on Climate Change, ACA, Iran Deal, Resource Management, etc... And it's not just millennials, if they would read the "data" they might come to different conclusions.
Once again, I can't take you seriously. I know plenty of millennials that read, plenty that are engaged into the system, and plenty that are learning from researchers that have spent decades within the parks. I also meet many researchers from universities working on their PHD's that are spending many weeks at a time performing their own research.. I guess, if I use your big broad brush, that since they are millennials, their research doesn't count. Sorry Al, but your big broad brush does not paint any sort of accurate picture. It's actually demeaning to all of those currently engaged in the system, and comes off as smug, and haphazardly elitist. Considering you haven't worked as an assistant professor since the 1980s, and have not worked in the NPS as a seaonal ranger for quite some time, I think this article comes off as written by someone that is screaming from the bleachers.
I agree that more parks should have the wilderness act applied to them. While about half of our major National Parks do have the wilderness act applied to them, there are many that don't. I wouldn't be so callous to call the NPS anti-wilderness, because I don't see that as the case. Many NPS have done wilderness studies on their lands, and many of these areas are managed as wilderness, and sit idle waiting for the wilderness act to be applied. Maybe within the next century we will finally see these areas have the wilderness act applied. It is a slow process, I will admit, sometimes frustratingly so, but that doesn't mean these areas will not one day have the wilderness act applied. Secondly, anyone looking for a wilderness area can still find that experience within these areas. Take the recent monument declaration in Maine. While we would all like to see a million plus acre wilderness park that also incoprorate baxter state park, it's going to take decades if not more than a century for that to happen. And who knows maybe in 2 centuries those kids will have access to an even wilder place in Maine than they do now. I know that from my own experiences in the Great Smokies, that I see a wilder park today, than anyone that walked into this area 100 years ago. A 100 years ago, most of the trees were cut, there were farms, mills and logging roads cut over many areas. Today many of those areas are barely noticable, and in some cases only a trained eye could tell they were once there. The wilderness has returned in many areas, and in another hundred years the forests will be older and more mature, and many areas will begin to take on characteristics of old growth forests.
Finally, social media usually requires one to read. The internet has a wealth of information and because of it, we exist in the information age. But, alas, you know everything.
Okay, Gary, as you say. It will take another century to get everything going, and I am just screaming from the bleachers when I advise that's too long. So you know "plenty of millennials that read." How many is "plenty," I am still left to wonder? The millennials I hear every day are miserable speakers, like, ah, you know what I mean? In fact, last week, at a university seminar, a panel of three other professors agreed with me. How many such panels can you cite?
Yes, the Great Smokies is a wilder park today. So is the entire Northeast. As all of its marginal farms have been abandoned, the forests have returned. But don't get too comfortable just yet. Right along with the "return" of those forests are new foreign pests and insects bringing vulnerable species down. I watched Dutch Elm disease ravage the forest canopy of Binghamton, New York, and every other community in New England and the Middle Atlantic states.
If you want to speculate, speculate on this. With world population rapidly increasing--and the US following right behind--what makes you so confident there will be any wilderness left, no matter how many "studies" are happening now?
Gary, I am sure you're a nice guy. But really, this exchange is getting long in the tooth. You have no use for your elders and I sympathize. But that will change as YOU grow old. As you do, it will become ever harder to get away with the generalization that things are getting "better." The Information Age, as you call it, especially lacks the discipline of the past. Newspapers were disciplined, if not consistently accurate. Today's news begins with a hairdo pontificating from a teleprompter, avoiding words the hairdo can't even pronounce.
Sorry, but I don't use much social media. I want accuracy AND accountability, and social media generally lacks one or both. But, fine. You go ahead and use it. I will stick to what I have researched and verified, which is to say, this exchange is at an end. Enjoy the "real world" of the Smokies. It's a beautiful place to grow up.
No doubt, there are a lot of threats to our forests - many of them from human caused disturbances. There is no questions that the parks face mulitple threats when it comes to invasive species, climate change, or even species loss. Our National parks truly saved the alligator, the grizzly bear, and the Peregrine Falcon from extinction in the lower 48, and there are many other species that reside in our parks that need these refuges to survive in this world that is being fractured and altered by humans.
Forest sucession in the smokies is definitely a topic that interests me, and I have spent a lot of time studying it. Just over the last century, many interesting and devestating things have occured. First was large scale clear cut logging operations that took out large swaths of forests. This coompletly altered ecosystems and even today just trying to re-establish brook trout habitat from that era remains a challenge. It's unknown what sort of biological diversity was lost during that time period, but i'd guess quite a bit was lost. Later in the timeline, in the earlier part of the 20th century, the chestnut blight pretty much wiped out all the major mature chestnut trees. This had major effects on human and wildlife that harvested those nuts. Many species, like deer, and bears relied on chestnuts as a food source. Then, in the 60's there was the invasive adelgid species that was brought over from asia. Many believe this invasive insect was brought here on shipping vessels carrying lumber from Asia. Those bugs hitched a ride on the lumber, and when they made it to the states they had an all you can eat buffet waiting for them, and since no predators were adapted to ward off their presence, they decimated large swaths of fir forests. Granted, part of the reason the firs became susceptible to pests like the adelgid is that the human race spent over a century dumping a considerable amount of pollution onto their habitats. Air pollution from coal plants has acidified the soils due ot the effects of acid rain, and the trees being bombarded by acidic fog that is constantly rolling over these mountain ranges.. Now, at least there are a few regulations in place, especially on the coal-fired power plants, and many of these power plants were forced to have scrubbers added that removes a lot of the toxins that goes into the atmosphere. This has had beneficial results on air-quality over the last decade, but these mountains were being dumped on for centuries so the build-up in the soils will take a long time to diminish. There is a chance we could see the fir trees rebound, but climate change also plays a factor. Firs need cold weather to survive, and in an increasingly warming climate, that might be all it takes to wipe them off the mountains. And in their demise, other species will take over.
But that still doesn't stop the hemlock wooly adelgid from decimating the hemlock trees, which since 2007 has destroyed 10's of thousands of acres here in the Smokies. Or stop the invasive emerald ash borer from ripping through the ash trees. The amount of threats are numerous, and at times disheartening when you see large swaths of forest decimated from these pests. I admit, they are threats - many times the NPS stands like a watchful warrior ready to figure out how to combat and even ward off these threats, and they do their best to counteract them, but many times the challenge is too great because nature's onslaught can happen rapidly.
With that said, the park still has wilderness. The United States in general has a lot of land set aside, and I agree that keeping it preserved, and battling for the preservation of species, and in many cases fighting off the effects of anthropogenic expansion remains a challenge that many generations will have to wage well into the future. This battle will wage well beyond your generation, and my generation.
As for human population, I agree this planet at 10 billion will be almost unbearable, and our parks will remain an ever increasing refuge. I can already tell you from my time living in Idaho, I saw rapid changes on the landscape around parks like Yellowstone, and in small towns like Moab, Utah. By the time I left, those places at times doubled, if not tripled in size. The threats are real.
You say nothing about the primarily parks and historic sites. Where do they fit into your scheme. They have gotten the short end all year. Also, how do you deal with a presidential monument designation that's nice but not essential. Like your idea to get the politics out of the agency.