You are here

Traveler’s View: Interior Department Fumbles Zuckerberg Visit To Glacier National Park

Share

Interior Department officials botched a great opportunity when Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg came to Glacier National Park interested about climate change/NPS

“It cost too much.”

That, in short, was the rationale for the Interior Department’s decision not to allow the superintendent of Glacier National Park and one of the U.S. Geological Survey’s top glaciologists, a man who has spent 26 years studying Glacier’s rivers of ice, from spending time with Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg.

While Superintendent Jeff Mow and Dr. Dan Fagre, director of the USGS Climate Change in Mountain Ecosystems Project, and Lead Investigator in the U.S.G.S Benchmark Glacier Program, planned to travel with Mr. Zuckerberg around Glacier last weekend during his visit to Montana, they received orders from Washington to stand down and push paper in their offices.

"It was about using government resources and tax dollars responsibly, especially at the height of busy season," Interior spokeswoman Heather Swift told The Associated Press when asked why the two were told not to meet with Mr. Zuckerberg.

"Every tax dollar matters," she added, though she couldn’t say how many tax dollars were saved by keeping Superintendent Mow and Dr.. Fagre office-bound.

Apparently things have gotten really tight around Interior in recent weeks. It wasn’t too long ago that Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke, during a visit to Utah to review Bears Ears National Monument for its suitability has a national monument, required three — threeBlack Hawk helicopters to fly over the monument one day. 

I wonder how many tax dollars that cost? Wait. Google knows! In 2013, the cost was about $2,700 per hour per helicopter, so basically $8,100 per hour times however many of hours Secretary Zinke and his entourage stayed aloft.

I also wonder if I need to write a check to Interior for the morning I spent with Superintendent Mow back in March 2015 touring Glacier on snowshoes? Or for the meeting I had with Yellowstone Superintendent Dan Wenk last October at Old Faithful? Or the recent meeting I had with Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument Superintendent Brent Range?

Every tax dollar does matter, and we do need our public agencies to spend wisely. But how much return might the National Park Service have realized if Superintendent Mow and Dr. Fagre had been permitted to spend time with Mr. Zuckerberg. 

That’s not to disparage the rangers who did accompany the Facebook founder, but he likely would have been more impressed and learned a bit more if the superintendent and the glacier scientist spent time with him. And he would have felt more appreciated.

Sure, climate change, something the Trump administration gives a cold shoulder, would have come up. But what better place to discuss the implications on Glacier, where its incredible collection of glaciers is quickly melting away?

Ms. Swift assured the A.P. that the president’s position on climate change had nothing to do with keeping Superintendent Mow and Dr. Fagre in their offices. It was purely financial, she maintained.

Fine. But imagine how much Mr. Zuckerberg might have been able to raise for the national parks if he was inspired to rally his Facebook kingdom in that direction?

That kind of publicity and support is invaluable.

You can decide whether the real reason behind the grounding of Superintendent Mow and Dr. Fagre was their positions and knowledge of climate change, or if it was a cost-saving move. 

But let's hope that in the future, when influencers such as Mark Zuckerberg come to public lands, they are welcomed by top managers, embraced, and shown the wonders and benefits of public lands, for they can do a world of good for those places. 

They’re more than worth it.

Comments

Ms. Swift assured the A.P. that the president's position on climate change had nothing to do with keeping Superintendent Mow and Dr. Fagre in their offices. It was purely financial, she maintained.... or was that Heather Spicer?


Wow.  At the risk of sounding totally naive (and I've been accused of that, more than once), I would think that it would be in the Interior Department's best interest to send the best of the best to talk to someone as influential as Mr. Zuckerberg, with the forward thinking of potential influence and interest raised from that meeting ... or maybe, that's why they did *not* send someone who has 26 years'-worth of knowledge about the glaciers within this national park.


Not that I want our career government folks to lose their leave or be out their own money, but I am pretty sure that I would have taken vacation days and paid my own way to get a chance to bend the ear of Mr Zuckerberg, and his BILLIONS of customers, for a few hours (or even better days.)  Heck - I would have envited him into my home and cooked for him myself if I thought that might have bought some decent coverage.  But they shouldn't have to.  It was a complete no-brainer that those two should have been made available to Zuckerberg while he visited - there was far more to gain from that interaction than to lose. 


Two things. First, how did the Interior Department learn of Mr. Zuckerberg's visit? Did Glacier "ask" permission, or perhaps share with the press a news release? Normally, it would be none of the Secretary's business. Park superintendents, etc., "meet" with dignitaries all the time.

Second, now that the Park Service has taken "political" stances, what should we expect? Under Stephen T. Mather and Horace M. Albright, the Park Service remained strictly bipartisan. Superintendents "reported" to Washington who had visited their parks--and proudly--without any editoralizing, as it were. The Monthly Reports of Yosemite, Yellowstone, etc., ring with the many distinguished people who passed through the parks. The point is: The superintendents left it at that. Mather and Albright knew that Congress would take a dim view of any grandstanding on "the issues."

It was there, but between the lines. Now it is front and center. To some it smacks of insubordination. Recall that in 1963, Stewart Udall, then Interior Secretary, "instructed" the Park Service not to talk about the Grand Canyon dams. Why should we be surprised if Ryan Zinke, as Interior Secretary, wants no discussion of climate change? Is it censorship? You bet it is. But censorship has a long history, nor is it just a "Republican" phenomenon.

Last weekend, I met an Interior Department official who admitted that wind and solar power were "controversial," and that her boss, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, had resisted "dissent," as well. From where I sit, the lesson of these incidents is that everything about government today is political. But then, when was it ever different, i.e, did we not notice only because our political party was in power--in which case we forgave it all its sins? I certainly forgave Udall for wanting to dam the Grand Canyon, until I learned he was dragging his feet on the redwoods, too. I then learned not to look for heroes in government. Nor have I changed my mind.


So if you are a billionaire socialist with capitalist tendencies, you should get a private escort around a National Park?

Mr Z has already made his mind up about climate change and if he needs help, he could always donate to the National Parks or hire his own scientist to follow him around to show him how right he is.

His " billions of customers could be better served if he understood reality and that the budgets at NP's are thin now and they could help by donating as well.  

Instead, Mr Z is too busy telling us how we should live simpler lives as he lives a more grander lifestyle.


in terms of keeping the superintendent and the scientist in their offices to save money rather than meeting with Democrat Zuckerberg, I would like to point out that the visit happened on a Saturday afternoon, not during regular business hours. Draw your own conclusion. 


There should have been no reason for the Super not to meet with Zuckerberg but there would be no reason for the Dr to meet with him othe than to further his politics on cimate change...none. The Park Service has always taken political positions so no big deal...elections always have consequenes.  Obama had his Park Service people make changes, many of which were unliked by many and now, many think,  it is time to move the pendulum back to the center.  The far left may feel this was a poor decision but others don't.

Again, remember elections have consequences.


Excellent point. Lori!

My conclusion is this is the most unqualified, ignorant, dishonest, and dangerous administration in my lifetime.  Don't miss this morning's Washington Post on the death of expertise:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/daily-202/2017/07/2...


Add comment

CAPTCHA

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

Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.

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.