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 — three — Black 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
Mr Runte-
You are a little behind the times on what a Superintendent reports to Washington-While I totally disagree about the DOI decision on this-reporting a visiting dignitary to WASO is normal, in fact it has been required for quite a while. I've been a SUperintendent for 4 years and reports on visiting dignitaries have been required that entire time, so it's not just a decision of this administration.
Any meeting with a member of Congress, a Govenor or anyone else which may draw "National Media" attention is required to be reported as far in advance as possible. The Super would have been in major trouble had he not reported. NPS WASO screens the reports and passes any major visits on to DOI.
Ranger 1
I appreciate your elaboration. Of course, this is what the Park Service has become--another political animal, in Horace Albright's words, "just another bureaucracy," as he feared.
Certainly up through his adminstration, the reins were not held as tight. The Monthly Reports were considered adequate, and superintendents were given administrative leeway. Naturally, if the governor of a state "planned" a visit, that was reported to headquarters well in advance. For example, opening day at Yellowstone regularly included invitations to the four governors of Utah, Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming.
Today, why do we have superintendents at all if they are micro-managed from Washington, DC? You mean to say if Mr. Zuckerberg had just "shown up" in the office the superintendent would have closed the door? Please take a seat, Mr. Zuckerberg, while I ask permission to see you. The point I am making is the difference between a spontaneous and "announced" visit. Years ago, there were far more of the former than the latter. Even dignitaries just "dropped in." In that case, the superintendent was expected to throw open the door. Washington was pleased to wait for the Monthly Report.
As you say, the changes are hardly new--"it's not just a decision of this administration." The Big Chill, in my opinion, was when Stewart Udall strong-armed the Park Service over the Grand Canyon dams. Accordingly, what should we now expect? Apparently, we don't even need a Director of the Park Service anymore; an acting director does just fine. Suddenly, the only "paper trail" we historians need to follow is the calls for permission to Washington, DC. The Traveler may be surprised at that, but we historians are not surprised. The clue was was when the Monthly Reports were eliminated years ago. The clue was when the Mr. Zuckerberg's of this world themselves saw the parks as an "event" rather than simply worth a visit.
MR Runte_
You are correct about "announced" vs "unannounced" visits. If Mr Zuckerberg had just shown up, I'm sure the Superintendent would have met with him. I once had a Senator do that-I met with him, and then let WASO know after the fact. Part of the problem here, (and again I agree that it was mis-handled at the Interior level, rather badly) was that this was a well publicized visit.
I for one don't think they fumbled anything. Mr. Zuckerberg is a private citizen just like you and I. Does the fact that he has money mean he should get special access? Or is it just that he shares your beliefs? For arguments sake lets say it was the CEO of Exon or the company building the Dakota Access pipeline? What would the reaction or opinion have been then? I suspect the headline would be something along the lines of Trump about to allow drilling in Glacier! Or, Trump privatizing Glacier!
Zuckerbergs mind is made up on climate change and he doesn't need a private tour guide to reinforce his opinion and IF he did he is perfectly capable of arranging and paying for that on his own. On the other hand IF one of the other CEO's requested the same perhaps it would make more sense to give them the sales pitch. I'm against using government employees either way. I also don't get your comparison to the time and cost spent on Bears Ears (although I agree the use of Blackhawk helicopters is a bit much). It's apples and oranges. His job IS to evaluate these sites Zuckerbergs is NOT.
To the majority of the commenters here. I thought you were decidedly AGAINST special privileges for the wealthy and corporate involvement in the parks. Or is it just when you think they don't share your politics?
Mr. Z should attempt an anonymous visit without privileges or official escorts to understand what it's like to find a parking spot in a popular national park. He should hear about the park''s ecosystems from an interpretive ranger, just like the hordes learn about the park. If he wants to camp or spend a night in the backcountry, he should compete with the rest of us for those limited spaces. Then, when he runs for president, he can talk with authority rather than from his bubble about anthropogenic causes which melt glaciers and remove the taboo on talking about overpopulation.