"... If he thinks the purpose of national parks is sort of revenue commodity production, we've got a big problem," Professor John Freemuth said of Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke's concern that Glacier National Park staff aren't as focused on timber management as they are about visitors.
What would the National Park System be without a National Park Service? Would you treasure Old Faithful, Delicate Arch, or Thunder Hole as much without a nearby ranger to answer your questions, provide some reassurance for your safety, and care for the integrity of the natural resources that drew you to these places?
It may not be such a far-fetched idea under the Trump administration, and you might just see a trial run this weekend. Traveler has learned that in the event of a government shutdown Friday, the National Park System will remain open. Non-essential Park Service personnel will not report to work, but concessions will continue to operate, and visitors will be free to enter.
"The word for weeks is that we don't stop people from coming in as long as we don't have to spend money," a park superintendent said. "Concessions can still operate. Partners can run things as long as there is no reimbursement (from the government)."
At the Park Service's Washington headquarters, spokesman Jeremy Barnum confirmed Wednesday night that the parks would indeed remain open to visits in the event of a government shutdown.
"We fully expect the government to remain open, however in the event of a shutdown, national parks will remain as accessible as possible while still following all applicable laws and procedures," he said in an email. "For example, this means that roads that have already been open will remain open (think snow removal) and vaulted toilets (wilderness type restrooms) will remain open. However services that require staffing and maintenance such as campgrounds and full-service restrooms, will not be operating. The American public and especially our veterans who come to our nation's capital will find war memorials and open-air parks open to the public."
This type of "soft closure" would give Republicans in Congress cover in the event of a shutdown. If you remember, during the last shutdown in October 2013, Republicans bore the brunt of the criticism for the park system being closed to the public. (Except in a few states where state tax dollars were used to keep parks open by paying the salaries and other bills. The Interior Department signed contracts with the states to allow them to operate the parks during the shutdown.)
But it's also highly possible that this approach is about more, much more, than giving the GOP cover in the mid-term elections this fall.
"They will always be able to say, 'Hey, we didn't shut down the parks. The gates were still open, weren't they? All we did is send most of those parasitic bureaucrats home and you still had a good time right? It just goes to show that less government is better," one ranger told us.
A conspiracy theorist would say a government shutdown is the perfect opportunity for the Trump administration to show Congress and the American public that parks can be run effectively without the NPS. Just connect the dots:
* We know the administration wants to cut the NPS budget and staff. President Trump's FY18 budget proposal called for a 13 percent cut in the Park Service budget, and the loss of about 1,200 full-time jobs;
* The Property and Environment Research Center, a free-market proponent, long has touted the possibility of “national park franchises” that would be run by the private sector;
* President Trump still has not nominated a permanent director for the National Park Service;
* Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke already has said that when it comes to campgrounds, NPS staff is best suited to clean restrooms, not manage them;
* In Washington, the National Park Service was being moved out of the third-floor offices it has occupied for decades so one of Secretary Zinke's deputies can take it over. The deputy, identified by The Washington Post as Doug Domenech, is assistant secretary for insular areas, a political appointee;
* Secretary Zinke is proposing a massive reorganization of the Interior Department, one that, if implemented, would drastically reorganize the various bureaus under the Interior umbrella and challenge them to mesh their various missions.
Too, in a recent interview with Outdoor Life, the secretary was dismissive of Park Service staff at Glacier National Park because they were not focused on timber management.
“I had a parks administrator tell me that timber management wasn’t his priority, that his priority was managing visitors," he was quoted as saying. "I told him, ‘Then what do I need you for? If managing visitors is your only job, then all I need is a ticket-taker at the entrance gate.’ So many people get into park management because they’re preservationists. I’m a conservationist, and that means actually managing what we’re stewards of.”
Phil Francis, chair of the Coalition to Protect America's National Parks, doubted Wednesday that the administration wants to do away with the Park Service completely. But...
Is a "soft closure" of national parks during a government shutdown, one that would allow visitors to explore the parks and concessionaires to operate while most Park Service personnel are furloughed, a step towards greater privatization of the park system?
"I think there’s clearly interest though that they want to contract out more to the private sector to do the work that we’ve been doing all these years," said Mr. Francis, who spent more than four decades with the Park Service, including eight years as superintendent of the Blue Ridge Parkway. "I don’t think there’s any doubt about that. A government shutdown is one thing, but to contract all the services out that the National Park Service does? That would take years. Maybe they have years to do it.”
At Boise State University, Professor John Freemuth, whose primary focus is public lands management and who is executive director of the Cecil D. Andrus Center for Public Policy, said there certainly is cause for concern for how the Trump administration is managing public lands and the National Park System.
"Connect the dots. In other words, this isn't one event that came out," he said. "Let's say this kind of statement (to keep the parks open during a government shutdown) came out during the Obama administration. You and I wouldn't be having this conversation. But you connect all the other dots."
The professor, citing the interview Secretary Zinke conducted with Outdoor Life, questioned how well Secretary Zinke understands the mission of the National Park Service.
"That amazing thing at the end of your note you sent me about Glacier National Park, which is absolutely befuddling, it suggests that the secretary doesn't understand the mission of the National Park Service," said Dr. Freemuth. "And then, to suggest that dealing with visitors is not a priority. I was a seasonal a long time ago. That's how people fall in love with the Park Service, the rangers they meet who help them. That's almost a window into his thinking. If he thinks that, then getting rid of non-essential personnel fits right in to the fact that in his mind the mission of the Park Service is not what the rest of us think it is.
"... And if you don't need those people, then it does open the door to the argument that some private group could run the parks, which is appalling," said the professor.
When the park system shut down for 16 days in October 2013, the Park Service figured the economic loss at $414 million. There are those in the tourism industry who don't think a similar loss should be incurred if the government shuts down again, that Park Service personnel don't need to be around to ensure concessions operations run satisfactorily.
"We support a tradition of health and safety functions occurring in parks even during a shutdown, and use of visitor-generated park revenues to provide visitor services. Concessions operations in parks rarely rely upon daily NPS staff operations and most can operate during a federal shutdown, just as ski areas and other recreation services continued in 2013 in national forests," Derrick Crandall, president of the American Recreation Coalition as well as the counselor to the National Park Hospitality Association, which represents park concessionaires, wrote in an email Wednesday.
While that sounds fine, parks such as Yellowstone, Yosemite, the Grand Canyon, and Golden Gate operate much like small cities, with fire departments, EMTs, law enforcement, sewer and water systems, and more. Too, many parks are home to archaeological, paleontological, and cultural artifacts that could be tempting to some visitors emboldened by the lack of rangers. Not to be overlooked is the dangerous nature of some parks: Mount Rainier with its heavy snows, icy roads, and avalanche potential. Zion with its steep, narrow trails that lead to precipices with thousand-foot dropoffs, and dangerous slot canyons. Acadia with its pounding surf. Big Cypress National Preserve with its wild backcountry.
Mr. Crandall did not immediately respond to a follow-up question of whether the Interior secretary's position that parks should remain open, albeit without full NPS personnel, during a government shutdown marked a transformative moment for the agency. Others thought the Trump administration's handling of the National Park System and its agency certainly deserved close attention by the public.
"This is unchartered territory that raises frightening questions about the integrity of our parks, their management, and the visitor experience," said John Garder, senior director of budget and appropriations for the National Parks Conservation Association. "The administration needs to recognize the profound responsibilities only the Park Service can meet to steward parks and provide for visitor enjoyment."
"I think people that are used to, and friends of, the parks need to pay serious attention to all this, because it appears to be a pattern," added Dr. Freemuth.
To a generation of environmentalists and conservationists, James Watt, who served a short stint as Interior secretary under President Reagan, epitomized the threat to public lands. Now, perhaps, Ryan Zinke has eclipsed him.
"I think so," ventured Dr. Freemuth. "I have a good friend at the University of Wyoming, Greg Cowley, and Greg wrote a book on Federal Lands, Western Anger, and he pointed that Watt wanted to go back to more multiple use, oil and gas and all of that. But he fought the privatizers in the White House. In fact, I know some of them who blame Watt for frustrating their agenda, which was to privatize more and more of the public lands. In that sense, I wonder if Zinke is worse."
Pointing back to the Outdoor Life article and Secretary Zinke's comments about timber production being more important than visitor management, the professor said, "that Glacier comment, whether he was just stupid that day or just not paying attention, if he thinks the purpose of national parks is sort of revenue commodity production, we've got a big problem."
Comments
Yeah Rick, Constitutuion Schmonstitution. Why worry about what it says. Lets just bring back indentured servitude.
Secretary Zinke's admonishment that the staff at Glacier National Park should be more devoted to timber resources than visitor management shows him to be incredibly misinformed about the mission of the National Park Service. Or, does the Trump Administration intend to change the 1916 Organic Act, which is the current law guiding the management of the Parks? I think they are already over-reaching with the heavy-handed anti-environmental agenda.
As to leaving the Parks open during the upcoming government shutdown, it was not completely clear to me whether NPS law enforcement, SAR, and EMTs are considered "Essential" employees or not. Leaving the Parks open without the Rangers whose specialized skills provide essential services to the visiting public (many of whom are outside their element during Park visits) is an abdication of responsibility which would almost certainly result in needless deaths and injuries. While this is less important, the result would also most likely result in $Millions in tort claims against the federal government for encouraging people to continue visiting the Parks at a time when essential services are not available. At many National Park areas, local and state agencies, and volunteer SAR units do not have the resources to step up to fill the void from missing rangers. Also, some of the older Parks are Exclusive Federal Jurisdiction, severely limiting non-federal agencies from doing this. Lastly, from somebody who was a NPS Ranger for many years, most people don't know the incredible job NPS Rangers do for visitors, under nearly every condition imaginable. Some of the SAR and EMT specialists in places such as Yosemite and the Grand Canyon are unsurpassed in their professionalism, and they do incredible things to save lives and keep people safe. Keeping these Parks open without them would be totally irresponsible.
Fool, that is your buddy boys on the front page today forcing this nonsense through. I support the consitution. Only one of the two of us has fought to defend it, But I know how important it is for you to have the last word.
Bye, Felicia.
You may have "fought" but it wasn't to support the Constitution. If it where you wouldn't be working so hard to destroy its principles. But of course you have taken us far off subject. The key on point points are 1) Thankfully we aren't holding the parks hostage and 2)The blockade to a budget deal doesn't have anything to do with the budget.
One last time, because I'm not the topic.
You have never served in uniform, and have never been under hostile fire. Your scorn about my service is rude.
The rest is fertilizer.
Sorry, Kurt. I'm going away from this person for a bit.
No Rick, I did not serve in the military. My father did and was awarded the Silver Star, and Purple Heart and Distinguised Service Medal among many other service ribbons. He was buried with honors in Arlington National Cemetery along with my mother. I have the greatest respect for our "Greatest Generation" and recently visited Normandy with tears in my eyes. To suggest I would scorn anyone's military service is just ignorant and I never did yours. What I scorned was your current disrespect for the the Constitution and your insistence to make any discussion about you and to make personal attacks and insults of others. Why can't you discuss any topic without calling names or insulting people. You brought up the topic of someone being able to deny service to others. I pointed out the 13th amendment ended indentured servidude. You cound't debate that point so you had to go off in another direction to prove moral superiority. That is what I scorn, not your service.
I think you're missing the point. Of course those services could be covered by the private sector on a for profit basis. Public Services are a way of providing the same that many people prefer. Public servants who directly aid the public tend to be slightly more well paid, provide higher quality work (partly due to being a higher-paid professional workforce), and do so at a lower cost to the public then private sector alternatives.
Rick, I didn't go into medicine. I went into history. But when you talk of "volunteer" service, I believe I have thousands of hours, too--tutoring, for example, and writing my students great letters of recommendation, little of it for which I was directly "paid." You ought to try being a professor sometime--especially in this toxic age. As for your service, I say "thank you"--as I say it to every veteran. Unfortunately, I never did get to thank my father, who fought for the Kaiser in World War I. Trench warfare. Three years of brutality that only ended when the stretcher bearers dragged him off the field.
EC has a point. You always seem to want "points." I believe the conversation was about "forcing" people to do things against their conscience. You talk about the military. You do know what a conscientious objector is. If you take the Ten Commandments literally, you need not fire a gun. All that Mr. Trump is protecting is the same right for the rest of us. We need not go against our conscience just because someone in government demands it. Our only obligation is to be sincere.
Are we being sincere when we attack the President? All he asks is that the nation stop and think. How long can we keep giving amnesty to an underclass, and note that I did not say Dreamers. 40 percent of visitors overstay their visas, and they come from every country in the world. My brother-in-law married a woman from the Philippines, who once she had her green card totally changed her "personality." I sympathize. Her life in the Philippines was (Trump expletive). But again, how long can this go on?
Those tying the operation of our government to the awarding of amnesty, yes, wish to bring back indentured servitude. Only we are the indentured servants--forced to pay for everyone else who can't pay, even at the expense of our own needs.
Shut it down. I don't care. Put a fence around Yellowstone and throw away the key. Good scientists warned us in the 1960s and 1970s this would happen if we didn't get population growth under control. We had only 200 million people then; now we have 325 million. You think we can keep the national parks if we keep giving amnesty? Dream on.