You are here

Analysis: Would A Government Shutdown Usher In A New Vision For The National Park Service?

Share

"... 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."

Featured Article

Comments

Liberal, conservative, whatever, most people have no idea how to behave in the backcountry. Just live next door to Yellowstone for a year and you will experience several deaths a year, selfies with bison, no bear spray in grizzly country, forgetting to take emergency supplies, no water or purification units...the list goes on. Not to mention the vandalism and wildlife harrassment that would occur. I do not agree with your assessment. Most of our summer visitors are from places like China where they don't even use flush toilets and need signs how to use one instead of standing on the seats. 


WHy do you have to label people as far as their political standing? Do you forget that many of visitors to Parks are foreigners who need instructions and help? I've seen my share of visitors throwing trash on the ground, leaving trash at back country campsites, harassing wildlife, falling into hot pools and dying, getting gorged by bison, defacing cherished antiquities, even breaking toilet seats because they do not have them in their countries. I think you are from back east or the south, but those of us who live in the West love our public lands to hike, hunt, and recreate. 


I'm still wondering which National Park Service employees will be considered "Essential" personnel, and won't be sent home if a government shutdown occurs.  I would think this would include maintenance employees who maintain water delivery and treatment systems, and probably the employees who clean the restrooms.  Would this also include law enforcement, Search and Rescue, EMT's and paramedics?  Does anybody know if this issue has been addressed by NPS Management?  I can see near-total chaos in which many Park Employees don't know if they're working or not, since the Administration has announced its intention to keep the Parks "Open" during this shutdown.


At the beginning of the last shutdown, I was staying in a campground at the Grand Canyon, where I once worked as a Ranger.  A campground ranger came around to all the campsites and politely advised that we needed to pack up and get ready to leave.  She was very apologetic, but I told her that she had nothing to apologize for.  While I was engaged in a pleasant conversation with her, a patrol ranger - apparently thinking I was arguing with her - came over with something of an attitude.  Political dysfunction stresses employees, as I observed for myself, and many of us observed on TV during that last shutdown.  A lot of our elected politicians of both political parties need to be voted out of office for this and other reasons.  


And, back to the original topic of this thread --------   looks like we're about to find out.


I wonder if this is something Kurt would be interested in looking into. Here is a portion of an email I received today. "Sorry to pass on bad news on such a beautiful day, but believe it or not, the government shutdown affects our volunteer work. Liability insurance for volunteers is covered under the National Park Service Volunteers in Parks program, so we should not do any volunteer work for the time being. "
This sounds highly suspicious to me. What kind of insurance lapses like this? Don't try to tell me government employees are now going without insurance. Is this more about the NPS trying to make their own political point at the expense of the parks?


Here is a letter from Dr. Margaret Wheatley,  one of the National Parks Advisory Board members who just resigned.  It was published this morning as an op-ed in the Salt Lake Tribune. 

https://www.sltrib.com/opinion/commentary/2018/01/20/commentary-i-resign...


Dr. Wheatley writes:

As external citizen-experts, we were a critical resource and support to park personnel. We provided energy, focus and allies to the issues and projects they had been wanting to do but could not move forward because of their own workloads.

Pardon me for pointing out what The Traveler has been saying all these years, but does Dr. Wheatley now wish to take credit for the mess the Park Service is in? And to have us believe it is an issue of "workloads?" Does that excuse every mistaken assumption of what the parks are--and how they should be run?

Bureaucrats love this kind of language. We should hate it, including all of the other adjectives she throws our way. If the noun means nothing, you can always give it an adjective. We were not just a resource, but rather a "critical" resource. Okay. Then why did you fail?

You didn't fail? But you said you were critical. If the Park Service couldn't live without you, how does that not make you complicit in its failures?

The truth, we know, is somewhat different. No one "listened" to the Advisory Board. Nor do they listen when The Traveler pleads for funds. No one wants to fund a critic.

Will we miss the board? I doubt it. But yes, The Traveler we would miss. So if you really believe Dr. Wheatley, send Kurt a check right now.


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.