Will The Superintendent's Summit Chart The Path For The National Park Service's Next Chapter?

This conference is a waste of time and money. Just look at the topics and speakers. Mostly led by superintendents who are selected friends and favorites of the Director. The Chair of the conference is a low level superintendent, not a senior superintendent of SES. And two days? As you rightly identify, big, hard issues about how to manage the workforce of the future and how to engage and win in a political climate are not on the agenda. The conference is mostly taking a few examples of park programs the Director happens to know about and having those superintendents lead a discussion of what good things are going on. No dissenting voices. No active search for shining examples that might not be well knows. No reward of risk.

We've been critical of this conference for several reasons - we think it tends to be largely politically driven; its cost-benefit (for two days, as the previous commenter points out) is questionable; and it comes at a very bad time of year for some parks/superintendents. But it's unfair, at least at this point in the process of putting on the summit, to take shots at the Chair of the Conference and the superintendents who are the discussion leaders. The Chair, while superintendent of a small NPS area, is a very competent public affairs professional with a lot of experience in these kinds of events - far more than most, if not all, the senior leaders of the NPS. And there is nothing to suggest that the discussion leaders won't be effective at facilitating dialog - sometimes senior/SES leaders don't do very well at all at facilitating, but do fine contributing. The real issue here is what becomes of the results of the dialog - especially this close to the end of the terms of the political leaders. If the results are worthwhile, the career leaders will make good use of it, regardless of what happens after the election. If it turns out to be nothing but window-dressing, it won't go anywhere, and shouldn't.

Bill Wade
Chair, Executive Council
Coalition of National Park Service Retirees

Art Allen says:

"Let's not get too panicky if the total visitor numbers go downward -- that's a good thing. Perhaps future generations will realize that the parks retain a little bit of the natural scene when such is gone from every other acre of public land. When something is truly different, and very rare, people appreciate it much more. Let the other public lands bear the onslaught of overuse."

Reminds me of when I was high school teacher ... I liked to say that teaching would be a wonderful thing if it weren't for the damn students. Unfortunately, the point is to involve and inspire the "future generations" to which Allen refers.

Yes, it would be nice to roam parks free from the unpleasant sight of other visitors. After all, most people have no idea how of to conduct themselves "properly" — no?

I believe that national parks must become a resource for a broad spectrum of users. Some would like to relegate the hoi polloi to less dignified public lands (like USFS,BLM and state park properties). But to do so will ensure that the future caretakers of national parks continue to dwindle. And that's just sad.

Maybe it's time to try a more inclusive approach.

Perhaps my comment needs a little more explanation. The situation that bothers me is that park management is overly concerned that there is not constant growth in visitation. To increase the numbers, it appears that park management is introducing many new intrusions and innovations that might attract visitors. Often, such changes adversely affect the resources.

What I suggest is that the NPS concentrate on protecting the resources and maintaining the existing facilities it has at a high standard. Let the other public land management agencies cater to the wreckreational "fad of the moment". Sustaining the National Parks as a minimally trammeled outdoor experience will become much more of a treasure to the American people with time. When all the other public lands become theme-park recreation sites, and marred by the trend toward resource extraction (oil, stock grazing, etc.); the protected National Parks will become more valued than ever.

Don't get me wrong, I realize that parks exist to be visited, but we do not have to give up the unique quality of protected landscapes just to attract more and more visitors. A park cannot be everything to everybody. Let the parks concentrate on what the Park Service has done best for nearly 100 years.