National park concessionaires, deeply concerned over what they see as three decades of stagnant visitation to the National Park System, want Congress to authorize better marketing of the parks, longer "high" seasons in the parks they believe would generate more revenues for infrastructure improvements, and expanded concessionaire opportunities in the parks.
Those items were among a list of nine that Derrick Crandall, counselor of the National Park Hospitality Association, recently presented to a House appropriations subcommittee with responsibility for Interior, Environment and Related Agencies.
"Mr. Chairman and Members, I know you would agree that we need to get Americans back in touch with nature, engaged in physical activities and outdoor recreation, and connected to the magnificent culture, heritage and landscapes that are celebrated by our National Park System," Mr. Crandall said in remarks prepared for his appearance before the subcommittee on March 19.
"We need to reach out to youth to encourage them to share in the wonder and enjoyment of our National Parks and discourage the increasingly sedentary lifestyles that are contributing to our health care crisis. We need to expand park visitation to encourage minorities, disadvantaged communities, new Americans and urban residents to see their national parks for themselves and to build a broader constituency for America’s great outdoors. And, we need to find new and innovative ways to reinvest in the maintenance, restoration, and expansion of critical park infrastructure – much of which was built either by private investment when the national parks were first created, or in conjunction with the work of the Civilian Conservation Corps more than half a century ago."
While visitation to the National Park System reached a record 292.8 million in 2014, an increase of more than 19 million from 2013, NHPA officials say visitation has "actually declined if you discount new units added to the system."
The solution? According to NHPA, a range of initiatives should be implemented, including:
* Extend the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act for two years to allow the Park Service to continue to collect fees for entry into park units and a variety of recreational activities, including backcountry usage, campgrounds, and boat launches;
* "(C)ontinuation and expansion of the Centennial Challenge Program. Encouraging non-profits, corporations and individuals to contribute toward important national park programs and projects...";
* Creation of a "National Park Outreach and Promotion Fund," funded by a transfer of 10 percent of the concessionaire franchise fees to "support NPS outreach and marketing efforts in partnership with states, gateway communities and concessioners;"
* Expanding the seasons at national parks, a move that would lead to increase visitor spending and franchise fees for the Park Service. These revenues, coupled with "investment requirements under new concessions contracts and appropriate use of existing Leasehold Surrender Interest" should be used to improve infrastructure in the park system.
"There has been a loss of rooms, of restaurant capacity, of services and of retail space in national parks over two decades, producing a corresponding decline in overnight stays and in the average length of visitor stays," Mr. Crandall told the subcommittee.
* More national park campgrounds should be managed by concessionaires "to improve visitor services and reduce operating costs";
* Concessionaires should be allowed to qualify for "historic tax credits from investments in structures" in the parks, and;
* Programs such as Youth Conservation Corps utilized in Yellowstone and Shenandoah national parks should be expanded across the system to "undertake construction, reconstruction and maintenance projects," possibly at a savings for the Park Service.
During a conversation with the Traveler last week, Mr. Crandall said the concessionaires don't expect the Park Service to "dramatically" expand road systems in national parks, but would like to see facility improvements and additions and believe it can be done without posing a great competitive threat to lodging and dining options in gateway communities.
"We seem to be headed in just one direction (in the parks): No increase, reduce, reduce," he said. "While that may be appropriate for Yosemite Valley, while that may be appropriate for portions of Yellowstone, I think for the park system overall, that's not a wise tactic.
"... I think what we're really saying, there is still an opportunity to enhance the ability of visitors to enjoy their park experience in a small portion of the footprint of our National Park System, and by doing that, just have a more robust experience when they're in the parks," Mr. Crandall went on.
"We're not talking about adding dramatically to the road system of the national parks because people now by and large see the parks out of their windshields. The last thing I would ever say is that that's justification for building more roads. But I would say that when you look at Yosemite Valley, and you have 1,500 rooms, which is down dramatically from what we used to have, and only 800 of those have bathrooms, I'm not afraid to say at some point we should look at how we upgrade those rooms so that 1,500 rooms have 1,500 bathrooms."
How Congress responds to the concessionaires remains to be seen, but Mr. Crandall plans to continue discussions with the appropriate committee and subcommittee chairs and ranking members.
"I'd say we got an enthusiastic level of support from all of the members of Congress that we talked to," he said in reference to his recent appearance before the subcommittee. "And that includes even people on the minority side. They all agree that they want to continue a successful pattern of providing services for the visitors in the parks through private sector investment in things like lodges."
Stories about:
Story Categories:
A copy of National Parks Traveler's financial statements may be obtained by sending a stamped, self-addressed envelope to: National Parks Traveler, P.O. Box 980452, Park City, Utah 84098. National Parks Traveler was formed in the state of Utah for the purpose of informing and educating about national parks and protected areas.
Residents of the following states may obtain a copy of our financial and additional information as stated below:
- Florida: A COPY OF THE OFFICIAL REGISTRATION AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION FOR NATIONAL PARKS TRAVELER, (REGISTRATION NO. CH 51659), MAY BE OBTAINED FROM THE DIVISION OF CONSUMER SERVICES BY CALLING 800-435-7352 OR VISITING THEIR WEBSITE. REGISTRATION DOES NOT IMPLY ENDORSEMENT, APPROVAL, OR RECOMMENDATION BY THE STATE.
- Georgia: A full and fair description of the programs and financial statement summary of National Parks Traveler is available upon request at the office and phone number indicated above.
- Maryland: Documents and information submitted under the Maryland Solicitations Act are also available, for the cost of postage and copies, from the Secretary of State, State House, Annapolis, MD 21401 (410-974-5534).
- North Carolina: Financial information about this organization and a copy of its license are available from the State Solicitation Licensing Branch at 888-830-4989 or 919-807-2214. The license is not an endorsement by the State.
- Pennsylvania: The official registration and financial information of National Parks Traveler may be obtained from the Pennsylvania Department of State by calling 800-732-0999. Registration does not imply endorsement.
- Virginia: Financial statements are available from the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, 102 Governor Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219.
- Washington: National Parks Traveler is registered with Washington State’s Charities Program as required by law and additional information is available by calling 800-332-4483 or visiting www.sos.wa.gov/charities, or on file at Charities Division, Office of the Secretary of State, State of Washington, Olympia, WA 98504.
National parks and their natural resources belong to you. The National Parks Traveler works to ensure you know how these essential places are being cared for.
Sign Up For Our Weekly Newsletter
Unsubscribe at any time.
INN Member
The easiest way to explore RV-friendly National Park campgrounds.
Here’s the definitive guide to National Park System campgrounds where RVers can park their rigs.
Our app is packed with RVing- specific details on more than 250 campgrounds in more than 70 national parks.
You’ll also find stories about RVing in the parks, tips helpful if you’ve just recently become an RVer, and useful planning suggestions.
Comments
If NPS and concessionaires will work together instead of continually butting heads to improve the quality of services, I believe vistitors from all walks of life will increase.
I have worked in the park system for some years now. And I can not tell you how tired I am of hearing that hard beds, torn linens, worn fixtures, food straight out of a can, and limited services with a surly attitude from employees that have little to no grasp on the English language and even less professional skills are to be expected. Wasn't much of that what we expected from the train system before Fred Harvey came along? I simply can not buy into the theory we have to accept second rate in our national parks! Change can be made if it is desired badly enough. NPS, however, is beyond extraordinarily anti-progress!!
Menus that reflect today's taste could be created by nutritionists instead of the tired high school cafeteria quality that is standard fare today. Softer beds with fresh linens and pillows would encourage more guests to stay, and better satisfy guests already coming .(More satisfied guests will spend more dollars).
Many guests simply can not leave the office without bringing technology with them. Sad but true today. Wi-fi needs to be available wherever feasible- and not wi-fi that is slower than dialup. (Philip Anschutz of Xanterra also owns or part owns Qwest; he should be able to do this easily.) Televisions should have decent cable, or movies avaialble so guests have way to unwind after that long hike.
Room prices need to reconsidered. Many families can not afford the high price of a full standard hotel room and are not willing to pay 100 dollars for a shared bath. (I believe to some extent, this is our greatest problem - high prices people can't/won't pay!)
Adequate parking and parking reserved for hotel guests would encourage longer stays from many guests.
Employees need to be hired that feel valued and are paid adequately for their services. These are employees that will give the guests a greater experience. Low pay and insufficient pay raises are the hallmark of the concessions companies. This leads to short term employees trained on the fly who can't provide good service.
Over the last fews years, Americans who have dedicated many years to the parks often have their hours reduced drastically in favor of young internationals who, as I understand it, are guaranteed a certain number of hours per their contract. (A cost cutting measure, but hurtful to both the long term employee, and to the young student whose lack of grasp of the English language makes their job twice as difficult.) Concessionaires should provide wages consistent with wages outside the parks for the same jobs. Once again, to attract quality employees, who provide a quality guest experience.
In short, I believe, aside from technology, the quantity of services provided is not necessarily the issue. It's the quality of service, which has gone downhill.
You can't attract everyone to a national park, but you can certainly attract more by providing a first rate experience. Better service, parking, food, and lodging are absolutely critical!!
just,
While I generally agree with your call for higher quality of service - something every business should seek and doesn't necessarily involve higher costs. Many of the things you ask for cost more money yet you complain of prices being too high. You are going to have to make up your mind on that one. It is extrmely difficult to both raise costs and lower price.
Let me get this straight. Concesionaires think that the answer to decreased visitation is to continue the fee system and increase it? Man. No wonder the NPS has a problem. Of course, concessionaires have run this system for decades now. FLREA is garbage and having the moneychangers promote it proves the point.
The price of lodging in the parks is too high for the average "Joe" towing a bunch of kids along.I believe that is why the numbers of people staying overnight in the parks has decreased.
I agree entirely! Many families simply can't shove all their kids into a hostel style room. And for others, this is fine of they aren't paying 100 dollars a night for it.
Here at GCNP, many other amenities that I mentioned have at one time been available. For instance, up until a couple of years ago, wi-fi in public areas was fairly decent. Then a change was made to the system, and what is available now is virtually useless. Some third party provider from New Zealand, and we can't even reset the equipment. (Guests who are told they would have wi-fi, and oftgen choose to stay as result, often take their greivance out on those who have no control over the situation.)
Cable television here was not spectacular, but at least a few channels were available until a few months ago. The cable company went out of business, and now television is nearly non-existent. NPS, as I understand it, is making it extremely difficult for the concessionaire to bring in a new provider. Room prices are too high to not offer this. Especially when it is advertised.
Parking has always been limited, but made even worse several years ago when a park superintendent decided to eliminate roughly 150 parking places. Especially for our older population, walking long distance to simply get to their hotel room is unappealing, and may be unsafe for some.
Beds have to be replaced every few years anyway, and pillows more frequently. Replace them with something respectable. Costs can be recovered as guests stop demanding discounts, and leaving early.
You can't continue to decrease services, and drastically increase prices, which seems to be the norm today. Bare bones amenities at bare bones prices, along with a range of options for those who desire a little more pampering should be available.
The captive customer mentality needs to disappear from the parks. People have plenty of outdoor options to explore if they so choose. In order to attract visitors, the parks need to be made more appealing. If service is poor, and facilities are below par, people simply will not come.
If they want more visitors, they're going to have to realize that the more things cost, the fewer visitors they're going to have. Period. And what on earth is wrong with a shared bathroom?
Things seem to be geared more and more to foreign visitors with lots of money. Things should be geared first to all social levels of residents first.
Does the NPS really care about anyone enjoying the Parks? The goal for the NPS has been to remove the human footprint in the Parks by removing fun stuff like trails that are popular with humans. The NPS makes the vast majority of the Parks difficult and unpopular for the public to enjoy and limiting access for humans. The NPS makes the Parks enjoyable for the rich snob elite like Larry Rockefeller and his ilk and makes enjoying the Parks for the more common people difficult to impossible.
Whippering1 - I don't have a clue what you are talking about. Visited many a park and have seldom if ever experienced the NPS limiting access or enjoyment. Perhaps if you are a dog but certainly not if you are human.
I know exactly what Whipperin is talking about. CHNSRA is the perfect example. The NPS actually wants to remove "recreation" so bad, they removed it from the parks name.
I have to ask just how much of this is the fault of NPS and how much fault lies with the various concessionaires? Does anyone really know? Can anyone provide evidence in support of their claim in either direction? Then again, could any of it be the result of Congressional meddling in park management?
It's easy to cast blame. Much easier than backing it up with facts.
The poster above seems to inadvertantly contradict him/herself while simultaneously calling for a host of amenities and then call for "bare bones."
Like so many of the challenges in park management, this one has a long and awfully convoluted history. So many cooks have been adding ingredients and stirring the pot that we've wound up with a real kettle of Mrs. Murphy's chowder.
Beach - you may have a point at CHNSRA but I don't think that is the norm. Have the rail miles been reduced at Yellowstone, Yosemite, Glacier...... I don't think so. Heck they just opened up part of Rocky Mtn National Park to mountain biking.
Just - once again you are arguing for more amenties but want lower costs. An oxymoron Perhaps you should get out into the park instead of watching cable TV or tapping into the wi-fi.
Some of the thoughts here remind me of why Walmart and McDonald's are so popular in this country.
I have no problem with "bare bones" accomodations in parks. Get rid of the TV's. Get rid of wifi, except for administrative needs, employees, and perhaps in the lobby of hotels and visitor centers.
Encourage camping. Encourage longer visits. Encourage participation in ranger walks and talks. Encourage ways to enjoy the park by getting out into the scenery and onto the trails, and getting out from behind the windshield. Publish quarterly report cards that review the quality and prices of services provided. Encourage full support for our parks by Congress and discourage the charging of petty fees.
Hmmmm. Come to think of it, it could get worse. I just learned that the national parks of Iceland charge for use of restrooms.
I do not believe any contradiction was made. I clearly stated both amenities and bare bones should be made available and each charged accordingly.
For those of you opposed TV and wifi, I can assure you that you are in the minority. You've never dealt with guests in the park when either or both of these items aren't available. And even some hikers want a way to unwind one the hike is over. People can and do become very hostile.
Just a reminder to folks reading in these pages. The "NPS are all bad and always wrong" crowd only seems prolific because a few loud activists burn up limited space here in a modest forum. In the Real World their opinions are very much a minority.
You can pretty well tell by the venom in the comments that they aren't here for open discussion and don't appear capable of having their minds changed.
Owen is right. Encourage people to get OUT into the park. I'm always amazed by the pitiful people parked in a campground like Norris watching satellite TV while just a few feet away trumpeter swans and otters swim in the Gibbon River and a herd of elk is venturing into the meadow. Pitiful people only because they have no idea what they are missing.
Then again, while they stay indoors other folks may quietly enjoy the scenery without a lot of noise from other people.
But still . . . .
Quietly enjoy the scenery? When the NPS removes and abandons trails and keeps some trails a secret from the public it makes it kind of harder to enjoy the scenery. Quiety? Are you opposed to enjoying the scenery even with the noise of the hordes of common people that come to the Parks? Should the Parks just be for elite nature snobs?
Could you give some examples?
Grand Teton National Park removed miles of horse/wildlife trails in 2013 aqnd 2014. Many of the so-called horse trails are secret trails that the NPS does not show on maps of trails in the Park.
Here's a prime example.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YFIPDYW1ba0
May I humbly volunteer ecbuck,Gary and smokybackpacker to go help Kerry argue with the Iranians over this nuclear bomb issue-- we need you guys to kick some Iranian "you know what."
Thanks, for the link Smokies!
Gutz
I have been known to show up for a good fight! Others on that list you may want to check their resume:)
funny,.
I'm figuring those pesky Iranians would cry uncle in just a couple of hours after tangeling with you guys-- they'd give up all those centifuges and all that other stuff they have hiding-- maybe even though in some free oil just to get you guys to leave them alone!!??
Sorry Smokies don't see anything in that video about removing or abandoning trails or keeping trails secret.
You may be right Gutz!
EC, if you will come over, I will gladly take you to see the illegal trail system. It is clear as day when you hike it. Which is why certain folks around here have been threatening to go see for themselves but havent' been able to find the time for two years.
whipperin--I would ask the same question that ec did. Can you give us examples of trails that have been removed, abandoned or kept secret? It is a mystery to me where you get your information. Remember. smokies is talking about a trail he believes is illegal, not removed, abandoned or kept secret.
Rick
Here's a link to information on an abandoned trail in Grand Teton: http://thebigoutside.com/ask-me-can-you-suggest-a-backpacking-trip-in-th...
There are abandoned trails on the west sides of Leigh and Jackson Lake in Grand Teton as well as an abandoned trail from Trapper's Lake/Bear Paw Lake area to Jackson Lake and a nice campsite area on the Lake.
What does an alleged illegal trail system have to do with removing, abandoning or keeping trails secret?
Just curious - what do you mean when you say the NPS "removed" these horse/wildlife trails? Were they physically obliterated so they can't be found (a pretty labor-intensive and expensive process) or were they "removed" from public maps that show the location of these routes. If they are "secret" trails, are they still identifiable on the ground, and used by only insiders? I'm just not clear about what these terms mean in your context.
The NPS hired a contractor with min-excavator to "remove" many of the trails by dragging the excavator bucket to a depth of about ten inches to make the trails difficult to walk on and to encourage plant growth. The trail removal project cost $80,000. Trail removal left just as bad or a worse scar on the earth as did the trails. Some trails that were removed were just blocked with trees debris and trail closed signs. Some of the trails were never used by horseback riders and only used by wildlife like bison and elk when using ancient migration routes. The wildlife just goes over the trail removal debris/removal and signs or makes a new trail. Signs that the trails are closed were posted on the trails. Maps were made of all the so-called horse trails and the removed trails, but those maps are secret in that they are not readily available to the public on Park maps at any Park Information Center. The so-called horse trails are used by Park conscessioners, but they are public trails in a public Park and should be noted on the maps of the Park that the Park gives to the public. Most of the trails would be great for hikers to enjoy.
Interesting. Do you know why these trails were abandoned? Was it due to lack of ability to maintain them, or were there any resource issues with the routes that caused a decision to intentionally abandon them, are some of these possibly unofficial social trails, or ....?
I have asked about trail abandonment and lack of maintenance at the Grand Teton Park Visitor's Center and I was told that they are 2 years behind on trail maintenance and that they do not take suggestions from the public on trails. It seemed to be a very touchy subject based upon the haughty reaction I recieved. My guess is that the NPS does not want to patrol and care for the trails and it's easy and cheap to let the trails go. The NPS had $80,000 to remove trails, but not enough money to timely maintain trails which makes me think the NPS has a goal to limit public trail access to the Parks. Why?
Jim Burnett, what is the NPS definiton of "social trails"? Does "social trails" mean they are trails that the public or society likes to use and some NPS bigshot dislikes? Why does the NPS have such an obsession with removing the "human footprint" from the Parks? Maybe the humans (the Public) likes where they are footprinting? Who in the Public really cares about the removal of the human footprint projects? Future generations? No one knows the future or what people will appreciate in the future?
I don't see anything in that link about an abandoned trail. Perhpas you could be more specific and provide a quote noting that.
Sorry to disappoint the gung ho NPS crowd, but there are those of us who are critical of the bloated bureaucracy known as National Park Service. Last I knew, we had the freedom to speak our minds as well. And the freedom to expect NPS and concessionaires to work togehter instead of butting heads in improving the quality of services in our parks.
I speak from the experience of someone who is very aware of what guests are asking for these days. I speak from the experience of someone who has had more than one person in my face because they had certain expectations not met, and may never return to a national park as a result.
Not everyone can hike the trails for prolonged periods of time. Many elderly and young children are limited in the amount of time they can explore, yet don't want to avoid exploring altogether. Others want to get away from it all, but, unfortunately, do have to spend a certain amount of time each day checking in with the office so to speak. Are we supposed to deny these people the right to enjoy the beauty of our national parks? Are we supposed to tell them to go home at the end of the day, especially if they have family members that might want to continue exploring?
What if a hiker is injured or ill at the last moment? Are they supposed to stare at the four walls? On days when the weather is beyond horrible, do we offer nothing? Just expect a rock hard bed, lumpy pillows, substandard food, and four walls to stare at? Expect unsympathetic, untrained employees who may not even have the skills to communicate with them?
I think everyone has a right to enjoy our parks. Those of you who want a camp like atmosphere aren't being denied just because others have needs for a few amenities. Feel free not to bring your computer along. Feel free to book a place that does not have wifi, television, and cell phone services. But don't deny others the right to explore with limitiations. And, unless you know their individual stories, don't label them as fat and lazy.
This might be part of the problem.
Whipperin1: I'm guilty of helping us get off the topic (concessioner investments), but I try to answer your question. There will always be tension between those who want more recreation in parks (that includes trails or concessioner facilities) and those who want more protection of resources. The NPS' challenge is trying to find a balance, and everyone will never agree with the result.
Well-designed trails allow the public to get to locations with the least, long-term disturbance of resources and in the safest and most enjoyable manner. They require money to build and maintain, and parks never have enough $ to do so. That means they have to pick and choose which routes to offer; most parks, including Grand Teton, have many more miles of trail that the majority of visitors will ever use.
There are plenty of problems with unofficial or "social" trails, which usually result when visitors want to take the shortest route, or go to places where there is no official trail: erosion; trampling of meadows, shorelines and other fragile sites where soils are thin or wet, or growing seasons are short (places like Grand Teton); disturbance of vital resting or nesting sites for wildlife, and more. Hikers on official trails can get confused by unmarked junctions with social trails; the Traveler will have a story on Sunday about an expensive rescue that resulted from a hiker who got off an official trail onto a network of social trails and got stuck in a very dangerous situation.
Sometimes parks try to close some social trails to avoid the problems mentioned above. When they do, it's certainly reasonable not to show such closed routes on public maps; if the intention is to avoid using them, why advertise the closed trails and invite continued use?
Yes, some of the "public" thinks it's okay to create their own routes, but that doesn't mean the result is the best one for the public as a whole. I define "best" as ways that seek to balance public access and use with preserving the resources that are the reason the park is there in the first place. For resources held in common by all of us (such as parks) to be most successful for the long term, all of us have to be willing to compromise at times by not insisting on getting everything we want - and that includes making our own trails to every possible destination. We may not agree on this topic...and that's okay.
You'll find some good info about social trails and their problems here, and at this site, and this one. Google will point you to many more.
Well put Jim
Thank you Jim.
As for the large population of non-workforce American, I believe that if you will check, you will learn that much of that is because the numbers include older Americans who have retired. That certainly inflates the number.
And because many of those no longer in the worforce are out enjoying life after retirement, our parks are affected.
Well stated, Jim.
(This comment has been edited slightly by volunteer moderator to remove some off-topic content.)
Jim, I like your answer and attitude.
Lee, I understand it includes those that might be retired but that number has been increasing as were being told the economy is improving. It doesn't add up.
Why not?
My curiosity was aroused, so I found the article cited above by beachdumb. Here's one explanation from that article:
"According to the BLS, the aging of the baby boom generation is a key factor affecting the labor force participation rate:
“The baby boomers’ exit from the prime-aged workforce and their movement into older age groups will lower the overall labor force participation rate, leading to a slowdown in the growth of the labor force,” explains the BLS."
I believe that means the number of those retiring is exceeding those entering the workforce, or looking for work.
It would be interesting to see the actual numbers for each year of age. Also, since the age of retirement has been extending, you would think that would tend to reduce the numbers that are retiring.
Found the numbers: http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.x...
According to the US census, in 2013 there were 4.36 million 17 year olds and 3.39 million 65 year olds. Therefore it would appear that the trend would be more people entering the workforce than leaving it.
[edited - prior numbers were males only]
It is also due to more 18-24 year olds going to college: 12 million in 1988 vs. 21 million today.
http://www.factcheck.org/2015/03/declining-labor-participation-rates/
We dropped out of the labor force on January 1, 2014 - when I was able to get health insurance without having to have a job. And I know quite a few people 45-64 that did the same thing. Our leaving the labor force allowed two people that needed jobs to get them.
You always could have health insurance without a job.
Maybe you did, but that wasn't the majority. In fact, the age of retirement has been rising.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/168707/average-retirement-age-rises.aspx
That nine million increase in students is far more than offset by a 75 million increase in population since 1988
Pages