“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.
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
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.... or was that Heather Spicer?
Wow. At the risk of sounding totally naive (and I've been accused of that, more than once), I would think that it would be in the Interior Department's best interest to send the best of the best to talk to someone as influential as Mr. Zuckerberg, with the forward thinking of potential influence and interest raised from that meeting ... or maybe, that's why they did *not* send someone who has 26 years'-worth of knowledge about the glaciers within this national park.
Not that I want our career government folks to lose their leave or be out their own money, but I am pretty sure that I would have taken vacation days and paid my own way to get a chance to bend the ear of Mr Zuckerberg, and his BILLIONS of customers, for a few hours (or even better days.) Heck - I would have envited him into my home and cooked for him myself if I thought that might have bought some decent coverage. But they shouldn't have to. It was a complete no-brainer that those two should have been made available to Zuckerberg while he visited - there was far more to gain from that interaction than to lose.
Two things. First, how did the Interior Department learn of Mr. Zuckerberg's visit? Did Glacier "ask" permission, or perhaps share with the press a news release? Normally, it would be none of the Secretary's business. Park superintendents, etc., "meet" with dignitaries all the time.
Second, now that the Park Service has taken "political" stances, what should we expect? Under Stephen T. Mather and Horace M. Albright, the Park Service remained strictly bipartisan. Superintendents "reported" to Washington who had visited their parks--and proudly--without any editoralizing, as it were. The Monthly Reports of Yosemite, Yellowstone, etc., ring with the many distinguished people who passed through the parks. The point is: The superintendents left it at that. Mather and Albright knew that Congress would take a dim view of any grandstanding on "the issues."
It was there, but between the lines. Now it is front and center. To some it smacks of insubordination. Recall that in 1963, Stewart Udall, then Interior Secretary, "instructed" the Park Service not to talk about the Grand Canyon dams. Why should we be surprised if Ryan Zinke, as Interior Secretary, wants no discussion of climate change? Is it censorship? You bet it is. But censorship has a long history, nor is it just a "Republican" phenomenon.
Last weekend, I met an Interior Department official who admitted that wind and solar power were "controversial," and that her boss, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, had resisted "dissent," as well. From where I sit, the lesson of these incidents is that everything about government today is political. But then, when was it ever different, i.e, did we not notice only because our political party was in power--in which case we forgave it all its sins? I certainly forgave Udall for wanting to dam the Grand Canyon, until I learned he was dragging his feet on the redwoods, too. I then learned not to look for heroes in government. Nor have I changed my mind.
So if you are a billionaire socialist with capitalist tendencies, you should get a private escort around a National Park?
Mr Z has already made his mind up about climate change and if he needs help, he could always donate to the National Parks or hire his own scientist to follow him around to show him how right he is.
His " billions of customers could be better served if he understood reality and that the budgets at NP's are thin now and they could help by donating as well.
Instead, Mr Z is too busy telling us how we should live simpler lives as he lives a more grander lifestyle.
in terms of keeping the superintendent and the scientist in their offices to save money rather than meeting with Democrat Zuckerberg, I would like to point out that the visit happened on a Saturday afternoon, not during regular business hours. Draw your own conclusion.
There should have been no reason for the Super not to meet with Zuckerberg but there would be no reason for the Dr to meet with him othe than to further his politics on cimate change...none. The Park Service has always taken political positions so no big deal...elections always have consequenes. Obama had his Park Service people make changes, many of which were unliked by many and now, many think, it is time to move the pendulum back to the center. The far left may feel this was a poor decision but others don't.
Again, remember elections have consequences.
Excellent point. Lori!
My conclusion is this is the most unqualified, ignorant, dishonest, and dangerous administration in my lifetime. Don't miss this morning's Washington Post on the death of expertise:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/daily-202/2017/07/2...
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.