|
|
The national parksAmerica's best ideaBy Brian Yablonski
America is about to rediscover her national parks. To great fanfare, Ken Burns’ epic documentary, "The National Parks: America’s Best Idea," premieres on PBS this fall. And if past is prologue, Mike Finley expects to see a significant surge of interest in our nation’s greatest treasures. Finley, a former superintendent for Yellowstone, Yosemite, and Everglades national parks, recalls how "visitors came to the Civil War parks in droves," after "The Civil War" aired. Couple this with the centennial anniversary of the National Park Service in 2016, and you have all the makings of a revival. The Burns series represents a golden opportunity for the national parks. That’s because these have not necessarily been the best of times for “America’s best idea.” While U.S. population has grown, national park visitation has not. Visitation peaked in 1987. In 2008, fewer people visited the national parks than they did 20 years ago. As park service spokeswoman Kathy Kupper recently told the USA Today, “In the ‘50s and ‘60s, this was the American vacation. But we’ve gotten away from that.” And the Economist recently cautioned, “As Americans lose interest in the national parks, they will become less willing to pay for them." Park management has also been challenging. Unfunded maintenance projects have left sewer systems, hiking trails, roads, and buildings in poor condition. Finley recalls the day when raw sewage spilled into the Yellowstone River. And despite $920 million in stimulus spending, the National Parks Conservation Association notes that chronic underfunding has left an $8 billion maintenance and preservation backlog. As the national parks work to overcome these issues, there has been a quiet turn to market mechanisms to boost financial support and enhance the visitor experience. Changes to the fee system, revenue sharing agreements, and efforts to measure the economic value of the parks all represent moves to instill more economic principles. In a sense, the parks have gone back to their origins. REFORMING THE PARK FEE SYSTEMThe original vision of the National Park system was a form of financial self-sufficiency. As PERC’s Holly Fretwell notes, the National Park Service’s first director, Stephen Mather, believed that the ability to set appropriate fees and retain park receipts was important for responsible management of the resources. User fees charged to park visitors were kept in a special account by the Park Service for appropriation for road maintenance, park development, and administration. Yellowstone charged a $10 annual auto fee in 1916, the equivalent of $165 in 2006 terms. Under Mather’s leadership, at least five parks, including Yellowstone and Yosemite, became operationally self-sufficient. But after two years, Congress passed legislation requiring all park receipts be turned over to the National Treasury. Between 1918 and 1993, nearly all fee revenue earned in the national parks reverted to Washington, D.C., providing no direct benefit to the park unit or managers who collected the fees. A return to Mather’s vision emerged with the creation of the Recreational Fee Demonstration program in 1996 and authorized until 2014, ensuring that revenue generated by fees at certain parks be kept in those parks. Over a five-year period ending in 2010, the National Park Service projected it would collect and spend almost $1.1 billion in fee revenue on deferred maintenance, habitat restoration, visitor services, and preventative maintenance. The Fee Demo program (now called the Recreational Enhancement Act) has also begun to restore the connection between park managers, visitors, and gateway communities. With greater accountability to those most impacted by the parks, the program is funding projects that otherwise might sit on a shelf. BENEFITS-SHARING ACT AGREEMENTSAnother recent market mechanism has sought to capture the value of research in the national parks. The discovery of a microbe called “Thermus aquaticus” in a Yellowstone hot springs led to the process that made DNA fingerprinting and other DNA analysis possible. Annual sales associated with this process have generated approximately $100 million with neither Yellowstone nor the National Park Service receiving any direct benefit. All of the proceeds went to the private entities involved. For years the Park Service has granted research permits. In Yellowstone alone, approximately 40 research studies are being conducted at any time on the ecology of thermophiles. Thus, in 1997, Yellowstone became the first national park to enter into a benefitssharing agreement with a commercial research firm studying the park’s microbes. The Diversa Corporation promised to pay Yellowstone $100,000 over five years plus a royalty based on the potentially billions in revenues related to its park research. Sadly, as then-park superintendent Finley notes, “I was the first park manager to initiate benefits-sharing and the first to get sued.” Opponents challenged the agreement as a commercial use of park resources even though the microbes and DNA collected in the park remain in federal ownership and are never sold. As Finley recalls his chief scientist saying, “You take more of Yellowstone with you on the dirt of your boots than a scientist with a pipette of thermal water.” Today, benefits-sharing agreements that might serve to secure our national parks future are on hold as an environmental impact statement is developed to examine their potential impacts. MEASURING THE WEALTH OFOUR PARKSIn 2003, Ken Olson, then-president of the Friends of Acadia National Park, wrote that “when it comes to some of the boldest manifestations of our collective wealth, the national parks, Americans see them almost exclusively as natural, recreational, and spiritual assets. Surely they are that, but we park conservationists hurt our cause by not emphasizing their economic virtues at the same time.” Mike Finley knows from experience that the benefits of our national parks are especially important to the parks’ gateway communities. “Our national parks can best be described as the goose that keeps laying ever bigger golden eggs.” He recalls watching commercial fishermen lining up just outside the border of Everglades National Park, reaping the bounty of a protected ecosystem, along with fishing guides, tour operators, rental car companies, airlines, and hotels. “Yet no one has created a compelling analysis of the parks’ economic value and benefits,” said Finley. That may be changing with a new Money Generation Model, a program designed to bring greater awareness of the benefits that the parks bring to gateway communities—those within 50 miles of a national park. In the latest report, it was estimated that park visitors spent nearly $12 billion in gateway communities, supporting 232,000 jobs, with local residents accounting for only 9.5 percent of this spending Like any good business, dissemination of economic information can be useful for creating external support for specific parks; fostering partnerships with governments, not-for-profits, and businesses in gateway communities; and justifying fiscal decisions of the park such as market-based adjustments to fees. As Olson writes, “the idea is that special places that are set aside from the market system can themselves create and sustain markets, especially in the immediate surroundings. Capitalism, entrepreneurship, and conservation are not a strange ménage.” When it comes to our national parks, many Americans find themselves uncomfortable with these economic concepts and emerging marketbased programs. Yet that sentiment comes with a tinge of irony. Yellowstone, Glacier, Grand Canyon, Mount Rainier, and Crater Lake national parks all National parks all owe their existence, in part, to the private economic interests of large railroads who were among the first to appreciate the amenity value of these natural wonders. Railroad titans funded explorers, painters, photographers, and lobbyists to secure protection of these areas from individual homesteaders, miners, or loggers, who themselves might capture the value of the land. Individual capitalists, too, used their wealth to protect America’s special places. John D. Rockefeller, Jr. purchased 35,000 acres in Wyoming and donated it for the creation of Grand Teton National Park, along with contributions that led to the creation of Acadia and the Great Smokey Mountain national parks. Park founders, however, got it right. The National Parks are and should be public. Even the Manhattan Institute's Peter Huber acknowledges this point in his book Hard Green, “In every way an accountant, economist, or even an ecologist might measure, Disney would operate Yellowstone much better than the National Park Service. But Yellowstone would be diminished nonetheless . . . Some values depend on doing things on a scope and scale that is inescapably public.” Part of the parks’ patriotic grandeur is that they belong to us and not to any one particular private interest. But as history shows, it does not mean public control cannot be combined with market principles or private interests to secure a thriving future for our national parks. Park managers need to protect our natural icons while exploring opportunities to attract new customers and visitors. To this end, Ken Burns is giving the national parks a gift, a chance to reconnect with their number one customer—us. Brian Yablonski is an adjunct fellow with PERC, and Vice-Chairman of the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. Brian can be reached at Brian@perc.org. |
|
E-mail
Print
Comments
Maria Folsom - 8 October 2009 11:30- National Parks
- Brian Yablonski writes in "The National Parks" that public control can be effectively combined with private interests to secure the viability and beauty of our National Parks. I disagree. This is a gross creature of a "mixed economy," where no one truly enjoys or controls the Parks except government bureaucrats. Mr. Yablonski claims that gateway communities benefit from their proximity to National Parks. This is true. However, he makes the common mistake of not seeing what didn't happen, and what would have happened if the government did not "own" the Parks. What he does not see is that local businesses would thrive even more with completely private ownership of the Parks. Yes, the Disney Corporation would indeed do a better job of park stewardship. My personal experience contradicts the claims of Mr. Yablonski. Though these are mere anecdotes, I think they will be useful to an argument about Park ownership. I live in one of those "gateway communities," East Glacier Park, a few miles from the Two Medicine entrance to Glacier National Park. The Park is naturally subject to dramatic weather conditions that limit visitation for much of the year, at least with motor vehicles. However, the Park Service is notoriously slow to open the entrance gates when roads are clear, and very quick to close the same roads in autumn before the seasonal snows. Park staff is generally unresponsive to complaints about these "closures," despite promises to consider local businesses and residents. Glacier National Park is not open "equally" to all citizens. If, as Mr. Yablonski claims, we all own the Park in a communal sense, then we should all have equal opportunity to enjoy its beauty. Sadly this does not happen. If a movie company wants to shoot a movie within the Park, then trails are closed to the public for the duration. The Park decides which trails are safe or unsafe from animal dangers. The Park decides where you can and cannot camp. Park rangers interrupt my picnics with instructions on how to dispose of my trash. On one picnic, a ranger intruded on my privacy when she smelled a mosquito repellent that she presumably suspected was marijuana. The Park selectively allows businesses and concessions to do business within its confines, based on financial information and an application process. The Park allows researchers to shut off areas to the general public, without the approval of the general public, who are the owners of the Park. It is overmanaged, restrict! ive, and oppressive. These would not be the behaviors of any privately-run enterprise. If privately-run, the Parks would be more user-friendly. All this under the guise of protection, stewardship, safety, and 'responsible management'! The Fee Demo Program, euphemistically renamed the Recreational Enhancement Act, and other revenue-collecting plans are unfair impositions on taxpayers. Tax-paying citizens already have "paid" for the Parks. Many people are thus forced to pay for Parks that they will never visit. Charging another fee at the gate is a wonderful example of government hubris. Mr. Yablonski implies that we should be pleased with this arrangement because this adds "accountability" and "restores the connection" between Us and Them. Why not opt for complete accountability and perfect connection by getting big government completely out of the park stewardship business? As a volunteer for the East Glacier Park Chamber of Commerce, I have gotten emails asking about Park openings and the timing of road closures. Due to the Park's unpredictable schedule of opening and closing entrances, many potential visitors have changed their plans and cancelled their trips to East Glacier. Is this what Mr. Yablonski would call a benefit to a gateway community? Not all National Parks are run like this. Some are more inviting, others are worse. I can only speak for the one I live near, and I claim that these problems are inherent in any government-run enterprise. It is the nature of publicly-owned assets. Mr. Yablonski quotes author Peter Huber: "Some values depend on doing things on a scope and scale that is inescapably public." This is wrong thinking. It is indeed escapable. The more you value a thing, the more important it is that it should never be publicly-run. PERC has always valued private sector accomplishments. Although we might have to accept the corrupting presence of big government in our society, that does not mean that we should join forces with them, or allow them to further "own" or "collect fees" for things that should be private. Having said all this, I can't wait to view Ken Burns' documentary "The National Parks: America's Best Idea." Even though it is an awful idea, and even though PBS is another government-run propaganda mill financed by many unwilling taxpayers, I'm sure Ken Burns will portray the full glory of these publicly-owned gems. It will probably be less frustrating and a lot cheaper than visiting my nearest National Park.
Add new comment: