Parks Don’t Need This Kind Of Help
In 1916, when the National Park Service was established, the entry fee at Yellowstone Park was $10 per car - the same as it is today. That amount wouldn’t even let you take a companion to a two-hour movie at today’s prices, let alone pay for popcorn. If, however, the park’s entrance fee had kept pace with inflation, it would now cost an equally unreasonable $145.40 per automobile.
Meanwhile, shrinking congressional support for the parks and cheap concession licenses have created budget deficits, leading to a $4 billion maintenance backlog, as overwhelmed park rangers attempt to deal with swelling hordes of visitors and deteriorating infrastructure. So now the parks need money. But some in Congress seem to take it in the wrong way. They are ready to throw the misguided sop of corporate sponsorship into the empty pockets of the parks.
America is blessed with an unmatched system of national parks. From the Caribbean to Hawaii and up to the Canadian border, the National Park Service’s 83 million acres allow us to hike, camp, picnic, swim, boat, fish or simply marvel at the beauty around us.
Caring for all of this real estate, however, requires an enormous commitment. Staffing the parks, repairing roads, keeping hiking trails safe and a thousand other tasks take time and money. Unfortunately, congressional funding plus revenue from visitors’ fees and rents on park concessions don’t meet current costs or make a dent in the maintenance backlog.
Some well-meaning folks in Washington have now introduced a bill in Congress to “help” the Park Service. But rather than make the necessary investment, the legislation would permit corporations to become “official sponsors” of the National Park system. Proponents think the bill will raise as much as $100 million annually for park upkeep. But at what cost?
The proposed legislation gives the secretary of the interior full discretion to determine the kind of recognition sponsors receive and whether it is “appropriate to the image of the National Park System.” In other words, it could be anything from a bronze plaque at the entrance to all but creating a theme park. Some future secretaries might impose narrow limits; others might look for increased sponsorship funds to fill holes in their department’s budget.
Recent experience should make us cautious before taking this step. First, commercialism creeps up slowly, but it creeps up relentlessly. When Hollywood-based MCA Corp. owned the Yosemite concession, for instance, camera crews painted some of the rocks to make them more photogenic.
We should be wary of selling park sponsorships for another reason. Many corporations with spotty environmental records would jump at the chance to appear environmentally pure, a procedure known as “greenscamming.”
Chevron, an oil company with interests in mining and chemicals, ran ads in a national magazine about how it’s helping to restore bighorn sheep at Stillwater mine, 30 miles northeast of Yellowstone Park. Yet some of that aid is to mitigate environmental damage near the mine, which was owned partly by Chevron. Most people don’t know what Chevron’s environmental record is, but clearly the company feels a need to portray itself as “green.”
Likewise, fellow oil company Exxon, responsible for the largest oil spill in American history, trumpets its effort to save tigers - which also happen to figure heavily in the company’s corporate identification. Businesses could, using an association with national parks, tout their support of the environment even as they acted otherwise elsewhere.
Undoubtedly, our national parks need help. But better alternatives exist. For instance, concessionaires - vendors who enjoy monopolies inside our parks - could generate far more revenue for the parks than they do now. Yet the chief authors of the corporate sponsorship bill, Rep. Jim Hansen, R-Utah, and Sen. Frank Murkowski, R-Alaska, have introduced legislation that actually would discourage open bidding for national park concessions and continue charging small-percentage operating fees. We might start by making vendors play in a competitive marketplace.
Another step is raising user entry fees to, say, the cost of taking a family to the ballgame. Most of this income, however, should stay in the park where it is collected and not be offset by reducing the overall Park Service budget. When entry fees were raised in the past, Congress simply gave the parks less money - thereby negating the added revenue from park users.
In one recent survey, people were asked to identify three icons of the United States. The most frequent answers were the Statue of Liberty, the Grand Canyon and Old Faithful. All three are part of our grand, national park system.
Congress needs to find the courage to adequately fund our national parks, which have been called “America’s best idea.” If we want to hand over these treasures unspoiled to future generations, they should be kept intact and well-supported. But don’t make our national parks lean on a corporate crutch.
xxxx