published in the August-September 2003 issue of Thunderbear("the oldest alternative newsletter in the federal government")
Do you remember your first trip to a National Park? Many of us do, and have long been fascinated by them. I remember visiting as a youngster and hearing stores of previous visitors-in some cases, tales of lost treasure. As I grew towards my majority, I came to realize that our parks and public lands (forests, preserves and refuges) truly are sanctuaries for the soul; citadels of self discovery, and they are also literally OUR national treasure troves. Former National Park Service Director William Penn Mott used to call parks: "Jewels in the Crown". They are.
In his autobiography, Theodore Roosevelt, noted how proud he was of being so directly involved in furthering such a legacy. It certainly has been a national trust, a gift that has kept on giving for more than a century , an investment that has resulted in great dividends.
How many of you think about the economic benefits derived from our parks and public lands? Being a fairly "bottom-line" fiscally conservative Republican, and a member of REP America's (www.rep.org) New Mexico Executive Committee, I thought about it my entire NPS career. After all, the economic value of parks should be near and dear to all, even those individuals whose closest contact with nature is when they get out of their golf carts on a fairway.
Early on, I encountered a visitor that deeply believed parks were a drain on the economy, and a waste of his tax dollars. He was seeing parks simply as an item in the budget figures, not as a dynamic economic contributor. Our National parks and public lands system, and the employees of the many resource agencies, help preserve some great places, assist the public enjoyment by providing wonderful educational experiences and opportunities, and are an integral part of our national economy.
The extractive industries, grazing, logging, mining, etc. when poorly managed, will often follow the economic cycles of boom and bust, while the economic benefits from eco/heritage tourism on our public lands can be more sustainable, as long as the lands retain the integrity and dynamics that bring people to visit them. This principle has not been lost on countries the world over. Industrially developed and developing countries have created parks and public lands in attempts to enhance their environment and take advantage of the revenues generated by these special places. Developing countries see it as simply good long-term business. Way before the movie "Field of Dreams", economically challenged countries realized that "If you preserve it, they will come" and "they" will probably bring their family or friends with them. Countries like Kenya didn't establish parks and preserves solely because it was the nice thing to do.
After the break up of the Soviet Bloc, some of the new countries asked for NPS assistance in assessing and planning new parks and preserves. This wasn't solely for aesthetic reasons. They realized that in their new cash based economy, eco-tourism could bring in much needed capital
Consulting with the government of Argentina, Dr. Don Warder (University of Wyoming) noted that national parks in that country were organized under the Department of Commerce and Tourism, stating "In fact, every South American country in which I did some consulting was involved in developing eco-tourism sites with two objectives: The first was to Preserve and Protect and the second (and often the highest priority) was economic development. Almost every South and Central American country has recognized the benefits of eco-tourism to their economic well-being".
Earlier this year , European television had ads showcasing the experiences available for a Mediterranean heritage vacation in formerly war ravaged Bosnia. The pictures were classic heritage tourism: beaches, mountains, and historic structures.
South Africa, long a leader in the extractive industries in Africa, has certainly realized the economic advantages of environmental tourism. Potchefstrom University boasts a Center for Wildlife Economics: The impacts of eco-tourism haver reached into the private sector as privately owned game farms have increased by 60% the past decade to over 5,300 farms encompassing more than 27 million acres. Between wildlife photo and traditional hunting safaris, it is estimated in South Africa "That the industry generates about $150 million in profits each year, the majority from foreign visitors-primarily Europe and the U.S.
Just as other countries have long known that parks pay for themselves, we know that too. Do you remember the "Great Budget Crisis" of 1995 (Fiscal year '96) The Congress and President Clinton could not agree on a Federal budget and the government was shut down for several weeks for all but essential services. It seemed that every other night the national mass media was highlighting the impacts of the government closures. This included businesses outside Yosemite and other national parks. It was a similar story across the nation. Grand Canyon, Yellowstone, Grand Teton, Big Bend- many park tour and service related businesses suffered, as did their employees. These privately owned/private sector businesses often rely upon our public land visitors. Because of the economic impacts to the "Grand Canyon State" , the Governor of Arizona (a Republican) wanted his national guard to open and run that park. There was an emotional Federal/State impasse on this subject. The incident did illustrate just how financially important parks are to certain areas and regions. If you've ever seen the bus loads of visitors from Europe and Japan at the Grand Canyon, you have little doubt how important our parks are economically.
In 1998, the US Department of the Interior, conducted a study entitled "State and National Economic Impacts Associated with Travel related Expenditures by Recreation Visitors to Lands Managed by the U.S. Department of the Interior. The agencies studied included NPS, Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Reclamation and the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. A quick look at my former agency, the NPS indicated that for less than a billion dollar budget investment, the estimated economic impact of NPS recreational expenditures was between 10 billion (low ball formula and 19.1 billion (high ball formula). Not bad return--much to the delight of a fiscal conservative.
The study did not include "Non travel related expenditures (e.g. spending on hunting and fishing gear, camping equipment and souvenirs) yet concluded that recreation visits to DOI managed lands are estimated to account for $24 to $45 billion in travel related expenditures and 348,000 to 571,000 jobs annually. This would be about 3-5% of the dollars generated by the U.S. Travel industry--again just from DOI lands, If the study had included US Forest Service Lands, it would seem that these figures could easily double. Add in the sizable outdoor equipment and gear industries within the U.S. and you're starting to get the picture of just how important our parks and public lands are to our economy (and again, it's sustainable--as long as it's an attractive destination to travelers.)
The report found that many states have large vested interests in the dollars and jobs being generated by recreational visits to DOI lands, with some states like Arizona and California accounting for over $2 billion each to the financial well being of their respective states. Utah, Wyoming, Colorado, Oregon, Nevada, Montana (descending order) generate close to $1 billion each, with New Mexico and North Carolina close to $500 million each. It pointed out that the economic "impacts reverberate through the local economy and are experienced in the form of jobs, earnings, and output (ie gross sales revenue)" noting national park visitors often pay for food, fuel , and lodging in local communities (much like my spouse and I recently did on a trip to Canyonlands National Park)
Even though parks are an important economic asset, the debate over HOW we're going to manage ours parks and public lands is a valid one. From my 35 years in the NPS, I know that there is certainly room for improvement. Of course that could be said of any large organization, especially government. The public generally likes us, but we were sometimes viewed as elitist and arrogant, with actions easily mistaken for palace intrigue and empire building. Yet, Congressional support and funding grew. I saw NPS funding increase from 100 million to over $1 billion during my career, while visitor services shrank. Many of the increases were due to new areas being added to the system (admittedly, not all of the new areas were nationally significant) increased training and better equipped professional cadre of park rangers and resource specialists.
However appropriations never kept up with the "Needs" of the NPS and the reasonable expectations of the public(that was paying for it all). These days there is growing talk about "outsourcing" or contracting-out many of the professional resource management positions. In the mid 1980's , I received a Special Achievement Award for drafting an A-76 contract to "outsource" a custodial position at a small park. I'm still convinced that we and the public would have received less of the critical "bang for the buck" had we contracted out the position. It was doable, but fortunately management saw that it was not cost effective and didn't make sense. The experience of other Federal & State agencies that have followed that path have been expressed to me as "It now costs us more but we're getting less" If we really want to improve the efficiency and cost effectiveness of our park and public lands employees we need to streamline the bureaucracy and the amount of time/effort attending "required" training that is not directly involved with the skills needed to do the job of preserving and presenting our parks and public lands (Admittedly,some of the "required" training is often a result of the activities of our modern hunter-gatherer; personal injury attorneys and solicitors.)
Parks and public lands are an important ingredient in the stew that is our national economy. The bottom line is that preserving our heritage is not only the right thing to do, but it makes good business sense. President Theodore Roosevelt knew that and I hope our elected officials in the future do too."
