Witnesses at a hearing on how the National Park Service can improve its business practices offered a wide range of suggestions.
Today's National Park Service lacks business savvy, from trying to micro-manage businesses in the parks to being slow to respond to visitor desires and services, a Congressional subcommittee was told by business leaders whose companies operate in the National Park System.
One after another told the House Subcommittee on Federal Lands that changing business practices, and asking park visitors to pay more for services, will help reduce the Park Service's $11.5 billion maintenance backlog while providing visitors a better experience.
“The visitor services we provide in national parks are often inhibited by NPS policies which limit visitor experiences and reduce our payments, called franchise fees, to the agency," Derrick Crandall, counselor to the National Park Hospitality Association, told the subcommittee chaired by Rep. Tom McClintock of California.
“We are confident that increases in visitor services, including lengthening operating hours at units like Alcatraz and Statue of Liberty, adding appropriate services and allowing dynamic pricing of services, could increase franchise fees to the NPS by 50 percent within three years," Mr. Crandall added.
The hearing was one of two Thursday that examined how the Park Service does business. The other, held an hour earlier, delved into contracts the Park Service utilizes in managing its lodging, dining, and other visitor services.
While the committees' Republican leadership made it clear that solving the Park Service's budgetary problems would have to be accomplished without higher appropriations, Craig Obey of the National Parks Conservation Association told the representatives that Congress must take a greater fiduciary interest in the National Park System.
"Our national parks are investments worth preserving. Yet, for decades now, successive congresses and administrations have put park resources at risk through underinvestment. Operations funding for the National Park Service is down 7 percent ($178 million) in today’s dollars from where it was only five years ago, which has led to a reduction in rangers and other staff to educate visitors and protect resources," Mr. Obey, NPCA's senior vice president for government affairs, said in his written comments. "In addition, the National Park Service’s construction budget has declined by 62 percent ($230 million) over the last decade in today’s dollars. Between these reductions and insufficient investment on the transportation side, it’s no wonder that the deferred maintenance backlog has grown to $11.5 billion."
To bridge that gap, he urged the committee members to support extension of the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act, which generates nearly $200 million annually for parks through user fess, to endorse President Obama's 2016 budget that would boost the Park Service's funding for both operations and construction accounts, create an endowment fund for the parks, authorize the Centennial Challenge program that would match federal dollars with private philanthropy, support more highway funding to address infrastructure needs across the park system, and make it possible for the Park Service to utilize leasing of historic structures more often to preserve those structures.
From the concessionaires' viewpoint, points they made ranged from allowing longer leases to extending operating seasons in some parks. But many times the way the Park Service manages its operations were used to drive points home.
“No other agency that we work with micro-manages us to the level of the National Park Service . . . The price-approval process within the NPS is cumbersome and slow. . . Small operators are forced to spend disproportionate dollars to respond to prospectuses that are better suited to bigger companies doing business in many national parks. . . The NPS has lost sight in recent RFPs of the capital demands put upon the concessioner compared to the length of contracts.” -- Pamela Koeberer Pitts, secretary, The California Parks Company.
“In looking toward the future, we hope that the National Park Service will become even more receptive to increasing visitor service where it is needed, and where it makes sense, in a timely manner while at the same time, always protecting the National Parks’ natural and cultural resources. Prospectuses and contracts could be improved by giving concessioners a credit of some sort or other innovative rewards for making capital investments . . . Longer contracts would also allow concessioners to make larger capital investments that could be recovered by the end of the concession contract. And, finally, rewarding excellent concessioners in some way for being outstanding partners with the National Park Service and for providing outstanding visitor services . . . would help to solidify longevity and stability for good concessioners." -- John King, regional vice president, Forever Resorts.
“A system designed to reward those that do provide excellence in concession operations would benefit both incumbent concessioners as well as the National Park Service. Rather than challenging ourselves to innovate every time a concession contract comes up, it would encourage constant innovation and excellence in the performance of a contract. ... The current process lacks transparency and doesn’t allow unsuccessful bidders to understand their perceived shortcomings. This lack of transparency also leads to mistrust of the process, whether real or perceived.” -- Alex Klein - vice president and general manager, Grand Teton Lodge Company and Flagg Ranch Company.
“Stagnant park visitation reflects more leisure choices today but is also the result of reduced visitor activity choices – potential visitors are choosing other destinations. There are fewer park campsites, fewer lodging rooms, fewer restaurant seats, fewer ranger-led walks, fewer tours and outings. Visitor services eliminated by NPS have not been offset by new outdoor activities and special events.” “NPS is pursuing an unsustainable strategy of forcing higher payments by concessioners to the agency while simultaneously reducing business opportunities.” -- Terry MacRae - Hornblower Cruises; chairman, National Park Hospitality Association.
“[W]e quickly discovered that many more guests wanted to visit the Dry Tortugas than we were allowed to take. The market had spoken – visitors wanted to experience the Dry Tortugas National Park and preferred our boat over other options... After more than 20 months, the NPS finally agreed to the increase… The torturous path of paperwork between the local park and the region and the national office was costly to all parties and was stressful to the relationship between our company and NPS…What did not appear to gain consideration was the 10,000+ potential park visitors that could have experienced Dry Tortugas during this period, or the revenue loss to NPS of $250,000 or more. ...With the substantial and ongoing budgetary restraints that the NPS is facing, it seems to me that the NPS can, with little effort, recover a larger portion of the costs of its many excellent programs from those directly benefiting from those programs. Recreation and tourism are a trillion dollar industry, and national parks are widely regarded as a top asset of this industry.” -- Chris Belland - CEO, Historic Tours of America.
Comments
Speaking of Yosemite, my son and daughter are hiking Half Dome tomorrow. I can assure you, they will enjoy the concessions at the end of the day.
Ron, I'm going to have to start charging you an advertising fee....
"Limiting visitation or services, for any variety of reasons, across the park system, is essential for preserving these places."
Could you explain how lengthening the hours to visit Alcatraz or the Statue of Liberty (the two examples cited in the article) is essential for preserving them?
I must say in my extensive visits to the Parks, I have enjoyed the food and other services and never had a negative experience - though I was a little annoyed with the warning for leaving a grill out at my Yellowstone campsite - don't know if that was a NPS rule or Xanterra.
Concessionaires are businesses. They exist to make money, not to volunteer for the NPS. What I see in the article above are requests (not demands) to better fund the parks and park activities and to conduct their businesses with more transparency and flexibility from the NPS. Certainly nothing unreasonable about that. And, in fact if instituted, it would likely lead to improved services for the park visitors.
Increasing the operating hours that parks are open will certainly increase revenues for concessioners, and the franchise fees to the parks. But what about increased operating costs and maintenance due to the longer hours. What's the net benefit?
"What's the net benefit?"
A legitimate question.
It is unfortunate that you were "annoyed" by being warned about your grill. When you could have been thankful that this individual was looking after your safety, as well as letting you go with a mere warning, and not an expensive citation (and/or confiscation of your grill). This is a NPS regulation. The back of your campground map, that campers receive at check-in, clearly states the campground rules and a warning about food and FOOD ODORS attracting bears. The warning lists a number of items (whether new, clean, dirty, empty or full), which may not be left outside, in tents, or in tent trailers, at any time, day or night, unless they are in immediate use. This list includes stoves, grills and hibachis. Warnings are also attached to picnic tables, and are clearly posted in numerous places around the campgrounds.
While this regulation and/or its enforcement may seem "inconvenient", it is just one of the many efforts of the National Park Service to do its job. Which in this case, was keeping you and other campers safe, preventing damage or loss of personal property, and above all, protecting the bears and other wildlife in the Yellowstone ecosystem.
Park regulations, operating hours, how traffic and crowds are managed, as well as many other logistics that the average visitor doesn't even think about.... All these things are carefully considered by the NPS, often with input from concessionaires, stockholders, outside agencies, scientists, as well as the public. A great deal goes into the decision making processes of how the parks operate, and great (often tedious) effort goes into carrying out necessary tasks. So those things that may seem inconvenient, or annoying, were, first and foremost, implemented to protect the parks and their resources, and maintain visitor safety. Something that the greedy suits and ties fail to understand.
"While this regulation and/or its enforcement may seem "inconvenient", it is just one of the many efforts of the National Park Service to do its job. Which in this case, was keeping you and other campers safe,"
Julie - somehow I thing the dumpster full of raw garbage and the food storage boxes were far greater attractants then my Coleman stove and coffee pot that has only been used to boil water. There are two strategies when dealing with bears. 1) eliminate the odors that attract them. With the garbage dumpsters and food storage, that strategy has already been sacrificed. My stove and coffee pot did not enhance the "odor" risk. 2) Make sure the bears aren't rewarded when they follow the odors. The locked dumpsters and locked food storage containers accomplish that as does a washed stove and pot. Putting those items in my car would have not made a single difference as to the safety of the campers.
Many of those rules are for show as is the inevitable warning "we had bear activity in the camp last night" when you check in.
Julie, excellent post. There is an book, "ALL ABOUT BEARS", by Rachal Mazur, just a very educational read on the issues of bear management in our National Parks. Rachal is a pro, highly educated, been working on this issue her entire career. Rachal lays out the history and science behind the importance of current park bear management policies and why we citizens need to support those efforts. Thank you for your post.