Parks get short shrift (and myopic suggestions for management)

© 2010 Joshua Stark

Here, I'd like to add a small voice in support of parks, and explain, via a couple of poor ideas I've found in the media, some real threats faced by parks.

First, this op-ed in the High Country News really irked me.  Mr. Pace makes a good point about the need for the environmental community to provide Californians with bigger ideas, but he does it by trying to shoehorn the loss of Proposition 21 into his analysis. 

I worked a short stint in California State Parks, and I worked over four years in environmental advocacy at the California state level, and believe me, Mr. Pace's characterization of California State Parks as the environmentalists "pet agency" is simply wrong, and damaging. 

First, most state parks are historical sites.  Second, the California Dept. of Parks and Recreation has had to get its budget through the general fund, while environmental groups sought fees and fines to fund other agencies with a more direct environmental bent (like CARB, DFG, air pollution control districts, etc.)  If State Parks is a pet agency, it's the runt, sucking hind teat - and Californians sadly illustrated that notion last week.
 
Then, A few days back, I came upon this Environmental Economics post on National Park visitor fees by Professor Whitehead.  It's an interesting, short question about determining the most efficient visitor fee level for the National Parks.  Unfortunately, it also perfectly illustrates a couple of common misperceptions about park visitation and management.

First, national parks are not overcrowded.  Like Mr. Pace's mistake, Prof. Whitehead taps the notion of a few, iconic parks, ignoring the vast majority of the 392 park units, and ignoring the seasonality of visitation.  But, even during their peak visitor seasons, those iconic parks are not overcrowded.  Instead, their crowds occasionally need more efficient in-park management.

The reality is that park visitation has lagged in the past decade, and managers are rightly worried about this lag. 

You see, the mission of the National Park Service is twofold:  To preserve, for future generations, those places we've found to be important to our natural and cultural history, and to provide for the recreation and enjoyment of Americans at these places.  This, plus the truth of the NPS budget (that revenues don't come from visitor fees, but from the Federal Government), means that Professor Whitehead's simple view of parks fits the mistaken perception of the public, but it does not fit the real threats to parks, nor does it fit the mission of the National Park Service.

The professor assumes that parks are overcrowded, that entrance fees = budget revenues, and that park fees are the most efficient way to manage for crowds.  All three are mistaken.

Simply put, parks need visitors who love them.  Park managers understand that they need many visitors to all have a great time.  In California, state parks have come up against this reality, and they find themselves in a vicious circle.  They can pretend that their visitor fees pay their bills, and set entrance fees to optimize their revenues from fees, but in doing so they will alienate themselves from the constituency that really pays the bills - the California resident.  In a short time, they will lose popularity in the public's view, and will therefore lose their budget.  Park advocates and managers, therefore, rightly decided to take the idea of visitation and Californians' responsibility to our cultural and ecological heritage, directly to the People.  Sadly, that vicious circle had already taken its political toll.

Using visitor entrance fees to manage for crowding in park units can exacerbate that political reality.  If fees are raised to "manage" (i.e., discourage) crowds, crowds won't come.  If crowds don't come, parks won't get high priority in budget determinations. 

Higher visitor fees are the wrong way to manage for crowds.  Sadly, many economists can only talk in visitor fees, and therefore must make some seriously constraining assumptions when trying to "help".  Also sadly, many park systems are realizing that, among their problems, the fee structure has politically alienated them. 

I wish I had a suggestion for this dire problem many park systems now face.  If you have any, bring 'em.

Ah, the Fresno Bee and water...

© 2010 Joshua Stark

Of course they are horribly, horribly biased, especially when the big farmers around them lose out, like yesterday.

However, comments like this...

"It's the latest loss for farmers and other water users in the decades-long battle over moving water through the state. That battle continues today when water users and environmentalists square off in Wanger's court in what promises to be a pivotal case."

Really should be in the realm of crappy opinion, not sold off as real news.

First, not all water users lost.  Second, environmentalists are water users.

This is fully ridiculous.

A good article on the Delta, but something's missing

© 2010 Joshua Stark

Like most articles and expertise claimed about the Delta, local voices are missing from this story at the Oakalnd Tribune.

I find especially distasteful the "rural vs. urban" battle which the city-slicker farmers in the Central Valley have fed to the media, and which the media is happy to portray.  Dichotomies are easier to write about, especially when they lack the nuance of reality.

Not to mention I think the whole urban-rural-wild distinction is an unhealthy myth.

Jamie Oliver's newest TV show - I'm impressed.

© 2010 Joshua Stark

My wife and I stayed up last night to watch "Jamie Oliver's Food Revolution" on ABC last night, and I must say we were very happy with it.

Yeah, it's got the typical reality-TV production quality, but the people in this one seem real, (if you've never met a lunchroom lady, you have not lived life) and the concept is fascinating.  And relevant to this blog.

Since I'm from a small town in rural Northern California (and one that gets pretty crappy media, when it gets it at all), I completely understand the suspicion that the residents of Huntington, W.Va.  showed to Mr. Oliver.  But it really does look like he just wants these people to eat better.

The saddest to me is that these folks come from a vibrant food culture.  My guess is that this city is made up of the progeny of folks who left the hills of Appalachia, came into the city, and hungered to embrace a modern world.  When packaged food came along, it made people's lives easier, and it came with a stigma for people who still lived in the old ways, I'd bet.  Now, cities like Huntington are full of people who don't have the tradition of taking a little more time to do for themselves. 

I look forward to watching his program, but I have no idea where it's going.

For a very interesting, schizophrenic review, read the Washington Post's job here.  And, don't let the title scare you off - the author ends by saying they are going to keep watching.