|
Last week Congressman Charles Pearce held an Oversight hearing on the Reauthorization of the National Park System Advisory Board.ť Testimony for Fran Mainella, Doug Wheeler and Derrick Crandall can be found at:http://resourcescommittee.house.gov/archives/109/nprpl/062206.htm
Pasted below is Crandall's testimony. I was taken by his comment on luring international visitors to enjoy the world’s best systems of parks and forests, refuges and other public sites because I know PRECISELY the derivation of that particular statement and the program created around it.
The "Luring International Visitors" first appeared in a proposal ARC's Recreation Roundtable sent to President Clinton on February 15, 1993. It was part of a larger and more comprehensive compilation of requests from the wreckreation industry -- most of which having already been implemented. You can read the proposal and its coverletter written by the Chairman of Walt Disney Attractions at: http://www.wildwilderness.org/docs/luring.htm . The proposal was originally titled: "Luring International Visitors to America’s Great Outdoors".
Would you be concerned if Derrick Crandall were to become a member of the NPS Advisory Board? He presented his impressive resume to Congress last week and some are likely to find him well qualified for the position. I look at his resume and can trace through it, and the programs with which he has been associated, the unraveling of everything that was ever good about America's once great outdoors.
Scott
PS... There has been a lot of recent buzz around the now undeniable fact that visitation to the National Parks has been in decline for nearly a decade. For the longest while, people didn't even want to acknowledge that visitation was declining because the special agendas of so many interest groups depended upon luring ever more visitors to the great outdoors. What no one ever seems to talk acknowledge is the possibility that these efforts made to "LURE" visitors to our National Parks ---- have backfired!!! Perhaps the act of LURING is an act of destruction!
----- begin quoted -----
JUNE 22, 2006 STATEMENT BY DERRICK CRANDALL, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN
RECREATION COALITION, ON THE ROLE OF THE NATIONAL PARK SYSTEM ADVISORY
BOARD IN CONJUNCTION WITH A HEARING CONDUCTED BY THE U.S. HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS,
JUNE 22, 2006.
Mr. Chairman and Distinguished Members, the American Recreation
Coalition (ARC) appreciates the opportunity to appear before this body
today to discuss an important issue: the role of the National Park
System Advisory Board in assisting the management of one of the
nation’s truly spectacular legacies – the nearly 400 units of the
national park system.
I am Derrick Crandall and I am delighted to represent the members of
the American Recreation Coalition (ARC) – more than 100 national
organizations, representing virtually every segment of the nation’s
$250+ billion outdoor recreation industry, and tens of millions of
outdoor recreation enthusiasts. A listing of our members is attached to
this testimony. Our organization has played an active role in federal
recreation policy since its creation in 1979.
Outdoor recreation is a vital and positive force in our nation today.
Nine in ten Americans participate in outdoor recreation today, and a
major catalyst for this involvement is the marvelous shared legacy of
our Great Outdoors – one in three acres of the surface of the nation
managed by federal agencies and hosting well in excess of a billion
recreation visits annually. ARC monitors participation in outdoor
recreation closely through national surveys. A summary sheet on
participation is attached.
The benefits accruing from recreation participation are significant,
and the appreciation for these benefits is growing. The economic
significance of outdoor recreation is obvious in communities across the
nation, and especially those communities proximate to federally-managed
lands and waters. From boat dealers to campground operators, from RV
manufacturers to ski rental shops, from retailers selling outdoors
goods to guides and outfitters, tens of thousands of businesses and
millions of Americans are supported by the expenditures on recreation
by American families. And increasingly, America’s recreational
opportunities are a key factor in luring international visitors to
enjoy the world’s best systems of parks and forests, refuges and other
public sites.
Mr. Chairman, I have enjoyed the good fortune to work closely with
leaders of the National Park Service and other federal land-management
agencies since arriving in this town late in 1972, still an
undergraduate and direct from Hanover, New Hampshire. While at school,
I was active in campus and regional environmental matters, and was
selected to serve the Administrator of the new Environmental Protection
Agency as Youth Programs Coordinator. I became involved in a
multi-departmental task force addressing a new executive order on
management of off-road vehicles, a task force which included an
Associate Director of the NPS.
I arrived at the conclusion of service of a respected NPS Director,
George Hartzog – whom I subsequently came to know and respect highly.
Since then, I have known and worked with nine NPS Directors, including
current Director Fran Mainella, for whom I have the highest regard and
respect. I have enjoyed my association with this proud and talented
organization, but that does not mean that I have always agreed
completely with its decisions and actions!
Over the past 30-plus years, I have served as a Presidential appointee
on the President’s Commission on Americans Outdoors, which helped
define new goals for volunteerism, championed recreational corridors
including greenways, trails and byways and urged creation of
specialized funding programs designed to link those receiving special
services with appropriate fees. I also served as a Presidential
appointee on the President’s Commission on Environmental Quality, and
have held numerous appointments by Cabinet members including service as
Chairman of the Take Pride in America Advisory Board and as a founding
member of the National Forest Foundation – a body that some thought
should serve in part as an advisor to the Forest Service, since that
agency has no national advisory board. And I have been actively
involved in a variety of key NPS processes, from management policy
revisions to the Vail Agenda project of the early 1990's to crafting of
the National Recreation Fee Demonstration Program in 1996, which
allowed the agency to retain all collected fees for the first time.
During this time, I have observed the operations of the NPS Advisory
Board with interest. There have been periods in which the board was
endothermic – requiring the input of great energy and resources with
little apparent result. At other times, the panel has clearly been
exothermic, providing valuable information and counsel and even direct
support. I’ve watched as the panel was created using varying
appointment qualifications, and observed the ebb and flow of importance
played by the board in its relationship with the agency and the
department. The board has been actively used by some Directors and
seemed irrelevant to others. And the board has seen a rise and fall
parallel to overall interest in advisory committees. In the mid-1970's,
advisory committees were extremely common for public land agencies –
virtually every national forest had one, for example. Then the
enactment of the Federal Advisory Committee Act sharply curtailed this
means of public involvement.
The general aversion to advisory committees was clearly reflected in
the role of the NPS Advisory Board in the late 1980's and early 1990's.
The advisory board played a very limited role in the Vail Agenda
project of 1991-1992 – despite the goal of that effort to render advice
to the agency for its actions during a second 75 years. I will say that
I regard that effort as both ambitious and steeped in talent. And it
certainly addressed many of the tough challenges facing the agency,
including the efficacy of combining management of a large national park
system with technical and financial assistance efforts to state and
local governments – vestiges of the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation. The
Vail Agenda also sought consensus on what additions to the system were
desirable to create an ever better system. All of these experiences
make me eager to comment on recent actions of and missions for the NPS
Advisory Board and to offer suggestions for its future.
First, there can be no doubt that its recent and current members are
talented men and women, including the distinguished Chairman who sits
with me on this panel. Also clear is the fact that the advisory board
has done some good work in recent years. Under the previous
Administration, the advisory board undertook an initiative which
resulted in an important and thoughtful report entitled Rethinking the
National Parks for the 21st Century. And I have only accolades for the
actions of the Director and Chairman in the recent creation and
nurturing of a Committee on Health and Recreation, on which I had the
pleasure of serving, and which defined actionable steps for the agency
now implemented by the Director.
Before addressing my recommendations for the NPS Advisory Board, let me
be clear that we feel a properly constituted and guided board can and
should play a significant role in aiding one of the truly great
American inventions – our national park system. But it is important
that its role respect other valuable structures available to serve the
park system. It is not a fundraising body – that role should be left to
the National Park Foundation and local friends groups. And it is not a
vehicle for addressing tactical and operational issues – that is the
role of the Director and the National Leadership Council (NLC).
The NPS Advisory Board’s role can and should be strategic and
visionary, helping the Director and the Secretary understand
demographic, technological and political changes, evaluating options
and identifying external forces that can and will shape America’s
parks. And it should be a force in consolidating and coalescing the
variety of organizations vitally interested in these special places.
There is an acute need to take on such a task today, in 2006. The NPS
is a proud organization doing its job well. Yet it is also an
organization buffeted by winds of change and passion, challenged by
short-term issues and largely unguided by any shared vision among
Members of Congress, Administration leaders and key interest groups. We
also seem to be at a time when the role of advisory boards has attained
a new cachet – witness the embrace of recreation resource advisory
committees (RecRACs) for BLM and the Forest Service in new federal fee
legislation.
Yet the true value of the NPS Advisory Board will only occur if its
efforts include liaison with key constituents, and only if its
recommendations are part of a multi-year strategic plan combined with
action by the Congress to create a multi-year funding commitment – a
program resembling, perhaps, the six-year cycle followed by the
Congress to guide the nation’s surface transportation program.
As the Congress considers the future of the National Park System Advisory Board, we offer the following recommendations:
1) we strongly recommend reauthorization of the board;
2) we further recommend continuation of the board at or about its
current size, subject to the addition of two ex officio seats. These
would be the Chairs of the House and Senate subcommittees exercising
primary jurisdiction over the national park system (or their
designees). My experience on the President's Commission on Americans
Outdoors, with four Congressional members, was extremely positive.
While participation by the principals was limited, the involvement
added value to discussions and interest in addressing the Commission's
report;
3) we recommend a change in the terms of the advisory board members to
five years. We suggest that the board members normally be limited to a
single term except that the Chairman and up to two Vice Chairman may be
selected from existing members and appointed to a second five-year term;
4) we support a broadening of the qualifications of the board members,
including a diminished emphasis on individual scientific achievement.
While scientific background is valuable to the national park system,
such knowledge is available from internal as well as external sources
to assist the agency and the board and the primary mission of the board
is broad, strategic counsel to the Secretary and Director. Appointments
to the board should be premised on a willingness to serve on behalf of`
the public, combining the contribution of personal insights and
knowledge with an eagerness to solicit and apply the ideas and insights
offered by others. The board needs a significant number of members who
are skilled in and committed to inviting the counsel of others to be
considered in advisory board deliberations. My service on commissions
and advisory boards has increased my appreciation for the need for
collegiality and for a commitment to striving for consensus – working
diligently to devise the right solutions to challenges;
5) the board needs a clear mission and role. We recommend that the
board be charged with undertaking an environmental scan every five
years and then developing a report to the Secretary, the Director and
the Congress on the key issues facing the agency over the next five
years – challenges and opportunities alike. This scan should place an
emphasis on demographic, technological and societal changes, should
include opportunities for presentations by key stakeholders and should
involve efforts to gain consensus on the highest priorities for action;
6) in addition, we recommend that the board conduct more focused
inquiries into identified opportunities and challenges through the use
of committees comprised of board members, other outside experts and
appropriate NPS staff and submit these reports to the Secretary and the
Director. A model for this action would be the Committee on Health and
Recreation, which was chaired by a member of the board and included in
its membership officials of other departments (notably HHS), NPS
officials and key outside experts. Among the topics for examination
might be long-term staffing and skill needs of the agency, the
relationship of parks to such issues as health, education, crime,
environmental protection, tourism and regional economies, and
integration of NPS units into larger public assets, including heritage
corridors, byways and more;
7) in lieu of current geographic representation, we recommend that the
Director identify intended appointees with a proven interest in park
issues, distinguished leadership records in public service, business
and academia and reflecting diversity in geographic, age and gender,
and racial characteristics. The intended appointees should be
identified to the Chairs and Ranking Members of the House and Senate
subcommittees exercising primary jurisdiction over the national park
system. The Director shall consider the views of the Members but shall
retain authority to appoint individuals to the board; and
8) the Director should appoint individuals to open and unexpired terms.
Such appointments should continue the overall quality and diversity of
board membership.
Thank you for your interest and your actions to assist America’s national parks and America’s Great Outdoors.
|
- Privatization 
