According to the agency’s press release, more than 282 million people visited our national parks last year, the sixth-highest year on record, and an increase of more than three million visitors from 2011.

The first list shows the most-visited places in all 401 units of the park system. The second list shows the most popular sites of only the 59 places officially designated as “national parks” (versus national monuments, national historic sites, national recreation areas, and other designations).

Most Visited Places of the National Park System

Most Visited National Parks

-Jennifer Errick, Editor, Online Communications

NPCA has been warning the public for well over a year that the deep federal budget cuts known as the sequester would harm national parks. We’ve seen a groundswell of support to restore critically needed funding to the Park Service, but we’ve also heard a great deal of misunderstanding about these funding cuts. Here are five of the biggest myths we’ve encountered.

1. Myth: The 5 percent sequester cut really only represents 2 percent of federal funding.

Some are calling the sequester a 2 percent cut, but this figure is misleading. The sequester cuts represent 2 percent of the entire federal budget, but most budget categories will see no cuts at all. All of the sequester cuts are coming from only about a third of the total federal budget. Therefore, the actual percentage being cut from affected programs—including the Park Service—is much higher than 2 percent.

2. Myth: Five percent of the Park Service budget is still not that big of a deal.

Before taking these cuts into account, the Park Service budget was already 15 percent lower than it was ten years ago in today’s dollars, and national parks were already suffering from an annual operations shortfall of $500 to $600 million, with a staggering maintenance backlog of $12 billion dollars. Parks were already cutting travel budgets, not filling vacant staff positions, and taking other cost-cutting measures, so these cuts come on top of already bare-bones budgets.

Now, the Park Service will need to absorb more than $130 million in additional cuts through September 30, the end of this fiscal year. Because that $130 million is 5 percent of an entire year’s budget and there are only seven months left in the fiscal year, the impact will actually be a 9 percent cut.

Making the situation more challenging, the superintendents who manage our national parks have very high overhead in their budgets because of all the personnel like rangers that upkeep parks and serve visitors, as well as all of the infrastructure to maintain, like park roads and visitor centers. This means they only have flexibility over as little as 10 or 15 percent of their budget. So a cut of this size forces hard decisions, and none of the choices are good. There are few choices but to close areas of parks, avoid hiring rangers, reduce visitor center hours, and enact other measures that affect accessibility and visitor services.

3. Myth: Parks already have enough money coming from entrance fees and don’t need government help.

Entrance fees provide for just a fraction of the Park Service’s maintenance needs, about 5.5 percent. Entrance fees are kept affordable to fulfill the Park Service mission to maintain accessible parks that are open to visitors from all walks of life. Fees help fund maintenance projects, visitor programs and services, resource protection, and facilities improvements, but the majority of the Park Service budget comes from congressional appropriations.

4. Myth: It’ll never really happen—these are just scare tactics.

The general public may not feel the impact immediately, but the sequester is already underway. National park officials are already discussing the painful decisions they are having to make, and the impacts are starting to become visible to visitors.

Many parks already had vacant staff positions before the sequester. Because of the high number of vacancies, the Park Service is not furloughing most permanent employees, but it has imposed a hiring freeze on permanent staff, and we expect many seasonal employees will not be rehired. According to a recent memo, Park Service Director Jon Jarvis estimates that 900 permanent positions will remain unfilled and at least 1,000 fewer seasonal employees will be hired this year.

Jarvis stated clearly that short-staffing parks is not a viable long-term solution: “I want to emphasize to you that keeping positions vacant is not a sustainable strategy; it cripples our ability to meet mission responsibilities—from providing education programs to kids to coordinating wildlife research, to managing museum collections—and it increases the burden on remaining staff that take on additional critical work that cannot go undone.”

In addition to the examples of some of the effects on parks we outlined in our recent blog story, we also expect road closures, shorter visitor seasons, closed visitor centers and campgrounds, reduced hours at visitor centers, and fewer educational and interpretive programs.

A recent newspaper quote from Petrified Forest National Park Superintendent Brad Traver exemplified the kinds of difficult situation park officials are grappling with around the country: “We’ll be able to weather the next few months, but there will be fewer interpretive programs. We’ll be relying more on volunteer and seasonal staff for our visitor services, but we will not be able to manage long-term that way.”

5. Myth: Visitors should avoid going to national parks since the cuts will affect schedules, facilities, and services.

It’s true that visitors may experience longer lines at visitor centers, shorter hours, more garbage in the trash cans, areas that are off-limits, and other inconveniences on their park trips this year. However, these are the same extraordinary places we love visiting, and they still need our support. We just need to plan ahead a little more. We might need to go to a different visitor center or stay at a different campground because some facilities could be closed. But we can still enjoy the parks!

When people visit our national parks, they bring needed support with them. National parks are economic engines that support more than $30 billion in spending and more than a quarter-million jobs. Visitors spend their money on entrance fees, tours, outdoor gear, meals, and various purchases in local communities whose economies depend on it. They raise visitation statistics, showing that national parks remain among the most popular tourist destinations in the country, worthy of attention and preservation. They share photographs and memories with friends and family, inspiring more people to experience these irreplaceable natural wonders and historic sites.

So do visit, and don’t keep the experience to yourself. When you get back home, let your members of Congress know you had a great time, spent money at local businesses, and want the federal government to restore its funding before these indiscriminate cuts cause even more serious impacts to the places we treasure.

For the past year, NPCA has been sounding the alarm about the threats to our national parks in the face of looming across-the-board federal budget cuts that could occur March 1 if lawmakers fail to reach agreement. Now, we have the clearest indications yet that those threats are very real—and are putting both our national heritage and our local economies at risk.

In a January 25th memorandum (PDF)—released to the media yesterday by the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees—National Park Service Director Jon Jarvis instructed regional Park Service directors to prepare to slash already depleted budgets by an additional 5 percent service-wide if Congress cannot agree to a sequester deal. Coming on the heels of 6 percent in cuts over the last two years, this reduction would be a blow to an already beleaguered Park Service.

The guidance, which includes instructions (PDF) and templates for sequestration reduction planning (PDF), reveals the severity of the hit on the Park Service—including the potential elimination of seasonal personnel and the scheduling and extension of furloughs of permanent employees. The memorandum states:

“We expect that a cut of this magnitude, intensified by the lateness of the implementation, will result in reductions to visitor services, hours of operation, shortening of seasons, and possibly the closing of areas during periods when there is insufficient staff to ensure the protection of visitors, employees, resources, and government assets.”

If these cuts go into effect, it appears they will harm every one of the 398 parks and monuments in the system as well as park rangers, tourism-dependent businesses and communities, and the millions of Americans who rely on national parks for affordable vacations. Our national parks—and the American people who count on the preservation of their rich natural, cultural and historical heritage—deserve better.

At a time when more than 95% of Americans support the federal government’s protection of the parks—and 9 out 10 voters want to see no further cuts to national park funding—the failure to reach a deficit-reduction agreement that cancels this mindless across-the-board cut is jeopardizing our heritage and throwing into question the planning of millions of families who expect their parks to be open for business as usual. Our national parks represent just 1/14th of 1 percent of the federal budget, yet they sustain a quarter-million private sector jobs and generate $31 billion from tourism and recreation alone. Every dollar invested in the National Park Service generates about ten dollars in economic activity—yet in today’s dollars, the Park Service budget has already declined by 15 percent over the last decade.

Decision makers must act now to come up with a common-sense plan that addresses the debt in a thoughtful, holistic way. At this critical time, we cannot lose sight of the forest for the trees. We need our national parks not only for their majesty and symbolism, but also for the billions of dollars they generate for local economies.

What you can do

• Learn more. NPCA’s website has a trove of related information, including public sentiment around keeping parks funded, a fact sheet with more detail on how the sequester could impact parks, and an interactive slideshow on popular parks around the country threatened by funding cuts.
• Let your elected officials know the parks matter to you. If you haven’t already, send President Obama and your members of Congress the message that we can’t shortchange our national parks.
• Your donation helps protect the parks. Your tax-deductible gift now supports NPCA’s critical work to protect and restore funding for our parks, and all of our park protection efforts.

Last week, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill known as the Sportsmen’s Heritage Act which, if passed in the Senate in its current form, could allow hunting in units of the National Park System that currently do not permit it. NPCA strongly opposes this provision of the bill. What follows is an interview with NPCA’s Director of Government and Legislative Affairs Kristen Brengel and Legislative Representative Elise Russell Liguori on the serious implications of the bill and next steps to safeguard national parks.

Q: What is the Sportsmen’s Heritage Act and how was it created?

Elise: It’s actually a compilation of three bills that were introduced in the House of Representatives. The Natural Resources Committee combined those three bills into one bill, the Sportsmen’s Heritage Act. One had to do with increasing access to hunting on federal land; the other two bills involved recreational shooting on BLM lands and importing polar bear trophies from Canada, which is currently prohibited. It became this one uber-hunting bill.

Q: Does the bill target National Park Service land?

Elise: No. The stated purpose of this legislation is to increase opportunities for hunting on federal land, mainly on Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and Forest Service lands. But the way that the language is written, it leaves a big opening that could allow hunting in many national park units that do not currently permit the practice. When the bill was introduced last year, we hoped this was simply an oversight that would be corrected.

Q: Doesn’t the bill exempt national parks and national monuments from hunting? Is the concern that other kinds of park units like national military parks, national historic sites, national memorials, and others are not exempted?

Elise: Both of these questions are major concerns. You are correct that the bill fails to exempt many types of park unit that do not allow hunting, such as battlefields and historical sites. But even for national parks and monuments, the language only states that it does not “require” opening these lands to hunting. Current law prohibits hunting unless specified by statute, so this is a huge change that puts many parks and monuments at risk. The language would allow a Secretary of the Interior to open parks like Yellowstone or monuments like Devil’s Tower to hunting. There’s no reasonable justification for giving anybody that option.

So there are two issues. First, the bill doesn’t exempt all the different kinds of national park units; but second, even the so-called exemption in the bill doesn’t really protect any national park or monument.  The bill says “does not require.” What it should have said is that the bill “does not authorize” the opening of park areas to hunting, to keep the status quo in those parks.

Q: Is there a demand to hunt in these other kinds of park units?

Kristen: It is ridiculous to even think about. Would we interrupt school field trips at Fort McHenry to use the seagulls for target practice? Hunt for squirrels at the Liberty Bell? Shoot clay pots at Chaco Culture National Historic Park? I mean, does our country really benefit from opening these sites to hunting, when there are millions of acres of land that are better suited to hunting, and when it conflicts with so many other ways people already use and enjoy these places, from hiking to bird watching?

Q: Did you try working with legislators before this reached the House floor?

Elise: Yes, we tried working with the sponsor of the original bill, Representative Dan Benishek of Michigan. We reached out and initially had good reception—we gave his staff the language that would have fixed the problem. Although we followed up on several occasions, we never received confirmation that the member would support an amendment to the bill. The next thing we knew, the bill was being combined into this larger bill, the Sportsmen’s Heritage Act.

Then, on April 17, when the bill was brought to the House floor, an amendment was offered by Representative Rush Holt of New Jersey that would also have fixed the bill, at least as it relates to exempting additional types of units. Even before that amendment came to the floor, Representative Holt went to the chairman of the committee to attempt to have his amendment accepted—and the chairman said no. Then, the full House voted on the Holt Amendment, which was defeated.

So there were at least three opportunities to make this right and exclude the National Park System from this bill.

Kristen: This happened so quickly, and the bill got swept into a more political issue about hunting. I don’t think a lot of people understood that this issue concerning national parks was also in the bill. That’s why we’re still hopeful that there will be opportunities to change the bill in the Senate.

Q: And it’s a simple fix?

Kristen: Very simple.

Q: There are about 60 or 70 national park units where hunting is permitted. Is there a reason why hunting is acceptable on some public lands and not others?

Kristen: Most BLM and Forest Service lands allow hunting—that’s millions of acres of public land. There’s an understanding and a tradition during hunting season—people know where they can go to hunt and other people enjoying these public lands know when it’s hunting season.

For national parks, it’s very different. Every national park is established for specific reasons. People want to learn about historical events that occurred in these places, and learn about our heritage and democracy. It’s very different from multiple-use lands.

For the nearly 70 national park service units that allow hunting, it’s one of the purposes of those units, and it’s written into law. For the ones that don’t have it, it’s for good reason, and it was intentional. To superimpose a requirement that allows hunting and target shooting would take away from that traditional experience that people are used to having when they visit national parks. A hunting provision is contrary to the fundamental purpose of those hundreds of other units.

Q: Ultimately, wouldn’t this put the burden on park officials to accommodate hunters?

Kristen: Yes. How ridiculous would it be to require the superintendent at the Frederick Douglass House to actually write a document that says you can’t hunt there? What a waste of time.

Q: Wouldn’t there also be an effect on wildlife?

Elise: Yes, these parks were created to “conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wild life therein”—that’s exactly what the National Park Service Organic Act says. Also, parks are historically places where wildlife can regenerate so that hunters can hunt them on adjacent lands. When certain animal populations get really low, the parks become the place where they can go to recover. President Theodore Roosevelt was an early proponent of this.

Q: When is the Senate likely to vote on this bill?

Kristen: It’s unclear. The likelihood is that this proposal would be offered as an amendment to something else, and it’s very hard to know when that could happen—but it could happen at any time. Similar legislation has been introduced in the Senate, and it needs an exemption for the National Park System. What we need to do is get the Senate to agree to exclude the National Park System from this legislation, whatever form it takes—amendment or bill. That’s why it’s so important that park supporters let their senators know right away that this bill, as currently written, is bad for national parks.

UPDATE, January 3, 2013: Although the U.S. House of Representatives passed legislation in spring 2012 that would open much of our National Park System–including historic sites–to hunting and recreational shooting, NPCA worked hard to have similar provisions successfully pulled from Senate legislation. For now, national parks are protected, but we expect this bill to be introduced again. NPCA will continue to work closely with the new Congress to ensure that park wildlife and visitors are protected.

Shiloh National Military Park in Tennessee commemorated the 150th anniversary of what many consider to be the first major battle of the Civil War. Park officials honored the 23,743 casualties from that two-day battle by lighting candles throughout the battlefield in a “Grand Illumination”–a moving highlight to more than a week of related events at the park.

According to Chief Park Ranger Stacy D. Allen in Shiloh’s Division of Interpretation & Resource Management, an estimated 15,000 people witnessed the illumination, driving about ten miles through the battlefield where the candles had been lit. Over the course of the 150th anniversary commemorations from March 28 through April 8, the park welcomed more than 104,000 visitors, representing about 30 percent of the total number of visitors to the park in 2011. Since Shiloh, like Pea Ridge National Military Park, is considered one of the most secluded and best-preserved battlefields in the United States, Allen describes the arrival of thousands of people in just a few days as “historic visitation records.”

You can enjoy more photos from the Grand Illumination and other commemorative events on Shiloh National Military Park’s Facebook page.

-Jennifer Errick, Editor, Online Communications

All in all, the park system has seen an astounding 12.4 billion recreational visits since the Park Service was founded in 1916. Are your favorite parks on the list? View the numbers here: http://www.npca.org/exploring-our-parks/visitation.html

-Jennifer Errick, Editor, Online Communications

It’s hard to wrap your head around a number as large as 123 million. Yet this represents the number of items in the museum and archival collections held in trust for us by the National Park Service. Letters and diaries kept by Civil War soldiers now held at Pea Ridge National Military Park, thousands of fossils at Florissant Fossil Beds National Monument, hand tools used to carve the presidential visages at Mount Rushmore National Monument—these important items represent just a small fraction of the treasures held in more than 1,800 facilities located within nearly 400 parks, curatorial centers, and partner organizations throughout the country.

Imagine being responsible for inventorying and cataloguing all these priceless artifacts and documents, safely storing or displaying them, conserving those that are damaged or fragile, using them to create interpretive programs and inform project plans and management decisions, and making them available to researchers and park visitors. It’s a monumental job, and it’s one that the Park Service has been trying its best to do with limited resources.

At best, parks are able to share only a small portion of their collections with the public due to limited exhibit space and insufficient staff and funds to prepare exhibits, while many artifacts and the information they hold are stored away from public spaces, difficult to access and use. At worst, dismal storage and display facilities force the parks to relocate their collections to distant facilities that have the capacity to conserve and protect the collections—which are then out of the reach of park rangers and managers, researchers, and the public.

Some parks have reached beyond the museum walls by taking advantage of technology to create virtual museums that expand public access to their collections; others are using images or replicas of collection items as the basis for school programs in science, history, and the arts. These parks are examples from which to learn, but ultimately, addressing poor storage facilities, lack of trained staff to manage and care for collections, and inadequate public access to collections will require innovative thinking and creative solutions on a system-wide basis.

NPCA’s Center for Park Research is launching research to find out how many collection storage and display facilities need upgrading or replacement, understand how these problems restrict public access, and investigate new technologies and new realities in visitor expectations to better care for collections and make them accessible to the public. Stay tuned for updates as this work progresses.

Read a recent National Parks magazine article on some of the National Park Service staff who care for these artifacts, and visit the National Park Service’s Museum Management Program website to tour a number of virtual museum exhibits and learn more about the kinds of objects and archival materials found at each park.

Above: Do I see money in those trees? A hiker explores Rocky Mountain National Park in Colorado.

According to a report released this morning by the National Park Service, the park system remained a strong economic engine in 2010, despite the slow pace of economic recovery nationally. An estimated $3 billion in taxpayer money invested in the parks generated about $12.16 billion in revenue to local economies (within about 60 miles of the parks) and resulted in 281 million recreational visits. The park system also supported 258,400 jobs nationally in 2010.

Read the full report (PDF, 52 pages, 1.6 MB) at: http://www.nature.nps.gov/socialscience/docs/NPSSystemEstimates2010.pdf

-Jennifer Errick, Editor, Online Communications