Play it Again Sam!—The Freeman, December 1964
Exploring the National Parks, by John C. Sparks
The past half-century has seen in America far more outright government ownership, and closer government participation and intervention in areas of private ownership, than ever before acceptable to the people of our country. This alien concept of government meets with less and less public opposition, much as the foot learns to accommodate an ill-fitting shoe. Today, few people are sufficiently shocked to voice dissent when the latest scheme to extend the scope of government is posed in the legislative halls. In large part, we have become numb and insensitive to these encroachments upon private property.
Occasionally, a new dissenter will emerge to take a stand against the most recent invasion of private ownership rights—but even he may be oblivious to earlier similar erosions. His awakening is just begun. It is not unusual to find him defending other areas of government intervention and ownership to which he has grown accustomed and for which he visualizes no alternative.
On the other hand, the exciting reaction to the reborn idea of private ownership may be likened to the thrill from one’s sudden awareness of new and beautiful vistas. From such stimulation can come fruitful cultivation of areas now lying fallow.
Our purpose here is to turn men’s thoughts to those wastelands of government ownership and control that have been foreclosed to private initiative and development. Education is high on this list; and the category must include such functions as postal services, highways, and water supplies.
Another governmental activity, virtually unchallenged today, is the conservation of natural resources. Let us consider it, particularly with reference to the vast system of national park facilities which are intended to preserve areas of natural beauty for recreation and enjoyment by the American people.
Review the Situation
To suggest that national parks be removed from government ownership is nearly as shocking as to propose the elimination of motherhood or baseball. But, if we can restrain our consternation, let us turn our minds toward the potentials and possibilities of private ownership. This will not be an attempt to stimulate a “heated revolution” against government-owned national parks. The purpose, rather, is to examine one of the least objectionable (and most sacred) cases of government ownership, to invite thinking about alternative arrangements, and at the same time to challenge more dangerous government-ownership ideas.
There are well over one hundred national parks and national monuments occupying more than twenty-six million acres of land. Fearful that the increasing population would increase the demand for land, Congress in July, 1964, set aside within existing parklands fifty-four “wilderness areas.” Billions of dollars will be provided under another bill for new park land and waterways. “The purpose of the wilderness areas is to preserve some of the scenic wonders of the United States as they were when white men first saw them. These areas will be for the enjoyment of the person who seeks solitude in nature.”’ Other legislation is planned to improve the administration and use of the park lands.
Touring the West
Twelve million Americans visit national parks every year, hoping to enjoy the beauty and grandeur of nature. For many of these visitors, a trip through “the West” is a once-in-a-lifetime excursion to be packed into a two- to four-week vacation. The time must be severely budgeted if one is to see more than one or two of these scenic wonders. Usually, such a jaunt from the East or Midwest will attempt to include visits to such national parks as Rocky Mountain, Mesa Verde, Grand Canyon, Zion, Bryce Canyon, Yosemite, and Sequoia—and perhaps Yellowstone and the Grand Tetons on the way back east. An automobile trip can be reasonably scheduled to reach all of these areas within the allotted time, but the prospect of seeing much when one gets there is dim unless several days are spent in each park. Practically nothing is done to assist the viewing and enjoyment of the parks in the minimum amount of time.
The park roads are often of questionable layout. A typical national park requires the traveler to cover many miles of side roads from the entrance to the attractions of the greatest interest. Mesa Verde, for example, requires a tortuous twenty-mile trip from the entrance to the site of the famed cliff dwellers. The narrow, winding, climbing highway hangs on precipitous cliff walls at numerous points. What makes the view so breath-taking is the prospect of a plunge to the rocks a half-mile below. Once safely on top, one may explore the several cliff-dwelling areas—if he can stand the heat, climb the ladders up the face of the cliffs, crawl through tunnels, and calmly negotiate around the fellow explorer who has fainted or overextended himself. No objection is posed here to methods, unlike my own, by which others may enjoy a national park. There are numerous trails for hiking and horse- or mule back riding. Camp sites, cabins, tents, and hotels allow for a variety of living tastes while there.
Thorough viewing of the wonders, however, has little or no variety to offer in regard to the sightseeing means available. It is of only one category—best described as “roughing it,” or on the order of the primitive. This may be the best way for those who have the time and physical ability. My objection is to its being the only way offered.
Why Not Let Disney Do It?
To wring out the enjoyment from the Grand Canyon National Park requires several days at the minimum and exhaustive climbs. All of this can be fun for some, but a mixture of disappointment and frustration for others. The thought that kept returning to me concerned a private owner of another place for public enjoyment.2 If Walt Disney were operating the Grand Canyon tourist area, for example, there undoubtedly would have been ways provided to see its thrilling beauties comfortably and without wastefully expending precious time scheduled for other park areas. How? I am content to leave such resourcefulness up to him, or to another similarly blessed with his happy brand of fantasy, inventiveness, and initiative.³ Would it be by a monorail penetrating the hidden wonders of the canyons? A skillfully and safely engineered shooting-the rapids of the Colorado River? I do not know. Of this, I am certain, however: were this scenic wonder owned by (or leased to) a private owner with profit as a goal, and imagination and ingenuity as a means, the traveler would be pleasantly treated to views and thrills now possible only at great expense of time and physical effort.
A friend, discussing this idea, observed that a private owner probably would “overcharge,” revealing that he had spent nearly twenty-five dollars in one day with his family at Disneyland. “Think what Disney would charge for a monorail ride through the depths of Grand Canyon,” declared my friend. What he has forgotten is the amount of taxes each one of us must pay every year toward national park operation, whether or not we visit the Grand Canyon or any other park. The amount of that tax far exceeds the probable market price of a once-in-a-lifetime series of pleasant, comfortable, and safe excursions that creative, profit-minded private owners or operators of scenic wonders would surely provide. The savings of tax costs to the citizen doubtless would allow additional vacation enjoyments.
There Must Be a Better Way
No criticism is intended of the museums and displays at various park headquarters. They seem to be skillfully prepared; and the talks by naturalists and park rangers are capably presented. Undoubtedly, the parks are maintained in accordance with the policy adopted by Congress years ago to conserve (or preserve) “… the scenery and natural and historic objects and the wildlife for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.”
Neither is there a quarrel with the goal to preserve our magnificent mountains, canyons, and other splendors of nature, including native plants and wildlife. The value of such areas to various scientists must be considerable. And yet, the stated purpose of the national park system is to provide enjoyment to present generations without destroying the same for future generations. It is suggested that the nature of the ownership is the probable reason why the national parks leave much to be desired for the enjoyment of their guests—that a private owner (or lessee) would be more sensitive to the wishes and desires of customers and would offer improved accommodations and facilities. Unless this were done acceptably, the owner (or lessee) of the park land would not attract enough customers to make a profitable return on his investment. Another investor would then “buyout” his inefficient predecessor, and the improvement of facilities would occur.
Discussion of this subject also revealed a fear concerning what might happen if government were to remove itself altogether from ownership or control of the national park recreational activity. That fear, simply stated: all recreational facilities available to the public would disappear. Why this would occur, my friend failed to explain. He just assumed, I suppose, that recreation would be an unprofitable enterprise without tax subsidy; therefore, no one would go into the private business of providing for the variety of sports and outdoor pastimes in which the American people seek relaxation. This bit of illogic flies in the face of a sporting goods industry (thousands of privately-owned companies) that has grown in almost direct proportion to the increased leisure afforded by automated machinery and mass production for the masses.
Suppose that golf courses had been under the sole ownership, control, and subsidy of government for the past twenty-five years, and that now someone were proposing private ownership. As in the case of national parks today, the illogical argument would be that only government is able to assemble enough land, to invest enough money for watering systems and expensively constructed putting greens, and to absorb the costly maintenance and operating expenses. Without government, it would be argued, the healthful recreation of golf would disappear. Yet we know that private investment in new golf courses and family country clubs all over the country has been phenomenal during these years—and without government assistance.
When there is a demand for recreation—that is, people who want and are willing to pay for recreation—there will be those to provide it without resort to government. Had government not preempted the business of national parks, private investors would step in to meet the demand, more capably than is now done, to the great pleasure and delight of the vacationer. If hunting and fishing areas are demanded, these will be provided. If scenic viewing is desired, private investors and entrepreneurs will be there ready to give safe, comfortable, pleasurable sightseeing to more customers at less cost. Whatever recreation it might be—camping, mountain climbing, skiing, white-water canoeing, hiking, bicycling, horseback riding—the most ample and imaginative facilities at the lowest cost will be available to the American public when the government removes itself from the field of recreation and allows the magic of the market place to step into this static breach.
Are the arguments convincing? Not to the point, I hope, that would send one off on a crusade for privately-owned or privately-leased “national” parks, because all crusaders are needed at more crucial places in the campaign against government tyranny. Yet the arguments may help to spike the weak, baseless contentions that public ownership is essential or even desirable for national parks. And by exploding that false premise, we may help to stop some of the more serious governmental intrusions into the private lives and against the private property of Americans.
¹ “Keeping the Wilderness Wild—How It Will Be Done,” U. S. News and World Report, August 24, 1964.
2 Disneyland, Anaheim, California, averages 5,500,000 visitors annually. Grand Canyon is estimated to have 500,000 annual viewers. Disney’s “Magic Kingdom,” aptly called the happiest place on earth, is made up of 65 acres, with an additional 105 acres of parking facilities—representing currently an investment of 45 million dollars. Employees of Disneyland number four thousand in the summer season, and two thousand year-round. The main objective is wholesome family enjoyment, but not juvenile, as reflected in the surprising ratio of four adults to every child. Visitors come from fifty states and more than one hundred foreign nations, probably making it the greatest tourist attraction in the world.
3 For example, Walter Knott, the creator of Knott’s Berry Farm and Ghost Town, Buena Park, California. Started 44 years ago, this popular tourist attraction is estimated to have 41/2 million visitors annually. In 1951, Knott, an ardent crusader for the free-enterprise society, bought a quaint Mojave Desert ghost mining-town called Calico, for $13,500. He faithfully restored the town at a cost of $700,000 as a historic monument. “When the overflowing visitors parked their cars on surrounding desert, the Department of Interior threatened to penalize Knott for trespassing on government-owned land. He offered to buy some of the land, but Interior officials demanded an exorbitant price,” as reported by The Reader’s Digest, June, 1964, in an article by Frank J. Taylor entitled “One Man’s Crusade for Everybody’s Freedom.” Later Knott deeded Calico to San Bernardino County for a park. The county then acquired the necessary land at 1/400 of the price asked from Knott. The Knotts contract to run the park for the County.
Dean Russell was a contributor to THE FREEMAN and was a business executive of Canton, Ohio, when this article was written he had recently returned with his family from a vacation trip through the West.
Copyright © 2012 Foundation for Economic Education. All rights reserved. Used with the permission