Abolish the National Park Service
Revising how America's most beautiful public lands are protected would create more ways for Americans to interact with some of the best parts of the country.

Atop one of the highest peaks in the eastern United States sits a picturesque example of what America's national parks could be—if only the government hadn't effectively outlawed commerce within their boundaries.
This is LeConte Lodge, built in 1926 and accessible only by a series of hiking trails that wind up the side of 6,500-foot Mt. LeConte. The Tennessee lodge exists only because it was grandfathered in when the boundaries of Great Smoky Mountains National Park were drawn in 1934. Farmers, logging companies, and other property owners in the area were given the boot. Thankfully, the lodge was allowed to stay.
Nearly a century later, it's time for the federal government to recognize private investment need not be at odds with the goal of protecting nature for future generations. Ending the National Park Service (NPS) will mean more facilities like LeConte Lodge can thrive—and entice more Americans to experience the most beautiful parts of the country in new ways.
For hikers, a trip to LeConte Lodge is like a step back through time. There's no electricity or running water, but a full meal and a real bed sure beats dehydrated backpacking food and sleeping on the ground. For the price of an overnight stay in one of LeConte's dozen or so cabins, guests get a full dinner—including generous servings of wine, coffee, and dessert—and a hot breakfast to send them on their way. (Since you're surely wondering: The food and linens are delivered periodically by a team of llamas.)
Facilities like this are an oddity in America, though it will sound more familiar to anyone who has hiked in the Alps, which are riddled with lodges that offer backpackers warm meals and beds in exchange for a fee. How can it be that we've allowed the Europeans to surpass us when it comes to outdoorsy capitalism?
Some of the blame falls on mistakes that were made long ago, like the forced displacement of the farmers and homesteaders in the land now occupied by Great Smoky Mountains National Park and Shenandoah National Park in Virginia. Had they been allowed to stay, some might have converted their land to provide services and accommodations to the hikers and other visitors wandering the newly built trails nearby. Again, Europe offers a real-world example of what that might look like: In Italy's Puez- Geisler Nature Park, you'll stumble upon grazing cattle and can stop for a bite to eat at privately owned refugio that operate within the park's boundaries.
That error can't be undone at this point, but rethinking how to best manage America's national parks could help alleviate the snarled traffic and shortage of facilities that are evident at many of them—to say nothing of the $22 billion maintenance backlog that the NPS reported this summer.
It's true there are some luxury accommodations available within America's National Parks, like the famous Old Faithful Inn at Yellowstone. Or maybe you'll be lucky enough to nab a permit for one of the limited campsites. More likely, a trip to a national park means schlepping yourself back to an Airbnb or hotel in some nearby town that largely exists to provide the services effectively outlawed within the park itself (such as Moab, Utah, which sits just outside the Arches and Canyonlands parks).
It doesn't have to be this way. There is incredible demand for stays at LeConte—the lodge's reservation list opens for the following year each November, and it fills to capacity within days. Miss that window, and you'll have to hope to nab a spot off the waiting list. (That's how a friend and I finally got to visit earlier this year.)
The free market could and would support more of these lodges—there are already some on private land along the Appalachian Trail in New Hampshire, and another chain of them exists in Colorado. But similar services cannot exist within America's national parks because the National Park Service would not allow a place like LeConte Lodge to open today.
This is the perfect time to rethink how such parks should work. The NPS reported more than 325 million visitors last year, nearly a record high. The growing appeal of America's glorious outdoor spaces is undeniable. But the federal government's fiscal problems mean there is likely to be less and less funding available for the national parks, even as they deal with maintenance issues and overcrowding.
In short, the NPS will have a hard time maintaining its current level of service in the years ahead, even as it already feels like the parks could offer so much more.
One possible answer? Some states and other parts of the federal government have privatized parts of their public spaces in order to offload maintenance costs and expand their facilities. The U.S. Forest Service (USFS), which manages 193 million acres of federal land (bigger than Texas), has been offloading day-to-day management of campgrounds, marinas, and other facilities since the 1990s. The USFS has more flexibility in managing its lands because, from the outset, the agency has operated under a mandate to allow multiple uses. The USFS is charged with balancing the interests of preservation, recreation, and commercial activities, such as logging and grazing. Within the NPS, however, preservation is paramount, even when other uses wouldn't cause environmental degradation.
The result has not been the stuff of environmentalist nightmares. Instead, the contracts handed out to the private concessionaires that operate on USFS land limit what the private managers can charge, restrict what they can build, and require them to uphold the conservation mission. Using land and protecting it for future generations need not be an either-or proposition, as any responsible person understands.
So abolish the NPS, let the USFS manage the lands currently within the NPS portfolio, and give the agency the power to offload responsibilities to contractors and nonprofits that can be trusted to respect the environment while expanding the services and activities available to visitors.
Allowing the private sector to operate more services would also free the parks from being pawns in future government shutdowns. Why should politicians who can't manage a budget be allowed to cancel your weekend camping trip?
Abolishing the NPS and revising how America's most beautiful public lands are protected would create more ways for Americans to interact with some of the best parts of the country. And it might allow for more great establishments like LeConte Lodge—funded by the guests that stay there, and not dependent on taxpayers. Because great experiences deserve to be duplicated.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Abolish JD Vance is wrong articles.
The real test for those who worship at the wilderness preservation church is to demand that no human impact mean exactly that, and ban all human presence. No more mechanized capitalist access? Then no more self-righteous, Pata-gucci wearing hiker access.
"to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased *by the Consent of the Legislature of the State* in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings"
+10000. The State's get to 'own' the lands within their borders.
Abolishing the national park service is a great idea.
Either let the states handle the parks, or let private companies take care of them with the latter idea preferred.
I'm all in favor, but I notice about the only agency you don't seem to have dedicated an article to advocating abolishing is... the BATF.
Why?
My wife literally grew up in teh NPS. Her dad was a maintainance guy for the Olympic National Park for 25 years. The reason there is such a huge maintainance backlog is because Reagan de-funded the parks in the 80s, and no Congress since then has had the courage to fund them again.
Parks are not wilderness areas. They are maintained so people can use them, and not destroy them. Have a look at the Olympics with Google earth. You can see the border of the park from space because it's surrounded by clear cuts and tree farms. (Though the Spotted Owl has changed that to a degree.)
The local logging community hated the park, because it was full of old growth they couldn't get to. Without the park service, the entire penninsula would look like the rest of Weyerhauser / Simpson property which are checker boards of single species tree farms alternating with bare stumpfarms that look like bad haircuts on the mountains.
You can't see a lot of them from the roads, because they plant 50 or 100 ft breaklines like hedges to keep the clearcuts invisible, but when you can, it's as clear as clear cut. Desertfication is a thing that really happens, even to rainforests. As the heat moves north from California, we'll see how it changes the Hoh, but clearcuts won't help.
I'm all for allowing the NPS some lee-way in some of the things they do - and they do have contracted concessions all through the sysytem. But there is a public role in keeping the parks accessible to everyone, and that means we subsidize them. They're public parks. Places where people ought to be able to take a hike without having to spend a week's wages.
You can stay at the privatre Lake Quinault Lodge in Feb for about $275 a night, or Klalaloch for $175. If the same corporations that own LQL ran Klalaloch the rooms looking out over Ruby Beach would $500 a night.
There are plenty of places where the free market works, and parks are not one of them.
Well said and I agree. Spend any amount of time in a national park or outdoors and it becomes obvious how quickly people will destroy and defile it.
You make that statement without any real data. You assume free markets suck and government is good. Try to do even a minimal analysis as I did below.
I agree that privatizing access and maintenance doesn't mean rolling back all the rules. It's not an either-or situation. Provide oversight and service levels to maintain.
It's simple. It's done all the time in the real world.
Note: Klalaloch is park owned, LQL is private.
This should be the last government agency that gets cut given it is the one with the most bi-partisan support AND has 90% across the country. It would be foolish for libertarians to begin their tirades against government with something so universally popular.
I notice no one is doing any kind of costs comparison. All this alarm of greedy capitalists destroying parks assumes the parks have no intrinsic value as parks.
I tried to use fed budgets to calculate the free market values of Yellowstone and Yosemite, back in 2012.
I have no idea how to read federal budgets. Does the income include entry fees, kickback from businesses? No idea. Nevertheless, it sure looked to me like a lot more value as tourist attractions than logging.
Too many people start with the assumption that capitalism is bad and can do no good.
A bit of googling found this:
922,650 acres
2,432,972 visitors
$8M budget
Didn't find any employee count. But look at those numbers: less than $4 per visitor, and I know tickets cost a lot more than $4. There's plenty of reason to think markets could do better, unless of course you start with the assumption that markets are evil and governments are the best of all.