The Myth of the Duel Mission of the NPS

Almost everywhere you go in the National Park Service, you’ll hear rangers telling visitors – and each other – that the NPS has two missions which are in contradiction to each other: to protect the parks while at the same time allowing people to use the areas.  This paradigm all started with their interpretation of the Organic Act of 1916 which established the NPS.  Specifically, the Act states that the purpose of the NPS is:

To conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wild life therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.

However, if you read this sentence carefully, you’ll realize that there are NOT two missions but ONE. You cannot enjoy “the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wild life” unless it’s“unimpaired”. You should also notice that at no point does the Act equate enjoyment with recreation. Therefore the NPS only has one mission: preservation.

Some will no doubt argue with me since the Act does say “provide for the enjoyment”. Fortunately, this isn’t just my opinion. I have case law to prove my point.

NRA v. Potter, 1986

This litigation was an effort by the NRA to lift hunting bans in some National Parks but their efforts backfired. In this case, the presiding judge ruled that “in the Organic Act, Congress speaks of but a single purpose, namely, conservation.” Moreover, the court concluded that “the paramount objective of the park system with respect to its indigenous wildlife, and the philosophy which came to pervade the new Park Service to whom it was entrusted, was, from the beginning, one of protectionism."  

Even more interesting is the fact that the court ruled “the [National Park] Service may have succumbed to error in the late 1960s and 1970s” regarding its interpretation of its own mission.  As further proof, the judge points to the Redwood National Park Expansion Act of1978 where the “Congress reiterated its intention that National Parks be administered in furtherance of the purpose (not purposes) of the Organic Act.”

The court conclusions:

1.  The word “conservation” in the Organic Act means “preservation.”

2.  The Organic Act prescribes a SINGLE MISSION to the NPS.

So, let’s all stop spreading the myth that the NPS has two missions!!!