To Sell A Thing: A Concessionaire Case-Study of Mount Rainier National Park

Abstract

How should the parks that belong to “We The People” as a collective identity be connected to, and in partnership with, private interests and development? In the modern era, the question comes closer to: How could an organization dedicated to preserving natural wonders partner with the corporations who have historically been the driving force behind climate change and their own sites’ degradation? This rocky relationship between American parks and American corporations isn’t something new, but something that has been inherent throughout the history of the national parks, and embedded in the stories of their creation. In many cases conflicts arise over issues of ownership and responsibility inherent to the act of providing experiences for the visitors in the parks. Who owns what? Who controls the bargaining power, the debates, the conversation on development, expansion, and restriction? What methods of control are used and should we allow them? Whose responsibility is it to provide what services for visitors? Is “providing” conserving the land or entertaining the guests? What kind of experience should be provided in the first place? Mount Rainier National Park (MORA) has long been touted as an example to all that followed, a legendary success story among the founding, management, and evolution of our National Parks. In reality, the story of development within the park, of land use and corporate involvement, of evolving NPS management styles and the onset of climate change, is a messy affair, and one that has been recycled for over one hundred years. It is precisely because of this that Rainier remains a valuable and reliable example, genuine in the fact that it presents the real conflict and debate over the way in which our natural spaces should be managed. Just like the National Park Service itself, it is not a “failure” or a “success”, but a process by which the American people have defined and redefined their ideals.