The BDN Opinion section operates independently and does not set news policies or contribute to reporting or editing articles elsewhere in the newspaper or on bangordailynews.com
Michael Soukup of Blue Hill is a retired National Park Service chief scientist and a past CEO and president of Schoodic Institute at Acadia National Park.
Our system of national parks and national wildlife refuges stands as a remarkable reflection of our nation’s heritage. This assemblage of protected natural and cultural resources has served as a model for many other nations, with great positive impact on conservation worldwide.
The value of these places — accessible to all Americans — has been understood by Congress and championed by both Republican and Democratic visionaries over generations. Along the way, Congress has enacted strict directions on how to ensure protection of our nation’s heritage as a solemn, unbroken, federal commitment.
Thus it is an alarming disconnect for our current leadership to disfavor our national parks and refuges and those who manage, study and understand them. Of most pressing concern are two recent nominations for positions in the Department of the Interior that control the fate of our parks and refuges. Most troubling to me is that these nominations may be linked to interest in privatizing national parks.
Scott Socha has been nominated to be director of the National Park Service. Socha, a successful executive in the hospitality industry, appears legally unqualified based on the requirements laid out in Public law 104-333, enacted in November 1996, which says “…The Director shall have substantial experience and demonstrated competence in land management and natural or cultural resource conservation.”
Moreover, Socha currently oversees the corporate-owned hospitality services in Yellowstone, Grand Canyon, Sequoia and Kings Canyon, Olympic, and Shenandoah national parks. Visitor services provided by corporate concessionaires can be an important element of the visitor experience in national parks but must always be subordinate to resource conservation. Conserving our national treasures is first in logic and first in established law, and this must be so for each generation regardless of the inclinations of political appointees of either party.
I am also opposed to the nomination of Kevin Lilly as assistant secretary for fish, wildlife and parks. This position has great control over policies affecting the long-term health of wildlife in parks and refuges. Lilly is a corporate executive in the financial sector and appears to have no prior experience in the management of our fish, wildlife and parks. National parks and refuges should not be managed as commodities.
Both nominees are subject to U.S. Senate confirmation and I believe should be denied. We need leaders who will honor and respect our public lands (and our land managers), and who will restore science and professionalism as the basis for prudent stewardship of our national legacy.
Everyone who loves our national parks and refuges should voice their concern in whatever forum available. I have written to Sens. Susan Collins and Angus King, and will write to the president. Our best hope for healthy public lands rests on a consistent approach to the covenant of restraint necessary to protect them for the inspiration and enjoyment of present and future generations.
