National Park Service takes over Pearson Air Museum

Pilawt

Final Approach
Gone West
Joined
Sep 19, 2005
Messages
9,486
Location
Santa Rosita State Park, under the big 'W'
Display Name
Pilawt
Home Airfield
KGYR
The following press release was issued today by Elson Strahan, President and CEO of the Fort Vancouver National Trust:

Pearson Air Museum Closed to the Public Wednesday, February 6, 2013

(VANCOUVER, WA) - The Fort Vancouver National Trust regretfully announces today, the closure of Pearson Air Museum in Vancouver, Wash. Operated on contract with the city of Vancouver by the Trust for the past eight (8) years, the museum at 1115 E. Fifth St. offered the public a glimpse into the Golden Age of Aviation history from the early 20th Century. Open Wednesday through Saturday, the museum featured fifteen (15) historic planes, a gift shop and Flight Simulator Lab. The museum facility hosted over 100 community events during the year and was supported by over fifty (50) volunteers investing over 6,000 hours at the museum.

The closure is the result of an unresolved dispute with the National Parks Service regarding park use policy. Trust administrators were asked on Monday to turn over keys to the museum to the park service, today. "Because air museum aircraft exhibits are either owned by the Trust or on loan to the Trust, it was not feasible for us to turn this property over to the National Park Service," said Elson Strahan, Trust President and CEO.

On Tuesday, Trust staff and volunteers removed planes, gift shop items and other exhibits from the Pearson Air Museum hangar. These items have been stored, Strahan said.

In the coming days, Trust staff will be contacting organizations and individuals with events scheduled at the museum to assist in finding alternative venues. The Trust will be contacting volunteers and contributors to determine how best to move the air museum program forward.

The termination of the museum management agreement is regrettable. The Trust sees this as a loss for the Fort Vancouver National Site and for the community. The Trust will continue to negotiate a suitable way to restore Pearson Air Museum operations.

Going forward the Trust will be:
- Rescheduling events
- Contacting donors
- Contacting volunteers and contributors

The Fort Vancouver National Trust appreciates its supporters, donors and volunteers who have made Pearson Air Museum such a success and important place in our community. The Trust’s mission as a nonprofit organization is based on its commitment to support the entire Fort Vancouver National Site including Pearson Air Museum. As the official nonprofit partner of the Fort Vancouver National Site, the Fort Vancouver National Trust has been engaged in good faith negotiations with the National Park Service for two years regarding the management of Pearson Air Museum. The Trust is deeply disappointed with the sudden termination of the cooperative agreement and the orders to immediately and permanently cease all operations of Pearson Air Museum.

To contact the Superintendent of the Fort Vancouver National Site, Tracy Fortmann: 360-816-6205

To contact your local legislative delegation: Senator Patty Murray: 360-696-7797
Senator Maria Cantwell: 360-696-7838
Congresswoman Jamie Herrera Beutler: 360-695-6292
The Museum, adjacent to historic Pearson Field (KVUO), is on National Park Service land next to a replica 1829 trading post operated by NPS. The airport and Museum were featured in AOPA Pilot in September 2005.
 
I know what the reality is, and it's somewhere above the one-sided press release from an organization which had grown too comfortable coloring outside the lines of the agreement for a long time and who now are shocked - shocked, I say! - that the NPS would actually follow their mandate in reining them in.

But whatever you want to feel is fine with me.
 
Last edited:
It's really very simple. Read this letter to NPS from Congresswoman Herrera-Buetler in June 2012:

http://herrerabeutler.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=300259

... and this from three weeks later:

http://www.detourministries.com/styles/img/ACP_Cancellation.pdf

For years the Museum has been hosting popular community events, making friends for the airport and helping fund Museum operations. NPS started unreasonably, arbitrarily -- and untimely -- rejecting applications for these events.

Without warning, NPS gave "45 days" notice of termination of the agreement, then later the same day, demanded the keys to the building within 48 hours.

In this context, the Trust's press release above makes sense.
 
NPS did a similar thing in DC recently, terminating the lee and evicting a popular boat rental concession right after the company invested a LOT of money in new boats/equipment & made the place popular again.

The concession will likely be given to one of the big concessionaires.

Granted that all the facts are not known, but it seems that the small businesses and non-profits are getting the squeeze.
 
It's really very simple. Read this letter to NPS from Congresswoman Herrera-Buetler in June 2012:

http://herrerabeutler.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=300259

... and this from three weeks later:

http://www.detourministries.com/styles/img/ACP_Cancellation.pdf

For years the Museum has been hosting popular community events, making friends for the airport and helping fund Museum operations. NPS started unreasonably, arbitrarily -- and untimely -- rejecting applications for these events.

Without warning, NPS gave "45 days" notice of termination of the agreement, then later the same day, demanded the keys to the building within 48 hours.

In this context, the Trust's press release above makes sense.

Thanks, from my view the NPS ruined a great little airport that was a portion of a flying community.
 
More background:

The Future of Pearson Air Museum

Background

Since Congress incorporated the 366 acre Fort Vancouver National Site in 1996, including the M.J. Murdock Aviation Center/Pearson Aviation Museum Complex (Museum Complex), the partnership between the City of Vancouver (City), the Fort Vancouver National Trust (Trust), and the National Park Service (NPS) has been successful due to the collaborative working relationship and focus on growing the entire historic site to become a vital community, regional and national asset.

Since 1995, the Museum Complex has grown to become a major tourist destination, educational center for area youth and an important historical aviation center for researchers and enthusiasts alike. It resides within the grounds of the Fort Vancouver National Site and sits on NPS land, which was acquired in 1972 from the City as part of a 72- acre purchase, including the seven acres on which the Museum Complex was developed.

More than $4.2 million was raised from community members, the City, businesses and others to build the Museum and renovate adjoining buildings, with the M.J. Murdock Charitable Trust contributing nearly $3 million in grant funding. Since 2005, the Museum Complex has been sustainably operated by the Trust on behalf of the City of Vancouver with an annual budget of over $300,000. Of this amount, the Trust provides more than $30,000 in direct operational and education programming support , with the remainder primarily derived from event rentals, as well as admissions, memberships and general donations. From 1995 until 2005, the Museum Complex was operated by the Pearson Field Historical Society, which provided similar financial support, and both the Society and the Trust invested in the acquisition of historic aircraft, as well as other exhibits. In total, there has been a community investment in the Museum Complex through the City and our nonprofit organizations of at least $8 million, while the NPS has made no material contributions, other than allowing the development of the Museum Complex on their land.

Current Issue

Since May 2011 the Trust has been in discussions with the NPS concerning the Trust’s operation of the Museum Complex. There is a Cooperative Agreement (Agreement) in place for Museum operations between the NPS and the City executed in December 1995. That Agreement was to remain in effect until 2025, with extensions thereafter. The Trust has served as the City’s designated agent to operate the Museum since the Trust and the City entered into a sub-agreement in February 2005.

However, on February 1, 2013 the NPS terminated that Agreement after seeking to have the Trust sign a new Agreement. Among other changes, the proposed new Agreement would have required:
• NPS approval of all education and interpretive programming developed by the Trust up to a year in advance. NPS would also prohibit the Trust from entering into sub-agreements with education partners and would require that current relationships and agreements with education partners be transferred to NPS management.
• NPS approval of all events inside and outside the Museum Complex through individual special use permits with very restrictive criteria for approvals.
• NPS approval of all Trust income and expenditures associated with the Museum Complex, although the NPS would bear no financial responsibility for operational or capital support for the Museum Complex.
• Reduction in the land and building footprint of the Museum Complex, hindering the programs and operations of the Museum.
• Transfer of ownership and management of the Trust’s collections and exhibits to the NPS.

These are just a few of the demands contained in the proposed new agreement from the NPS which the Trust cannot accept.

The NPS justified this imposition of control simply because the community built the Museum Complex on seven (7) acres of NPS property. Since the Trust would not comply with these new terms the NPS terminated the current agreement that was to remain in effect until 2025.

As noted above, the NPS has not provided financial support for operations and they did not materially contribute to the development and rehabilitation of the Museum Complex buildings. All of the exhibits and collections, including aircraft, are either owned by the Trust or are on loan to the Trust by private donors, for which the Trust has a stewardship responsibility. This is why the Trust moved those assets to its hangars at Pearson Field.

Among the many impacts of this forced move are two very significant outcomes. The Trust needs to move established STEM (Science Technology Engineering and Math) based educational programs such as the summer-long aviation camps and Exploring Careers in Aviation Program – in partnership with the Clark County Skills Center - to the Trust’s hangars on Pearson Field. In addition, the more than 100 community events held annually at the Museum Complex will have to find new venues, which will be a hardship on the many charitable organizations the Trust particularly enjoys supporting with special nonprofit rates.

The only way these programs, activities and events can be preserved is to remove jurisdictional authority of the M.J. Murdock Aviation Center/Pearson Aviation Museum Complex from the NPS and place it under the authority of the City of Vancouver. The City would then continue to partner with the Trust in its stewardship of the Museum Complex on behalf of and for the benefit of the community and the region.

After all, our community members paid for the development of the Museum Complex and have sustained this wonderful asset. The Trust believes it belongs to our citizens, and if you agree the Trust encourages you to support the City Council and our Congressional Delegation to advance legislation to change oversight of the Museum Complex from the NPS to the City. Their contact information is below.

Congressional Delegation:

Katie Whittier
Southwest Washington Director
U.S. Senator Patty Murray
The Marshall House
1323 Officer’s Row
Vancouver, Washington 98661
Phone: (360) 696-7797
Fax: (360) 696-7798
[email protected]

Kimberly Blake Pincheira
Southwest Washington Director
U.S. Senator Maria Cantwell
The Marshall House
1313 Officers Row
Vancouver, WA 98661
360-696-7838
360-696-7844 – FAX
[email protected]

Ryan L. Hart
District Director
Congresswoman Jaime Herrera Beutler
O.O. Howard House
750 Anderson St., Suite B
Vancouver, WA 98661
(360) 695-6292
Fax: (360) 695-6197
[email protected]
 
In other words, the public loses. Isn't that contrary to the NPS charter?
 
It's just SOOOO Much easier to manage parks when those irritating people of the public can't visit them.

I go hunting/fishing with a club down on the core sound in NC. The club has been around since 1908. They had a clubhouse on the outer banks with a dock and 3000 foot turf runway. In 2001 the park service took the land/house, and they were forced to relocate.

What did NPS do with the house? Nothing. They let it sit. Its rotting from the inside out. Debris from the house is strewn everywhere from hurricanes. They don't have the money to doze and remove it. A major eyesore as we still hunt from the blinds located around the old house. And a worse impact on the environment than a house which is lived-in and maintained.
 
I go hunting/fishing with a club down on the core sound in NC. The club has been around since 1908. They had a clubhouse on the outer banks with a dock and 3000 foot turf runway. In 2001 the park service took the land/house, and they were forced to relocate.

What did NPS do with the house? Nothing. They let it sit. Its rotting from the inside out. Debris from the house is strewn everywhere from hurricanes. They don't have the money to doze and remove it. A major eyesore as we still hunt from the blinds located around the old house. And a worse impact on the environment than a house which is lived-in and maintained.

I live 500 feet from Grand Teton National Park and next to Yellowstone National Park...... What you detail is absolutely normal actions from the NPS.... They are charged to protect US assets and their usual "politically correct" answer to this type of protection is " Preservation by Neglect"..

The friggin scary part is they actually believe they are better then anyone else..:hairraise::eek::mad::mad2:..
 
“It’s regrettable that all the contents were removed. We’re going to have to look at the possibilities.”
Because we didn't get a chance to seize them. Poor scum baby.
 
One short history of the airport. The history stops at the year 2000 1993 or so, unfortunately: http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/fova/adhi/chap6.htm

You can select earlier chapters if you are that bored, to get an idea of the scope of the complexities of land use and relationships there. Anything but "very simple." But it does give context to the city manager's letter, if not the Trust's press release. The Trust appears to think that history began in 1995.

I too think that it is a shame the museum is relocating. I also think it is a shame that the trust/association couldn't see its way around sponsoring inappropriate events in a national historic site, but that's just me.
 
Last edited:
I too think that it is a shame the museum is relocating. I also think it is a shame that the trust/association couldn't see its way around sponsoring inappropriate events in a national historic site, but that's just me.
Then you and I (and the City of Vancouver and the people of this community) have very different ideas about what is "inappropriate" on that public land. Pearson Field, to which the Museum is connected, is an operating general aviation airport, the only part of the Vancouver National Historic Reserve that still serves its historic purpose for the community. Unlike the replica Fort, the Barracks, Officers Row and the Kaiser Shipyards, it is alive and (this is the part NPS will never get and can never duplicate) it pays for itself. The Museum and its activities do not interfere with the replica Fort, nor with any "archaeological preservation" work or other activities.

I used to have my airplane in one of the T-hangars between the Museum and the replica Fort. Those hangars were torn down a dozen years ago to provide a large, open buffer around the Fort. Life goes on. The replica Fort in bordered on two sides by major freeways; just south of it is one of the busiest freight railroad lines in the country, and heavy jets in and out of KPDX fly right overhead at low altitudes. It ain't 1829 any more; and while respect for history is a good thing, one can take it too far. NPS has.

Yesterday I was standing on a public sidewalk owned by the City of Vancouver, exercising my Constitutional right to express my opinion in a peaceful manner. A uniformed NPS ranger came to me and those with me. He pointed at small area, about 50x50' outlined by some orange cones, in the huge park across the street. He said that was the Park's "designated First Amendment area" and requested that we move there.

That action on the part of NPS was "inappropriate". Youth soccer fairs and all-church picnics are not.

In the words of former Vancouver Mayor Royce Pollard, "Pearson Field isn't going anywhere. Get over it."
 
One short history of the airport. The history stops at the year 2000 1993 or so, unfortunately: http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/fova/adhi/chap6.htm

You can select earlier chapters if you are that bored, to get an idea of the scope of the complexities of land use and relationships there. Anything but "very simple." But it does give context to the city manager's letter, if not the Trust's press release. The Trust appears to think that history began in 1995.

I too think that it is a shame the museum is relocating. I also think it is a shame that the trust/association couldn't see its way around sponsoring inappropriate events in a national historic site, but that's just me.

You are an employee of the NPS, right?
 
You are an employee of the NPS, right?

So? I would have the same opinion if I wasn't, I dare say. I might also have the right to express it, as I have no specific connection to that area or that issue. And I might be the only one in this thread with a full appreciation of the history, as I bothered this afternoon to read the entire administrative history of the area as well as the enabling legislation and the area's management plan. Sucks to be sick ;)

Perhaps Pilawt has too. He appears passionate about the issue.
 
Last edited:
Yesterday I was standing on a public sidewalk owned by the City of Vancouver, exercising my Constitutional right to express my opinion in a peaceful manner. A uniformed NPS ranger came to me and those with me. He pointed at small area, about 50x50' outlined by some orange cones, in the huge park across the street. He said that was the Park's "designated First Amendment area" and requested that we move there.
But still inside the boundaries of the monument?
 
If so. so what? Maybe an opportunity to use their jackboots on the enemy?
Heavens, no. Just to be arranged, organized, sterilized, catalogued, displayed and "interpreted," like all the other exhibits.

The orange cones in the photo below outline the "designated First Amendment area" for the 366-acre Park. :nono:

PhotoFeb0733829PM_zps23442308.jpg
 
Last edited:
“It’s regrettable that all the contents were removed. We’re going to have to look at the possibilities.”
Because we didn't get a chance to seize them. Poor scum baby.

I'm amazed that NPS personnel apparently expected non federal government property to just be turned over to them. :confused:

I have also been unable to find any clause in the First Amendment that says it only applies in a "designated First Amendment area." Perhaps I'm not reading it correctly.

And I'm puzzled about why NPS personnel thought they had any authority over a protest that was being conducted on a city street.
 
I have also been unable to find any clause in the First Amendment that says it only applies in a "designated First Amendment area." Perhaps I'm not reading it correctly.

And I'm puzzled about why NPS personnel thought they had any authority over a protest that was being conducted on a city street.

One is left to presume that though the street was constructed by the city, it was pursuant to a right of way or easement granted (as noted many times in the administrative history I linked) inside the site.

“Even protected speech is not equally permissible in all
places and at all times. Nothing in the Constitution requires
the Government freely to grant access to all who wish to
exercise their right to free speech on every type of
Government property without regard to the nature of the
property or to the disruption that might be caused by the
speaker’s activities.”

You'll be shocked to learn that much as funeral attendees don't appreciate protesters, park visitors don't appreciate them either. Thus the attempt to balance multiple competing constituencies by providing space where people can express themselves, in a way that people who don't want to listen to that expression can avoid it. The Supreme Court has ruled that conduct is not protected speech, and specifically listed picketing as conduct.
 
Last edited:
One is left to presume that though the street was constructed by the city, it was pursuant to a right of way or easement granted (as noted many times in the administrative history I linked) inside the site.

Or, one could presume that the retired judge who was there knew more about the legal status of the protest than you or I.

But why presume anything? That's equivalent to saying, "I don't know the facts, so I'm just going to make something up."

You'll be shocked to learn that much as funeral attendees don't appreciate protesters, park visitors don't appreciate them either.

And tyrants, even petty ones, appreciate them even less.
 
Last edited:
My apologies. I thought you were really asking.

Or, one could presume that the retired judge who was there knew more about the legal status of the protest than you or I.

But why presume anything? That's equivalent to saying, "I don't know the facts, so I'm just going to make something up."

I would never make the presumption that a retired local judge knows more about the nuances of First Amendment assembly/speech issues that the SCOTUS.

We presume around this joint all the time. For example we're being asked to presume that the organization's press releases frame the issue in entirety instead of the more likely scenario that they present an effort to shape opinion. We presume that one Congresswoman in some letters can override the stated intent of the entire Congress in the pieces of legislation affecting the historic site. We presume that the city manager hasn't forgotten the promises the city made then cynically ignored over the years, about using certain monies received from the federal taxpayer to develop a new GA airport elsewhere.

But beyond presumption I'll stand by my assertions in this thread.
 
Last edited:
I live 500 feet from Grand Teton National Park and next to Yellowstone National Park...... What you detail is absolutely normal actions from the NPS.... They are charged to protect US assets and their usual "politically correct" answer to this type of protection is " Preservation by Neglect"...

Cumberland Island off the coast of Georgia is another example. The island's owners were strong armed to sell, but negotiated some land use rights. The NPS has spent 40 years chipping away at those rights and allowing structures on the island to rot and eventually collapse.
 
My apologies. I thought you were really asking.



I would never make the presumption that a retired local judge knows more about the nuances of First Amendment assembly/speech issues that the SCOTUS.

We presume around this joint all the time. For example we're being asked to presume that the organization's press releases frame the issue in entirety instead of the more likely scenario that they present an effort to shape opinion. We presume that one Congresswoman in some letters can override the stated intent of the entire Congress in the pieces of legislation affecting the historic site. We presume that the city manager hasn't forgotten the promises the city made then cynically ignored over the years, about using certain monies received from the federal taxpayer to develop a new GA airport elsewhere.

But beyond presumption I'll stand by my assertions in this thread.

What sort of violations did the trust perform for the NPS to demand handing over mt he keys?
 
What sort of violations did the trust perform for the NPS to demand handing over mt he keys?
Having the nerve to decline to submit to NPS demands, including:
• NPS approval of all education and interpretive programming developed by the Trust up to a year in advance. NPS would also prohibit the Trust from entering into sub-agreements with education partners and would require that current relationships and agreements with education partners be transferred to NPS management.
• NPS approval of all events inside and outside the Museum Complex through individual special use permits with very restrictive criteria for approvals.
• NPS approval of all Trust income and expenditures associated with the Museum Complex, although the NPS would bear no financial responsibility for operational or capital support for the Museum Complex.
• Reduction in the land and building footprint of the Museum Complex, hindering the programs and operations of the Museum.
• Transfer of ownership and management of the Trust’s collections and exhibits to the NPS.

A little ad-hoc government redistribution of wealth, as it were. ;)

To coin a phrase, "You [NPS] didn't build that."
 
I'm surprised I knew the NPS was bad, I didn't realize how bad. The parks would be better served in private hands.
 
I'm surprised I knew the NPS was bad, I didn't realize how bad. The parks would be better served in private hands.

ROFL. In Vancouver it would be under a highway interchange. Oh, wait...

At any rate, hopefully the parties can work out their differences.

Until then...

duty_calls.png
 
I hope they don't close it altogether, that is the oldest airport in the area. A lot of history. Charles Lindbergh landed there on his USA tour after his famous trip to Paris. Why is the Park Service just now getting around to making its move?
 
ROFL. In Vancouver it would be under a highway interchange. Oh, wait...
I dig the irony :wink2: -- but if the CRC (a coalition of public entities) gets its way, most of downtown Vancouver, including the Fort, will feel like being under the 'El' in Chicago.

At any rate, hopefully the parties can work out their differences.
On this we agree.

:)
 
Back
Top