Thanks Phil, yes a few advertisers in that PDF (unless there are more in the hard copy then i'm not seeing that huts group... (?)).
And yes, of course it's an endorsement. Either negating the need to look further or appearing that a company has passed some higher level of testing. From a partnership POV, an aleady paid membership, it is unhelpful. For the public, potentially grubby. The tourism industry body do this sort of thing with their publications and awards, none requiring more than capacity to pay, though appearing as more, in itself keeping participation (and attendance) up.
What should we expect, as follows from this, of the integrity of less-public examples on the tourism/parks partnership interface..
Hold On wrote:Haters hate mte.
Sherrard /Godfrey, Currant, Pennicott, Walsh even. Not to mention the faceless multinationals lapping around park entrances. The real influence on public service. Good or bad, owners (and assets) move on. A fresh start, now from an new level.
All good, I encourage them to be courageous.
Owners do move on, which makes naming current owners less helpful, but you are correct and what is left becomes the new norm. As far as what happens within park boundaries, I can't see anything more progressive than preservation. I'm sure there will always be a number (of park service and tourism staff) with a genuine care for wilderness, but we shouldn't underestimate peer pressure accounting for them, and the less imaginative. And 'being agreeable', from what iv'e seen, is an overarching attribute in climbing those ladders.