To achieve the conservation goals of national parks, involving locals in park operations provides a win/win approach for local development and wildlife management. However, while some bioeconomic studies examine the effectiveness of biodiversity conservation projects that employ locals, most ignore the direct involvement of local workers in national park operations. Moreover, the existing literature tends to assume that national parks are for-profit organizations, whereas they are generally non-profit entities. In this study, we develop a bioeconomic model to investigate the extent to which involving locals in tourism in a national park managed under two different styles of management (i.e., non-profit and for-profit agencies) influences wildlife conservation. We find certain conditions under which involving locals in national park operations can conserve wildlife. Under these conditions, if wildlife conservation does not reduce agricultural productivity, non-profit agencies raise the utility of locals and promote wildlife conservation more than for-profit agencies. Otherwise, non-profit agencies do not necessarily increase the utility of locals or improve conservation compared with for-profit agencies. In addition, we compare the equilibria under both types of agencies and show that they do not generally achieve the social optimum.