National Parks: a Double Edged Sword?

content Parks A Double Edged Sword? Justin Pearly environmental History Prof. Mark Bishop Newell Tuesday July 21, 2009 Pearly 1 Few places understructure buoy match the sheer diversity of wildlife and polish that exists in the coun adjudicates discipline third estate system. Hu cosmoss, with the future in mind, have set away these beautiful sites of wonder and awe. But at what cost? Do national set end up being good and bad at the same time? Our national parks be a supposed to be a instinctive trea trusted.Here the unspoiled grandeur and beauty of genius batch be appreciated in its closely pristine form. However, the amount of multitude that are visiting these parks has risen to levels that threaten the very beauty and well-being of these paradises. Its now fronts apparent that at that place is a monetary value to pay for allowing humanes into an area that did not have many humans in the lead. To understand the present disk operating system of the nations parks, a nd ultimately their entire future, it is crucial to outset look back at the past. The offset-year national park was Yellowstone internal Park.This sprawling park contains such(prenominal) amazing geological and biological sites that it had been numbered a national park long before it was ever officially named one. Its combination of diverse wildlife, and geologic features such as, irrigatefalls, canyons, geysers, and hot springs made it obvious to any who had experienced it, that this was a place that should be maintain respectable the way it was. That was why in 1872, President Ulysses S. Grant made it officially the worlds first national park. The only problem being, it was a comp permitely unique creation, the first of its kind.This means that all design that they covered would be new. Due to inconsistencies with the way national parks were being governed, and the fact that there were was no central governing body for national parks Congress attaind a Pearly 2 National Park Service that would operate within jurisdiction of the Secretary of the interior. Signed by President Woodrow Wilson on August 25, 1916, the National Park Service Organic Act created the National Park Service which throw away the countrys national parks in its jurisdiction.Wendy Hart Beckman in her book entitled National Parks in Crisis Debating the Issues, states that, The Organic Act said the National Park Services function was to promote and regulate the use of the national parks which usage is to conserve scenery and the natural diachronic objects and the wild life therein and to provide for the have it offment of the same in such manner and by such means as pull up stakes leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations. When trying to operate the ethics and issues concerning the parks one must keep referring back to this original mission statement.The purpose of national parks is to enjoy the scenery and to leave it unchanged for future generations. Ho wever, this statement seems somewhat contradictory, when considering the fact that most national parks are areas that did not have native humans for much of their history. One of the first things to consider about this complex issue is Why do people want to go there in the first place? Why is it important to them? The first and most obvious reason to let people into our national parks is for their own personal enjoyment. tribe derive a great plenty of pleasure out of leaving their boring, monotonous urban and suburban lives behind crimson if it is for just a weekend, or merely an evening. People in cites often lead sedentary lifestyles, and motivation to get alfresco in a natural setting even if it is just to walk. Some people might even think the air in these preserves tastes fresher People get a taste of what the populace was equivalent before humans were there. These Pearly 3 can be places of relaxing or exercising. hold up a you ever scaled a thousand foot mountain?Hiking can be rather exhilarating. Parents can, in effect, introduce the next generation of conservationists to these areas. Children that have grown up with these sites in their hearts will never forget how incredibly important they are. People becoming in organize and interested in nature is one of the most important functions of a national park besides the preservation of the actual rural area itself. Even without any previous interactions with nature, or any history or knowledge of the place that you are going to you may find and enjoyment to be effortless.When people witness something with their own eyes, it is very contrary from looking at a picture, or reading about something in a textbook. There is a definitive advantage to experiencing things in person. Subtleties stand out. all in all five senses can be invoked. People who are not familiar with this kind of beauty are usually particularly awestruck. A memory is formed which is nearly impossible to erase or change (although o nes perspective of the event can change). Every time one person gets hooked on nature, that person will usually try to their share its grandeur with other people.People who appreciate that wonderful wilderness will then go out of their way to help conserve it. There is in addition a secondary effect in addition to making the individual feel good. Whether or not a reverence for nature existed before their encounters with these sacred sanctuaries does not matter at the point that people start to care about these wonderlands. All that matters then is that people who have visited and enjoyed themselves now feel like they have a vested interest in the parks. Now that they have traveled through the park, they feel the weight of responsibility for their actions.They also realize that everything they do, can produce an effect which, were they not there, never would have occurred. The more Pearly 4 aware and conscious people are, the better the decisions they tend to make. There is even an organization called Leave No Trace, Inc. which tries to inform visitors of slipway they can reduce the amount of impact on the ecosystem during visits. The group has even compiled a list of 7 principles that can help people lessen their impact on the land. 1. Travel and camp on permanent surfaces 2. Leave what you find 3.Plan ahead and prepare 4. Dispose of waste properly 5. Minimize campfire impacts 6. delight in Wildlife 7. Be considerate of other visitors While all these principles sound nice on paper, the amount that people adhere to them, and how effective they can be in reducing our footprint remains to be seen. When discussing the archetype of leaving not trace one must begin to wonder about the impact of human travel. Even a foot-trail through a park is fixing the natural landscape. The question of how much altering of the landscape is acceptable is not an easy one.It has led to intense debate for over a century. roads are one of the most obvious signs of human inte rference. While providing a route for visitors to espouse and enjoy the parks, they also obscure the natural landscape. I think most would agree that a road desolate through even the most pristine wilderness takes Pearly 5 something away from it. So, the parks need people, and people need roads. Or do they? A rather extreme solution might be to restrict road building all together. Access to areas could be achieved by a more super acid method such a bicycles, or walking.There is also a major issue of butch building. Many a heated debate has occurred when discussing dam building. There are few things that alter the natural landscape like a dam. One would think that national parks would be free from man made structures such as dams. However this is not the case. For example in the 1930s the provideeral delegacy of Reclamation proposed putting a dam in Dinosaur National Monuments Echo Canyon. The purpose of this would be create a clean source of electricity using the power of the water catamenia over the dam that would be built.While many of the locals upstream from the dam liked the prospect of water in their dry canyon, they would be flooding one of the greatest fossil sites of the Jurassic. Lets consider the interaction between people and animals. This has been a long and curious story. With the intention of making the park safer for visitors, park staff have, in the past, killed animals that were deemed a nuisance. This includes predatory animals such as wolf or bear, but also includes herbivores such as the elk. And while it is no longer legal for anyone to kill these animals, we have accepted a very shaky truce with them.Humans entering parks are told specifically not to eat on the animals. It is a warning that is not heeded as much as it needs to be. When wild animals are fed by humans they get conditioned to expect food from them. Therefore, they are more liable(predicate) to come around humans hoping for food. This can be very dangerous While wil d animals can seem cute Pearly 6 and harmless they rarely are (harmless of course). Even something seemingly docile like a white-tailed deer can become aggressive and do severe damage, especially to an unsuspecting human. People frequently fail to realize that wild animals are just that wild.Wild translates into unpredictable. Im sure I could get more than a few circus performers to agree with me. The irony of this whole situation is the greatest asset to national parks also happens to be their greatest downfall, Humans, while having the potential to create on a monumental level, also have a similar capacity for destruction. Even more confusing is that fact that the opinions of people on both sides of these issue have well founded, and very convert arguments. National parks are an important part of American history and need to be preserved for the enjoyment of future generations.Debate is good in the sense that any publicity is good publicity. As long as people feel strongly on bot h sides we are more likely to reach some sort of compromise. Pearly 7 Bibliography De Voto, Bernard. Shall we let them ruin our national parks? Saturday level Post, July 22, 1950. Chittenden, Hiram Martin. The Yellowstone National Park Beckman, Wendy Hart. National Parks in Crisis Debating the Issues (Berkley Heights Enslow, 2004) Wendy Hart Beckman, National Parks in Crisis Debating the Issues (Berkley Heights Enslow, 2004) Beckman 18, 19 Beckman 65-68 Beckman 19, 20 Beckman 14, 15, 53