National Parks: a Double Edged Sword?

National greennesss A Double Edged marque? Justin pearly Environmental History Prof. Mark Bishop Newell Tuesday July 21, 2009 Pearly 1 hardly a(prenominal) let onranks outhouse match the sheer diversity of wildlife and culture that exists in the provinces depicted object put system. Humans, with the future in mind, go for inured aside these beautiful sites of wonder and awe. But at what cost? Do national parks end up being unassailable and badly at the same time? Our national parks argon a supposed to be a earthy treasure.Here the unspoiled splendour and beauty of nature sens be appreciated in its well-nigh pristine form. However, the amount of stack that atomic number 18 visiting these parks has lift to levels that threaten the very beauty and well-being of these paradises. Its now appears app arnt that on that point is a price to pay for wholeowing humanness into an area that did not find many humans before. To understand the present state of the nation s parks, and ultimately their entire future, it is crucial to first look support at the past. The first national park was Yellowstone National honey oil.This sprawling park contains such(prenominal) amazing geological and biological sites that it had been visualiseed a national park considerable before it was ever officially named one. Its combination of diverse wildlife, and geologic features such as, piddlefalls, canyons, geysers, and hot springs make it manifest to any who had experienced it, that this was a place that should be preserved well(p) the way it was. That was why in 1872, chairperson Ulysses S. Grant made it officially the worlds first national park. The only problem being, it was a completely unique creation, the first of its kind.This inwardness that all ground 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 giving medication body for national parks Congre ss fabricated a Pearly 2 National Park Service that would operate within jurisdiction of the secretarial assistant of the interior. Signed by President Woodrow Wilson on August 25, 1916, the National Park Service Organic profess created the National Park Service which honk the countrys national parks in its jurisdiction.Wendy Hart Beckman in her book entitled National set in Crisis Debating the Issues, states that, The Organic Act said the National Park Services purpose was to lift and regulate the use of the national parks which purpose is to conserve panorama and the natural historic objects and the wild life therein and to provide for the employment of the same in such manner and by such manner as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations. When act to unravel the ethics and places concerning the parks one must keep referring back to this original mission statement.The purpose of national parks is to enjoy the tantrum and to leave it unchanged for future generations. However, this statement seems somewhat contradictory, when considering the fact that around national parks are areas that did not corroborate native humans for much of their taradiddle. integrity 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 overt reason to let people into our national parks is for their own individualised enjoyment.People derive a great deal of pleasure out of leaving their boring, monotonous urban and suburban lives behind steady if it is for just a weekend, or merely an change surfaceing. People in cites often booster cable sedentary lifestyles, and essential to pass away outside in a natural setting even if it is just to walk. Some people strength even think the air in these preserves tastes fresher People get a taste of what the earth was like before humans were there. These Pearly 3 can be places of relaxing or e xercising. Have a you ever scaled a thousand foot mountain?Hiking can be quite exhilarating. Parents can, in effect, introduce the next generation of conservationists to these areas. Children that pass on grown up with these sites in their hearts will never freeze how incredibly important they are. People becoming informed and interested in nature is one of the most important functions of a national park besides the preservation of the actual land itself. still without any preliminary 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 happen something with their own eyes, it is very different from looking at a picture, or reading about something in a textbook. There is a explicit advantage to experiencing things in person. Subtleties stand out. All five senses can be invoked. People who are not familiar with this kind of beauty are usually particularly awestruck. A memory is formed wh ich is nearly undoable to erase or change (although ones perspective of the display case can change). Every time one person gets hooked on nature, that person will usually try to their share its grandeur with different people.People who appreciate that wonderful state of nature will then go out of their way to help conserve it. There is likewise a secondary effect in addition to making the individual find out good. Whether or not a reverence for nature existed before their encounters with these spiritual sanctuaries does not matter at the point that people start to cathexis about these wonderlands. All that matters then is that people who have visited and enjoyed themselves now touch like they have a vested interest in the parks. Now that they have traveled with the park, they feel the weight of responsibility for their actions.They also authorise that everything they do, can produce an effect which, were they not there, never would have occurred. The more than Pearly 4 aware and informed people are, the better the decisions they function to make. There is even an organization called surrender No Trace, Inc. which tries to inform visitors of ship canal they can reduce the amount of impact on the ecosystem during visits. The group has even compiled a list of seven principles that can help people lessen their impact on the land. 1. Travel and camp on durable surfaces 2. Leave what you find 3.Plan ahead and prepare 4. Dispose of waste aright 5. Minimize campfire impacts 6. Respect Wildlife 7. Be considerate of other visitors While all these principles sound nice on paper, the amount that people adhere to them, and how good they can be in reducing our footprint remains to be seen. When discussing the concept of leaving not trace one must put down to wonder about the impact of human travel. Even a foot-trail through a park is holdfast the natural landscape. The question of how much altering of the landscape is acceptable is not an easy one.It ha s led to intense literary argument for over a century. Roads are one of the most obvious signs of human interference. While providing a route for visitors to come and enjoy the parks, they also obscure the natural landscape. I think most would agree that a road cutting 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 green method such a bicycles, or walking.There is also a major issue of dam up building. Many a heated debate has occurred when discussing dam building. There are a few(prenominal) 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 federal Bureau of Reclamation proposed putting a dam in Dinosaur National Monumen ts Echo Canyon. The purpose of this would be create a clean source of electricity using the power of the water flowing 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 ache and curious story. With the purport of making the park safer for visitors, park staff have, in the past, killed animals that were deemed a nuisance. This includes rapacious 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 ingress parks are told specifically not to feed the animals. It is a sample that is not heeded as much as it needs to be. When wild animals are fed by humans they get conditioned to expect victuals from them. Therefore, they are more likely to come around humans hoping for food. This can be very dangerous While wild animals can seem cute Pearly 6 and harmless they rarely are (harmless of course). Even something seemingly docile like a white-tailed deer can set about 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 authorisation 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 convincing arguments. National parks are an important part of American history and need to be preserved for the enjoyment of future generation s.Debate is good in the sense that any publicity is good publicity. As long as people feel strongly on both 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 Evening 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