This debate has plagued the management of the Parks since their founding (Public Broadcasting Service, “The National Parks: America’s Best Idea”). There are those who believe that the value of the park experience lies in primitive isolation. These people want to reconnect with the pioneer heritage of America or challenge themselves like early explorers. However, in another camp are those that believe that the parks should be open to all and that it is the business of the parks to attract visitors. These two outlooks are at odds with one another and there is no way to satisfy both parties fully. There is no way to “fix” this dilemma, as it is a difference in personal preference. And since every American is a part owner of the parks and non-citizens are welcome to visit, it is something that impacts everyone. What kind of experience do you want when you visit a park?
The option advocated by this team is that the Parks should be developed further to attract and accommodate more visitors. There are several advantages to this option. Historically, the Parks were established as not only a way to preserve natural wonders, but also to make money off of land that was otherwise unusable (Public Broadcasting System, “The National Parks: America’s Best Idea”). To an agrarian nation, what use was there for the mountainous and rocky terrain that composes much of Yosemite? What was the use of a desert filled with arches or other formations? These places were majestic, but not of much use. Tourism is a way to bring in income. Currently, the tourist industries of the parks create and sustain jobs not only inside the park, but in the areas around the parks. Rangers, hotel workers, waiters, cooks, tour guides, and shop owners all make a living due to the millions of visitors a year. It is estimated that the Park Service brings in 10 billion dollars a year in revenue to local economies (National Park Service, “Quick Facts”). Further developing the parks would only help grow this economy.
Though it stands counterintuitive, developing the Parks can also help the ecology of the area. The concept is called “hardening” and it reasons that by developing established trails and roads through the parks, people are kept in certain areas and overall environmental degradation is contained. Instead of having 100 people creating their own trails, damaging flora, and furthering soil erosion, visitors are kept on a single path which has gravel or has been paved. This way, having 100 or even 100,000 people on one established trail makes little difference (Cahill, Marion, and Lawson, 2008, pg. 233). This option also limits the areas that visitors access. Most will not feel the need to diverge from the areas accessible by road or path and will leave the other areas of the park undisturbed. This provides vast areas where wildlife can remain isolated.
The ideals of “isolation” and “primitivism” are also not appealing to the vast majority of visitors. The most popular and visited park unit in the country is the winding Blue Ridge Parkway, with over 16,000 visitors annually (NPS: Explore Nature, “NPS Reports). Many of the park’s visitors never even get out of their car. These people are not looking for a primitive experience. They do not feel the need to be entirely isolated, away from the creations and distractions of modern man. They simply would like to enjoy the scenery, see iconic American sites, and perhaps get a little exercise. This is enough for them to “get away.”
Last year, the Park Service hosted over 14 million overnight visitors. Of them, only 13% spent the night in back country. The remaining 87% enjoyed stays in the available hotels and campsites (NPS: Explore Nature, “NPS Reports). In fact, the Grand Lodge in Yellowstone is so popular that reservations have to be made almost a year in advance. People like amenities and are more comfortable being able to take a hot shower and falling into bed after a day touring the Park. Standards of living have changed over the last century and so has what people have come to expect. Toilets and showers are standard amenities. To many, camping in a tent, even with a mattress pad and an electric blanket, is “roughing it.” Many Americans feel no need to revert back to the days of pioneers and explorers. They have no need to feel isolated. Most today are used to the presence of others, or even crowds when recreating. For these, the experience is not diminished, and is in many cases enhanced, by development in the Parks.
The groups that advocate isolated and primitive experiences also advocate limiting visitor access to the Parks. Currently, there are too many people visiting the parks for those seeking these types of experiences to have them. The presence of the roads, trails, and facilities that encourage and enable so many tourists is also disruptive. However, their calls for wide limitations beg the question how is this to be regulated? How will it be decided who can visit the park and when? Raising fees excludes the poor and makes the experiences elitist. Opening the parks on a first come first serve basis is biased towards those close to the park or those with enough time to stand in line. Random selection limits anyone who wants to plan a vacation and has to make travel arrangements. Each possible method of limitation threatens to leave someone out.
As mentioned before, the roads, trails, and other facilities are considered unnecessary disturbances or eyesores to this group. They propose reducing or even completely removing these amenities. Doing this would create an even larger issue regarding access than simple quotas. Removing roads, hiking trails, and bathrooms creates huge problems for the elderly, the disabled and small children. Without these amenities, it is unlikely that these groups would be able to enter and experience the parks. Removing the facilities that enable these groups as visitors is a method of discrimination and systematically excludes them. Recreating and preserving the primitive isolation experiences of explorers and pioneers also requires regressing to their standards of equality. Is this experience of the past so important that it outweighs the progress of today?
Moreover, in a nation that faces the challenges of obesity and lethargy, is it wise to limit park visitors? Parks provide a place for recreation and exercise. People can swim, hike, play Frisbee or engage in any number of activities which will get them moving. While the “primitive” experience and limited access promotes strenuous activity in a few, keeping the parks open to everyone provides a chance for everyone to improve their health.
Keeping National Parks open to everyone and even furthering development is the best option for the majority of the country. While a type of experience might be lost, the greater good lies in this option. More people can visit, learn, and experience national treasures that rightfully belong to them. People of all ages will be able to visit and those with disabilities will not be excluded from yet another experience they have a right to. Limiting the Parks is elitist and only serves the interest of a few who feel the need to relive the past.
Bibliography:
Cahill, Kerri L., Jeffrey L. Marion, and Steven R. Lawson. "Exploring Visitor Acceptability for Hardening Trails to Sustain Visitation and Minimize Impacts." Journal of Sustainable Tourism 16 (2008): 232-45. Ebsco Host. Wildlife & Ecology Studies. Newman, Blacksburg. 7 Oct. 2009. Keyword: National Parks, Hardening.
"The National Parks: America's Best Idea: History Episode 3 Page 1 ." PBS. Public Broadcasting System. 14 Nov. 2009 http://www.pbs.org/nationalparks/history/ep3/.
"NPS Reports." NPS: Explore Nature. National Park Service. 14 Nov. 2009 http://www.nature.nps.gov/stats/viewReport.cfm.
"U.S. National Park Service Quick Facts." U.S. National Park Service - Experience Your America. National Park Service. 14 Nov. 2009
