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
The national parks should be open to anyone and everyone that wants to experience America’s natural wonders, according to this group. The demand to view majestic scenery with safe, comfortable accessibility should be met by the tourism industry, just like any other industry. It was surprising to learn that the National Park Service brings in $10 billion to local economies. If the number of visitors to parks is limited, this would result in a loss of numerous jobs and severely impact the economy. The “hardening” of parks also helps prevent erosion and damage to the ecology, while still meeting the aesthetic needs of most visitors that aren’t looking for solitude or primitivism. The statistics on overnight visitors show that far greater numbers of people prefer to stay in the comfort of a campsite, hotel or lodge. It was interesting to hear this group remark that those looking for primitivism are living in the past, while the future of our national parks should be to offer exercise, aesthetic experiences, and fair visitation for all.
ReplyDeleteGroup B
ReplyDeleteThe National Park system is in a dilemma should they open visitation to the public or limit for preservation of the resources. the stance the group is taking is that the land was preserved to benefit the people economically. They believe that the parks should be developed to promote tourism and local economies. With this if trails and land are developed it is believed to limit impacts or the greater ecosystem, this doesn’t take into account the fragmentation of habitat due to the trails. On average visitors to the park prefer to stay in a hotel and bed than roughing it in a tent and the woods. In the end promoting development of facilities in National Parks is the only way to avoid elitism and keep the ability to visit the parks equal for all (elderly and elitist).
This argument is that the parks are ours as citizens and as citizens all should be welcome, this means accommodations for elderly, handicapped, and the public as a whole. That the greatest benefit to the public is to industrialize through tourism, this allows for the most visitors and most jobs promoting the economy and still providing the public with their parks system. They see the parks service as a tool to provide them with what they want, but is that what the parks service is set out to do. The parks service does provide us with equality but does it fulfill its charge to “conserve the scenery… unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations?” Does ‘hardening’ our parks protect our natural and historical objects for our posterity?
ReplyDeleteI agree with this groups position. I think they did a good job describing why trails, roads, and amenities benefit todays society more than a primitive area does. It was some what explained on how the natural part would be preserved, but not completely clear you would still be intruding on a natural environment me by allowing thousands of visitors a day into it. This would still cause some destruction if you allow cars into the area because of the pollution.
ReplyDeleteGroup B displayed sound reasoning while supporting their position. They explained that easier access is important so that more individuals can come to enjoy what the park has to offer. The group said that the parks can make a profit off of the land that would otherwise be unusable by any other means. This influx of visitors would boost the economy in the surrounding areas and would also help in creating new job that are a direct result from the building of hotels, restaurants, and other businesses that could profit from the large crowds of people coming to attend the parks. Group B also did a nice job at describing how the degradation of habitat would be isolated since most people travel on trails. They showed that most individuals did not prefer the primitive experience of the park and further went on to explain that some of the amenities provided by nearby businesses that make the park less primitive were favored by the park goers. The group presented their views well and gave good supporting examples that helped to make their stance seem more appealing.
ReplyDeleteOverall the paper is good with allot of factoids, however people who visit the Blue Ridge parkway and those who visit Yosemite usually visit for different reasons. The Blue Ridge is mostly just woodland and pretty mountain tops, as well the wildlife of the area have become so accustomed to people incidental run ins happen every year. Yosemite on the other hand is more wild country with an established wolf population as well as bison, putting roads though the park would do no good to anybody or any animal in the park. And whats to say that if you put a road through the park that people are actually going to want to get out of their cars and walk.
ReplyDeleteGroup B believes that parks should be intensively managed and made accessible to everyone. Families, along with the elderly and disabled, have the right to enjoy nature in a friendly and carefree atmosphere. Parks also provide a steady flow of income to areas that otherwise would receive little or none. Contrary to popular belief, parks can actually improve the landscape by reducing the amount of erosion and vegetation loss that would happen if tourists did not have paved paths to travel on. Group B also points out the fact that those individuals seeking primitivism and isolation are a dying breed. It is much more efficient and sensible to cater to the majority of the population that demands cozy hotel rooms and fast food restaurants next to their parks. That being said, what is keeping the national parks of the future from becoming replicas of Disney World or Busch Gardens?
ReplyDeleteGroup B promotes the management of parks to cater to everyone. They say that no matter what technique is used to limit visitors, people will be left out. The group also describes how paved trails actually promote the preservation of isolated areas. By having the paved areas, visitors do not roam freely wherever they please. I agree with some aspects of this group’s argument. This is definitely a complicated situation that will leave people unhappy no matter what is done.
ReplyDelete-jacob Estienne
Group B addresses the problem of which holds a higher importance, the preservation on nature or the ability for all people to be able to enjoy the experience of the nature. Group B argues that it is important for all people to be able to experience nature even if it sacrifices some of the “authenticity’ of it. The group also addresses the fact that the increased accessibility of park may allow the rest of the park to be disturbed less. It will discourage people to wander into certain areas of the park which can then preserved.
ReplyDeleteC. Group B brings up some very interesting points about our parks and harm against them from visitation. Should we really worry about our land or how we create business? Is the preservation of our land more important than enjoying a wonderful life experience with nature? Group B brings up the point about how some parks are now thinking more along the lines of how business is going and not thinking about what is bringing the business! Parks are keeping visitors in a certain area throughout the parks. But, isn’t it the part of camping in nature to experience the feeling of getting out and finding your own personal space?
ReplyDeleteGroup B argues that since we have increased our standard of living, we should keep that in our National Parks and make them more accessible to people. I disagree that the “scenic” land had little economic value. Agriculture would have developed in those areas, and would be adapted to the specific climate. A desert didn’t necessarily need to have value because people avoided it. Although the Parks do provide employment for thousands of people, many of these tend to be seasonal, especially in the northern half of the country (minus a few parks). Parks such as Shenandoah National Park tend to have a peak of visitors in the fall, so it isn’t necessary to offer full time jobs when there is no need for them in the off season. I agree that hardening is a good idea proposed for parks, but I feel that it is human nature to want to venture off the trail, which causes more damage to the local ecology. It has the potential to cause a lot of damage due to the concentration of people in the parks. I agree that our standards of living have increased and that parks should reflect that, but parks shouldn’t exclude people who want to experience solitude.
ReplyDeleteThis teams position to keep National Parks as public entertainment and recreation has some liable points. I do not know how I would argue to regulate the amount of people coming into the parks. I also agree that everyone, of all ages and abilities, should be able to enjoy the parks. I disagree,however, that the parks "use" should be synonymous with income. I understand there needs to be a certain level of income, but that should not be the staple motive of the national park service by any means. I also do not think that any of the parks existing lodges or infrastructure should be torn down, at the same time I do not think there should be any further construction. Renovate the old lodges and make use of what remains, but do not abuse the fact that Americans have changed their standard of living by building lavish new infrastructure. The point of camping is getting AWAY from the world. Let's keep it that way.
ReplyDeleteGroup B argues that the parks should be further developed. I do not whole heartedly agree with this statement. I do feel that there is the need to provide people with a comfortable experience while they are in the park but the areas should be developed like amusement parks. The national parks were created for a different reason and I feel that further development would lose sight of the original goals and that was to preserve the land and wildlife encompassed in the national park for furture generations.
ReplyDeleteIt is clear that people derive benefits from the amenities that are installed in National Parks. It is also clear that there wouldn’t be as much tourism to these areas, were there fewer amenities. However, when things such as roads and bathrooms are built, the experience for everyone is degraded. Disrupting the authenticity of the environment is irresponsible. Group B argues that the roads, bathrooms, etc are essential for allowing the elderly and the disabled to enjoy the park experience. However, this is only true to a point. Indeed, those people who are not in top physical condition should be able to enjoy nature as much as everyone else. But we do not need to continue paving our precious wilderness. There are enough places that are handicapped-accessible already. It should not be necessary that 100% of a park can be accessed by a wheelchair. We should keep the current level of accessibility, and stop disturbing the sanctity of our parks.
ReplyDeleteTeam B is advocating that the National Park System was created to and continues to be primarily a source of income for millions of Park Service employees and local communities. Also, the large numbers of visitors have little impact on the parks because they stay on 'hardended trails', which makes it impossible to tell if there was 100 people visiting or 100,000. Team B also points out that the majority of visitors have little desire to go into the backcountry, based solely on the visitor levels.
ReplyDeleteIn contrast to what they argue, I believe that the National Parks were NOT created to be a capital venture, but rather to preserve the integrity, biological diversity and wilderness displaced in the nationally designated areas. Also, the idea of hardening trails only leaves greater impacts on the environment. People NEVER stay solely on the trail. It is innate for people to want to explore the surroundings and venture off the paved path. It is not possible to develop the parks more to make them more authentically natural, it is an oxy-moron in the highest sense.
Team B believes that an increase in park amenities and park infrastructure will ease congestion into our National parks and will allow people to have a more comfortable, visiually pleasing experience to all 450 million park visitors.
ReplyDeleteIn all honesty the national parks are only so big and making things better and more attractive will only pack more people into an already overcrowded park. The opposite approach should be taken to disband and discourage hoards of people flooding the Parks system.
I first noticed Group A and Group B, have different data on the number of visitors in 2008. Group A says 450 million, Group B says greater than 270 million visitors. Also Group A said the debate is whether national parks should or should not limit access has plagued the management of the parks since their founding. I feel this is not a legitimate argument since the founding of the national park was for the preservation of the land and wildlife, and had nothing to do with the access, since many rarely if ever visited them. I feel that one could argue that the reason for the use of a desert or rocky terrain was for aesthetic purposes. Also in order to provide a place of escape. It has been proven that nature improves the well being of people, therefore, giving a purpose for the land. Group B wants to contain the exploration so further degradation can be restricted. If they did not exist there may be a possibility that a larger area of land would be destroyed and contaminated. They also believe that the amenities are there for the use of children and elderly who are at time deemed unfit without them. They feel lthat the use and visitation of these lands are proof of the progress of today. They also believe that the aesthetics of nature provides the vicinity to inspire those to exercise as well, therefore creating a smaller US.
ReplyDelete3. I like how this group points out the facts that when parks are open to all of the public, more get to experience nature. Also, they point out how the park can raise a profit that would otherwise never be made if the park was fit for the wild, while also creating new jobs. Why I it necessary to put roads and blockages in the wilderness that can potentially ham our wild animals, just for human pleasure? Why wouldn’t this position just infer that recreational parks will all become like Disney World or Busch Gardens?
ReplyDeleteGroup B argues that national parks should be developed with recreational facilities to attract and house more visitors, and that the number of visitors should not be regulated just to promote a primitive experience for those seeking one. They point out that standards have changed over the past few decades, and that now, people expect amenities such as showers and toilets to be available when they travel to national parks. Group B also argues that every method of limiting the number of visitors to our national parks would be unfair to certain groups of people. According to Group B, the quantity of visits to national parks is more important than the quality of the experiences of the visitors, assuming they were expecting to experience solitude and isolation. They also state that a "primitive," "wild" experience is "not appealing to the vast majority of visitors" to the parks. Group B has developed a good argument, including statistical information to support their position. It will be a very interesting debate.
ReplyDeleteGroup B took the stance that a developed, planned-out park is a better way for the public to enjoy their experience. Rather than having visitors to parks make their own trails and threaten to injure and kill the flora and fauna in the area, but there is the possibility of them injuring themselves due to going into the unknown and un-kept. By creating gravel paths, the parks system tries to prevent this from happening, for the good of the parks as well as its visitors.
ReplyDeleteGroup B says that we should open up the national parks to all comers, and increase capacity if needed. They argue that there may be a loss of isolation and privacy, but not that many people are looking for the primitive experience. Having parks open and accessible to all means that any person, even the elderly and disabled, deserve the right to enjoy these parks. There they can learn about nature and science, get away, and enjoy the outdoors. My problem with this argument is this. If we continue to allow more and more people into our parks and continue building amenities, then what will set our National Parks apart from Disney world or Six flags?
ReplyDeleteGroup B feels that it is the role of the National Parks to attract business. National Parks are supposed to be a money making endeavor, and for that they need to attract visitors and develop. They argue that a majority of the visitors to National Parks do not even want a primitive, isolated experience so there is no harm in overcrowding the parks. The concept of hardening, and its advantages was a good argument to use. Most people see paved areas and automatically think they are bad. One issue I had was that you mention how most visitors do not want a strenuous experience, and site how a majority of the visitors to the Blue Ridge Parkway do not even exit their cars. When not wanting to rough it is one of your arguments, how can you justify not wanting to limit access due to visitor’s getting health benefits from exercise? Group B claims that National Parks are a national treasure, and therefore everyone as citizens should be able to have unlimited access. At the same time don’t we have to ask if they will National Parks retain their ‘national treasure’ status if over run by visitors and developed to the point of being more like a resort than a National Park?
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis group's position is that the national parks should continue to be highly regulated, commercialized and continue development to bring in more revenue. They argue that it is a way to make money off of land that is otherwise 'unuseable', and that to be a successful business you have to have many customers. They also state that as the parks are essentially owned by the government, they belong to the people, and the majority of people do not want to 'rough it' and desire the amenities that many parks provide. They also state that by already having established paths, camping grounds etc. it protects the ecology of the environment by discouraging every visitor to create their own trails or clear out their own camping grounds. I liked this group's multifaceted approach to the problem, especially the idea that having already established areas would prevent further damage to the environment. However, they did not address one issue that I think would be prevalent, which is the argument that the experience is cheapened by this heavy management of nature.
ReplyDeleteGroup B argues for the development of national parks for economic return and equality of experience. The development of parks would increase the number of visitors and as the amenities increase the costs would go up – because from their position the parks are a profit driven business. Then they argue that having an isolated experience in the park is outlandish because you would have to restrict the park access in some way; and no matter what way you do it will be unfair. They argue that if you have to pay to visit the park then the poor cant participate, or if it’s a first come first serve that locals would be the only ones who can stand in line. This is complete rubbish. If you turn the parks into a profiteering business then costs will go up and the poor wouldn’t be able to go. Also they mention that right now you have to book a spot in Yellowstone hotel a year in advance – this is because of the limited number of rooms in the hotel. Yet the group is complaining that the process of reserving a room in the hotel is unfair in any way and reserving a hiking registration would be the same thing. I believe the issue lies in observation v.s. experience. Most people just want to pay to observe nature and experience a hotel, while some want to experience nature. The difference is that you can have 1 or 10,000 people in a room observing something and the quality of observation doesn’t change, but there is a huge difference in the experience. This difference between observation and experience is a solid line, and it is more economically profitable to allow people to observe nature as opposed to experiencing it. However, this does not justify turning national parks into a theme park.
ReplyDeleteThis group is for a developed, safe, and easy experience for all people. The main point that I gathered from this was the aspect of money that is gained from development. This is truly important in the US today as there are countless people losing their jobs and a failing economy. It is sad though that this is more important to our society than preserving a wilderness experience of solitude for future generations. The new place for isolation may as well be at the bottom of the ocean with an ever increasing population flooding such areas as Yosemite. I’m not sure about “hardening”. Is it really better to have all of the people on one trail doing a lot of damage to one area or is it better to spread the damage out over multiple areas and homemade trails?
ReplyDeleteMoney is green and that will not change. If tourism is viable it will be developed. As far as hiking trails are concerned these parks cannot all be grouped together. Some trails have paths of pavement, gravel, or stone. Other parks have trails that require physical conditioning to follow. Some land is just not suitable for the old, young, weak, or injured. The amenities are nessecary for a "home-base" for most activities
ReplyDeleteThis group argues that national parks should be managed for the average visitor who wants the basic comforts of home. The more people visiting the parks the merrier; get an economic return through the visitation to land otherwise unprofitable. They also recommend paving trails that would prevent people from blazing their own to reduce impact on the site. I feel that educating the visitors about their impacts on the park is crucial for the preservation for future generations. A crowded atmosphere during peak months would take away from the serene, awe-inspiring experience and provide a busy “cheapened” experience. Group B presented their topic very well, but I have a hard time believing that this would be the best way to manage national parks based on personal experience of the crowding effect.
ReplyDelete