Posted: Mon Jan 23, 2012 3:50 pm Post subject: Parks and people
I would like to start my post tonight by phrasing to the class what the main topic of the "Polemic: Industrial Tourism and the National Parks (1968)" reading was in my own words - Although National Parks are formed to preserve and focus on a unique / beautiful section of land or nature, a key aspect to keeping a park alive is making profit. To attract large groups of paying tourists, it is inevitable for the government to keep National Parks well manicured and comfortable for visitors, and even if it means altering nature.
Having visited a few National Parks (I can slightly remember them, but I was much younger), I have always viewed them as very organized and, as I said earlier "well manicured". I can't deny that the parks that I have visited have been very well set up, and have displayed the natural attractions without flaw. I believe that it is inevitable for National Parks to incorporate signs, fences, and most importantly, build roadways and paved areas to attract tourists and ***make money***. Unfortunately, making money is the key of these parks, as stated throughout the second reading. "Who needs it? I said; we get very few tourists in this park. That's why you need it, the engineer explained patiently; look, he said, when this road is built you'll get ten, twenty, thirty times as many tourists in here as you get now." (p.274, Edward Abbey) To me, nature is most "natural" when it has no purpose, but just is. A National Park is simply making a museum out of nature, and I completely agree with the author's frustration...
Here's my question - what is ultimately more important? - the money that we gain from National Park tourism or preserving nature instead of forming tourist attractions?
To answer you question Boss, I do not think money should be the first priority. Roads should not be laid and land should not be developed to accommodate the Industrial Tourism. A quote that I would like to touch on that adds to your question is from the Abbey reading. “…wilderness is a necessary part of civilization and that it is the primary responsibility of the national park system to preserve intact and undiminished what little still remains”(pg. 274). A national park in my mind should have its main goal be to attract tourists and gain income for a state.
I would like to end my post with another quote on page 278. Abbey says “We are preoccupied with time. If we could learn to love space as deeply as we are now obsessed with time, we might discover a new meaning in the phrase to live like men.” It baffles me how people are interested in seeing “nature” and complain about not being able to find a parking spot in a national park. National parks should not be accessible to the general public because for this to be true, accommodations like roads, buildings and other development would take place and in turn, civilizing the land we are trying to preserve. In this day and age, we are so focused on time. Living in a highly developed and civilized country, people are used to having everything at their fingertips or accessible by car. If things are slowed down, and people are required to take time out of their days and spend time walking and observing the natural parks by foot, more would be appreciated and preserved.
A question I have is how would national parks go about eliminating automobiles in the parks. If they did, how would they continue to get interest?
Joined: 18 Feb 2011 Posts: 27 Location: United States of America
Posted: Mon Jan 23, 2012 7:40 pm Post subject:
Same as Elie, I do not think money should be the priority when we talk about national parks. I think it is more important to preserve nature than to attract turists. But, at the same time, it makes me wonder who would pay for the rangers, and all the expanse to keep a national park? This question definetely links back to what we talked about last week about the commons and the commodity. Is it wrong to make national park a commercial based bussiness?
In my opinion, I do not think it is wrong to make national parks a industrial turism. Building roads, restaurants, hotels…etc in national parks would be “like a suburban village” (p.274). I think national park should be a place for human to be closer to the nature. ‘Parks are for people’ (p.275). Therefore, to answer Elie’s question, I think parks are for those people who really know how to value and appreciate nature.
Question: What is the purpose of having those parks with the name of “national park”? Is it a way to preserve nature, or is it another way for bussiness to make money? Do you think human care about the nature or themselves?
It is quite clear in Abbey’s essay that accessibility achieved from automobiles draw much more tourists. Reading his essay and descriptions of “Wheel Chair Explorers,” (275) modern tourists seemingly want to take a break from the fast, busy life but doesn’t want to give up the comforts from technology as well. Stepping into the nature is not what they want, but experiencing something different and exotic, like watching movie, might be what the tourists want. Banning the automobiles will eliminate the comfort from the trip, and will require too much effort to achieve those experiences. The value of National park as protector of nature will rise by banning the automobile. The value as a playground of tourists, however, will drop.
National park has a great purpose of preserving nature and protecting it from being overused by human. This has to be the primary reason of establishing national park, but acquiring financial profit seems to be valued over nature. This is my question; is it wrong to establish national park in purpose of pleasing tourists? Although the intention is not preserving nature, in order to entertain the tourists, the nature has to be preserved in certain degree. (Similar context; man domesticated horse for mobility, and horses could survive by having human protection though being domesticated)
Gyoungheui’s question is really similar to Amy’s, and my answer to both the questions is: the National Parks are trying to entertain the tourists and even though they might not be created on a commercial base, but they tend to focus more on the economic benefits the parks could bring. So far the previous people have asked many really great questions and these questions all in some ways pointing at one thing (which I think can be summed by Christian’s question so I’ll quote it from you): what is ultimately more important? - the money that we gain from National Park tourism or preserving nature instead of forming tourist attractions? It’s really hard to answer because this is not a yes or no question because both the tourism and preserving nature are the purposes of a National Park, and they both in some ways contributed to the park and nature. If the government did not encourage industrial tourism, the National Park wouldn’t have thrived or maybe even being created because “the creation of the… national park had less to do with the idea about undisturbed nature…” (P.264). So the National Park was designed to attract tourists and therefore gain money. Also the creation of National Parks did saved the region from being further damaged by private owners. But on the other hand, industrial tourism definitely impacted the National Parks in many bad ways, such as pollution, deforestation, and the roads and automobiles affected a lot of wild lives negatively. Also in order to attract more tours, the government has to make everything seemly, so in some ways the nature we see in the nature park is not real nature anymore. Therefore, the National Park is preserving and at some degrees, damaging nature at the same time.
About the banning automobile practice, I absolutely agree. Just like what Abbey said, if you really want to get a good view, get off the car and walk on your feet. But I just remembered that even my family and I do this a lot, which is going to a scenic park on a vacation to feel more connected to nature, but we would end up spending a lot of the time in the car, because either the officers decided it’s not safe enough to walk, or it’s too hard to walk and the weather is gross. So even though a lot of times people WANT to walk, they can’t because they simply don't have a choice since the government/ officers already planned everything for the tourists. But if they really want to ban automobiles, I would love to ride on a horse or something! ^-^
My question: The last paragraph on P.278, the third sentence: “The survey crew had done their job; I would do mine.” Even though Abbey and the survey crew had different opinions, they were both just doing their jobs. Do you think the government has a choice if the National Park should be more about tourists and money or nature? Or they are just doing their jobs and simply don't have a choice?
I think everyone has a choice, despite their job description. It's true that the government must keep in mind the financial capabilities of national parks, which includes the accessibility and development of the parks. However, making serious change in the conservation of the environment, not just the park system, would take a serious shift in government - maybe it's impossible under capitalism when monetary power is the main focus of our system, and creating a commons is less beneficial (to those in power) than a commodity.
Scale plays a big role in this discussion. I think it's important to have levels of authentic wilderness/preservation- not all tourists have the stomach for non-flushing toilets, and they have the right to that opinion. But some conservationists, such as the park ranger on 278, take refuge in the raw conditions of the wild, and they too should have access to that land without alteration. Question: Do some people's opinions matter more than others? Do hunters have a right to access the land if they have been hunting for many years there? Do gov. officials have the right to build a road if the money gained from tourists goes into other conservation projects? Should Roxanne Quimby be able to buy as much land as she pleases, and do with it what she pleases?
Do you think the government has a choice if the National Park should be more about tourists and money or nature? Or they are just doing their jobs and simply don't have a choice?
Throughout the course of history, (in my opinion) government bureaucracy has prevented a lot of things to stall, or never take place. Even when government intends to help people, they often do the contrary (even when it's in good nature), and initiatives or causes experience further set backs. I feel that it is the same way with the National Park Service. I believe that the government should make the conscious choice of waying both the economic and environmental costs to National Parks, because they're in amalgamated to benefit humans. Ultimately, it is that compromise (which I will talk more about) made by both interests that solves the long term issues of preserving nature. (Not sure if I'm making sense...)
To offer some contrast, I have not been to a United States National Park, though I have been to protected state forests, and government owned parks internationally. When thinking about National Parks such as Yosemite, Yellowstone, and the Grand Canyon, I envision being surrounded by nothing but absolute, uncorrupted nature.
I found it interesting how Quimby believed the land she purchased should be combined in or become apart of a National park. Wasn't she purchasing these for the sole sake of preventing the government from allowing humans to distort it's scenery, or protecting it from private interests that would tamper with its natural landscapes? When she says broader usage, does she mean human use? Above all, she believed that compromise solves many problems created by the destruction of nature.
My question is this: Throughout the course of history, National Parks were intended to not only preserve nature throughout the country, but to offer a place where humans could truly be immersed into an environment that isn't effected by deforestation, industrialization, or transportation. Perhaps we are now in an age where radical changes need to be made to preserving what is considered to be natural. Do you believe private ownership of lands is the only way to truly perserve what would be considered "National Parks"?
To answer Gyoungheui’s question, I think that the goal of national parks is (or at least SHOULD be; but generally is) strictly to preserve nature. Abbey says it himself on page 274, “…it is the primary responsibility of the national park system to preserve intact and undiminished what little still remains.” Of course, by “what little still remains” he means nature, and not the profit deficit of the National Park Service (do they even make profit?). While I do agree with Abbey, and would say that the idea of preserving nature to try and make money is a ridiculous idea… but it’s interesting to compare this to the idea that Rachel was pushing on us last friday: does nature only exist to humans? Does a national park NEED tourists to make it a national park and keep it from being nothing more than just nowheresville?
I thought it was interesting that Abbey brought up the concept of accessibility. Though with me, his point didn’t exactly register with the kind of “oh yeah, you’re totally right!” that it may for a lot of his readers. His question, “Is there any spot on earth that men have not proved accessible by the simplest of means--feet and legs and heart?” (275), does not impress me. For one, even places like partially underwater caves--let alone the ocean and fully underwater caves--are not accessible with feet and legs and heart. Secondly, to me there is a difference between walking the however- many-mile-it-is walk to see than grand canyon from the nearest civilization than hiking the several vertical mile climb to get to the summit of Mount Everest (besides the probably huge difference in length). You don’t climb Mt. Everest for the view from the top, you do it for the experience for the climb. You don’t walk to the Grand Canyon just for the experience of walking to the Grand Canyon, you walk to get the view of the Grand Canyon. This simple difference in reasons for motivation is enough for me to believe its silly to expect everyone to be able to reach everywhere natural on Earth with just their feet, legs, and heart. Do people agree/disagree with this?
Question: What is the purpose of having those parks with the name of “national park”? Is it a way to preserve nature, or is it another way for bussiness to make money? Do you think human care about the nature or themselves?
To respond to Amy's Question, I believe that national parks are used to preserve nature in a way that allows humans to enter and exit a "natural" environment whenever they feel like it e.g. through motor vehicles. However, it is also a business, which allows hotels and businesses to be within driving distance of these areas. I think humans care about nature, but they have a love/hate relationship with it. There are people like Roxanne Quimby who want to preserve the land where as the survey crew in the first reading can only think about the immediate gratification of building a road that would perpetuate a cycle where humans see nature in their cars without physically interacting with it.
Did anyone else have a hard time finding major discussion points in the two readings?
I found the phrase "Industrial Tourism" on page 274 to be attention-grabbing, though. It was mentioned a few times throughout the next couple pages by saying that it was beneficial for revenue. That is why the government wanted to put in new roads and campsites to draw in more tourists. HOWEVER, on page 276, "Industrial Tourism is a threat to the national parks." So by increasing the appeal to people who wouldn't normally be interested in hiking / being immersed in "nature" (notice how nature is in quotes because i'm not really sure how to define it yet) and by allowing motor vehicles and RVs, they were destroying the "nature" which was specifically partitioned from the rest of the land for preserving; thus creating a barrier.
I'm going to connect this back to what we did in class (or at least what Naya and I discussed in our mini-groups). Can we really say that we are preserving the land, when we haven't really DEFINED what "preserving" would be? Naya and I agreed that in order to preserve something, you would have to keep it in its original state. No changes can be made.
BUT if you think back to the reading over the weekend, on page 268, "Defining the value of wilderness in terms of animals and trees led advocates of preservation to view Indians as inherently incapable of appreciating the natural world." and... "... would not only preserve wilderness but also fit nicely into ongoing efforts to 'civilize' Indians by training them to become self-sufficient agriculturists." This makes no sense to me. If the Native Americans were already there, wouldn't they be part of nature? Their "destroying" of the resources would have to be considered natural too. Right?
Does anyone know why the Native Americans wouldn't be part of nature and simply part of the natural degradation? Or are people not considered part of the environment?
To Christians question... "what is ultimately more important? - the money that we gain from National Park tourism or preserving nature instead of forming tourist attractions?"
I think the whole reason for maintaining these National Parks is for preserving nature! Why else would we have them? Tourism and the revenue created by tourism is just a distraction, and a reason for the government to keep the parks. Corruption is influenced by money. We have become so obsessed with money, that our country and/or world will do anything to get more. Greed is a terrible thing.
I hope this helped. If not, just ask and I can explain it further. It made sense in my head.
My imagination of the national parks was there are huge chunk of land, where you can’t anything else but nature. It is completely undisturbed nature. Even though there would be a track after the vehicle drive through, but there is no roads, there should be forests, lakes, mountains, desert and even volcanoes, of course there should also huge vast of various kinds of wild animals. If it is plain, then you should be able to see the cloud forming far away in the sight.
When people describe them, they emphasize the size of the park is huge, the biodiversity is good, and how empty it is, not many human around. In another word, what they are going to emphasize is eventually going to be how different it is from the cities we live in now.
Emily’s Question: If the Native Americans were already there, wouldn't they be part of nature? Their "destroying" of the resources would have to be considered natural too. Right? Does anyone know why the Native Americans wouldn't be part of nature and simply part of the natural degradation? Or are people not considered part of the environment?
In a broad way, Humans are part of environment, because everything should be environment. but there could be another definition, where environment is everything surrounding the human but not including human. And when humans talk about nature (nature environment), it would be more obvious that human are going to exclude human from it. I think the reason why the Native Americans wouldn’t be part of nature is because normally people consider them as less civilized then us, but they are still human; they can still cause some destruction to the nature. To my opinion if their destroying of the resources would have to be considered as natural, then we must have thought of the native people as less human, more like animals. But we still think they are human, human cant be nature to most of people. Native people are just more uncivilized on science field then us and have a darker skin color than us. Otherwise they are just the same as us (or whites). so they are unnatural for most of the people.
My Question: The original purpose of creating the national parks is "to keep the region's scenic wonders out of the hands of private interests" (P264) when the indians are not even allowed in the national parks because they are disturbing the nature, why are the roads allowed to be built in the parks? I understand we need money to maintain the parks, is it necessary to have the park itself making the profit?
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
