In 1872, Congress designated more than 2.2 million acres in northwest Wyoming as the nation’s first National Park, starting a nationwide movement to preserve the shrinking and faltering natural beauty that the United States had striven to tame at all costs. It became apparent to Theodore Roosevelt that change was needed to preserve the nation’s natural wonders, and Yellowstone was and still is a prime example. As one of the nation’s most popular National Parks in the National Park Service, Yellowstone has fallen victim to its own success, which poses a problem to the NPS’s dual mandate “to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wildlife therein and to provide for such enjoyment of the same in such a manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations” (Organic Act, 1916). This mandate of preserving yet providing for the enjoyment of future generations means that the NPS has to both protect the wilderness in the Park and make it accessible to visitors.
As of 2008 (most recent data possible), the NPS sees almost 450 million visitors a year, an increase of nearly 55% in the last thirty years. This general trending upwards peaked in 1998 and has remained relatively steady since then. Even though the number of annual visitors peaked in 1998, the average hours per visit has steadily decreased, down nearly 22% since 1976. This decrease in park visit length is troubling, as it implies that the National Park Service is not fulfilling its requirement to provide “unimpaired…enjoyment for future generations”. This can logically be concluded because external forces acting on the quantity of visitors does not affect the quality of each visit, measured by the length of stay.
Our team is debating that this decrease in average visitation stay is a direct result of the increase in visitors and the noticeable impact of hundreds of millions of people on the finite resources ‘protected’ in the park. From the data supplied directly by the National Park Service, it is clear that the number of visitors peaked in 1998, and has since remained relatively constant. The fact that the number of visitors has not risen significantly can only be attributed to the overcrowding of the parks. The National Parks become much less attractive when traffic congestion requires visitors to wait for hours to view Old Faithful geyser in Yellowstone, or El Capitan in Yosemite National Park. When these peak visitation times occur in the summer months, it become nearly impossible to obtain camping permits, trails become obscenely crowded and the general experience becomes like visiting a theme park – the opposite of the purpose of the National Park System to allow citizens the opportunity to connect with nature through solitude and feeling small in comparison to the majestic wonders and natural beauty housed in the parks. In effect, park visitation has reached maximum capacity in the more notable parks, and the number of visitors physically cannot increase.
These levels of visitors are also evident in the average stay per visit decline. In the mid 1980’s, the average visit to a NPS site lasted four hours, but the current levels has dropped below three hours per visit. This dramatic decrease has to be attributed to some change in the parks, the most notable of which is the peak levels of visitors. The NPS sites have simply become commonplace, as they have lost their core appeal to visitors due to the issue of overcrowding and the visible impact of the millions of visitors.
As a result of the millions of visitors annually, the National Park Service has catered to the needs of the visiting public, establishing amenities that would be typically found at an amusement parks instead of remote wilderness area. Lodges, hotels and thousands of miles of roads facilitate visitors as they access previously remote natural wonders, but at the same time they prevent the profound experiences that that the National Parks were created to preserve.
Profound experiences are critical to American culture and individual character development. Many of our nation’s greatest political, ideological and sociological leaders had defining moments in their lives in which they experienced the grandeur of nature in a NPS site, an experience that would forever change the direction of their life. We as a nation cannot continue to dilute the profound experiences by paving the parks and building creature comfort amenities. When we facilitate entertainment and recreation in the parks, we maintain part of the NPS mandate to ‘increase the enjoyment’, but we diminish a far greater need, a need than can be found in few other places – solitude.
This solitude or the feeling of being miniscule in comparison to the majesty of the natural beauty of the park cannot be recreated in a theme park or other man-made experience. Authentic experiences reconnect men with nature, and with the core essence of humanity, an intangible experience that often becomes outwardly evident in a restoration of the body inside and out.
Limiting the number of visitors to the parks, and increasing the levels of education of those who do visit the parks will slowly bring back the solitude that was once felt in the parks. Currently, the impact of the visitors on the parks is evident even when the visitors leave during off-peak months, as the damage of millions lingers much longer than the actual visitors. When the quantity of visitors decreases, and the level of respect for the wilderness areas increase, the ability for citizens to have a profound experience of solitude become much more likely. The experience of solitude is just as crucial to protect as the endangered species on the Endangered Species Act, but since it is not a tangible object, it is often overlooked and sacrificed in order to encourage more and more visitors to NPS sites.
There are no substitutes for the life altering experiences produced by solitude in the scenic settings of the National Parks, and this is a fundamental American right that needs to be preserved for generations to come.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Your first paragraph implies that Teddy Roosevelt founded Yellowstone, though doesn't say so explicitly. He was a boy when Yellowstone was founded during the Grant Administration.
ReplyDeleteI'd also not call the founding of Yellowstone the start of a movement, but my view on that is certainly controversial.
Thanks for sharing this.
Jim
This side of the debate would like to see more authentic and natural experiences offered through the National Park Service. I liked that you pointed out that the NPS is fulfilling only part of their mandate “to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wildlife therein and to provide for such enjoyment of the same in such a manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.” While it is important to offer a natural experience to as many people as possible, there should be regulations that prevent over-crowding and facilitate a true appreciation for these experiences. It is also important to offer an experience that will allow visitors to really get in touch with nature, and have a solitary experience. This simply cannot be accomplished when parks are at maximum capacity and over-developed. Limiting the numbers of visitors and requiring an educational component to the visit would be a good way to ensure all visitors get the highest quality experience possible and that the parks are left “unimpaired for…future generations.”
ReplyDeleteGroup A
ReplyDeleteThe National Park Service was established in order to protect and maintain resources for recreation and preservation for the future. The team is debating that the current decrease in the percent of visitation stay is due to an increase in the number of visitors to the parks. The parks have adapted to the visitors with an increase in amenities and a lose of natural land. Through this development people have lost the profound experiences that they were supposed to get from experiencing the park. With a decrease in visitation we will be able to have more of these profound experiences. What the group’s point of view fails to look at is that there may have been a change in the population’s general purpose for these parks. Maybe the main portion of the population does not desire the to be “in the wild” and have “profound experiences”. This change may be due to the changes in the parks or a change from mass urbanization of the population.
This argument is that the national parks service has a duty to the American public to provide us with a more ‘wild’ experience when visiting our parks. They agree that more and more people are visiting our parks but for shorter time periods because of the lack of an ‘authentic’ feel, experience, or activity. They feel that since the park is theirs it should provide them with what they want, an ‘authentic’ and ‘natural’ experience for them to share. As citizens we ‘own’ public land, parks are no exception and the land should be used to provide the citizens with what they want. The argument lacks a view of the whole population. Perhaps at the beginning of the parks service the goal was to provide a ‘natural’ experience, but now with more and more people wanting a ‘vacation’ to the woods and not an ordeal into the woods the parks service has adapted to accommodate the public. This has included a loss in the ‘authentic’ feel of our parks. Recreational development promotes one activity at the expense of others.
ReplyDeleteI think that this group did a good job with their paper; however, it is not clear on how the amount of guests allowed in a park would be monitored. Do you think it is possible to allow only a certain amount people in a park at a time and make people basically have reservation for a "natural" site?
ReplyDeleteThe group confronted the problem very directly in saying that the way to solve the issue of “loving our parks to death” is to place restrictions on the number of people allowed into the national parks and increasing the amount of education the park goers receive while there. They brought to attention some good points such as how visitors even have an effect on the park once they have left by leaving behind their trash, and how the need to suit the requirements of the visitors has lead to miles of paved roads and the development of surrounding areas by national parks. The group could have discussed some other ways to better limit the number of visitors, or proposed an alternative method to lessen the visitor’s footprint on the parks. Their information on the decrease of time spent in the parks by visitors was good in that it showed how people who valued the seclusion were no longer getting the full experience that they once had due to increased attendance at the parks. Overall the group did a nice job in supporting their stance and the approach taken was well thought out.
ReplyDeleteYour paper overall is very good, one problem with limiting the number of visitors of course is who gets to be "the select few". If you could find a way to over come this problem then it maybe more permissible.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Marty Cogar, the theory sounds great-but who gets to be the select few? Will there be only 60 guests a day? Where will the line be drawn? Overall,though, I completely agree with this argument. Visiting a national park and sharing the experience with others can be a great time to meet people...but really, going hiking and camping is a time for nature and the individual to reconnect. When visiting national parks and hiking becomes solely a tourist attraction it loses its essence. Call me selfish, but when I go on a hike, I don't want to share the peak with one hundred other people. Being surrounded by trees and mountains, untouched by humankind, THAT is the basis of these adventures in the first place. They must be better managed in order to do this. They did this in Machu Picchu in Peru. There are a limited amount of visitors each day in order to slow erosion and degradation of the famous remains. I think the same should apply here, national parks are famous remains that must be treated like the fragile statues that they are.
ReplyDeleteGroup A advocates that the number of visitors to our national parks should be regulated in order to increase the likelihood of profound experiences for the visitors. Group A also believes that there should be fewer facilities such as lodges, hotels, restaurants, and other recreational amenities that take away from the solitude that should be found in national parks. The National Park Service's mandate is to "conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wildlife therein and to provide for such enjoyment of the same in such a manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations" (Organic Act, 1916). This mission is near impossible with the severe overcrowding and development of national parks. Group A did a great job of communicating the importance of "authentic," humbling experiences as well as education to increase our level of respect for the wilderness. Their position paper is very well-written, and I think they have an extremely developed and strongly supported argument.
ReplyDeleteI think the weakest point of this argument is the demand to reduce visitors and increase education. There is no method of limiting visitors described here, nor is there a discussion of how further education would be funded. This is especially an issue because reducing visitors will reduce the incomes of the parks.
ReplyDeleteAlso, limiting visitors in and of itself denies Americans access to the property that they rightfully own. In order to implement this plan, how will the appropriate threshold values for each park be set? Will approved visitors be allowed to visit multiple times, while others are excluded altogether? Or will people only be able to visit a park once in their lifetime? I feel like these important questions need to be addressed before any action is taken to reduce visitation to create the pristine and isolated experiences advocated by this group. Once the logistics are worked out, it begins to sound like a far more reasonable and feasible plan.
2.) Group A believes that national parks should be managed in ways that preserve the inherent values of nature itself. They cite several statistics about the decrease in visitation length to national parks, blaming the reduction on the decline in the quality of the “natural” experience. Overcrowding and the general softening of the parks for tourists, i.e. better amenities, has reduced the value of national parks to something akin to popular theme parks in Florida. Group A’s solution is to educate tourists about the park system and how to preserve it wonder for future generations. They also advocate limiting the number of visitors into national parks to allow for more profound experiences for the lucky few that gain access. In general, I agree that national parks are on the fast track towards becoming nature-themed Disney Worlds and that something should be done to preserve the primitiveness.
ReplyDeleteGroup A argues that too many people are coming into the parks. They say that trails and sights cannot be enjoyed because so many people are visiting at the same time. As shown in their position paper, group A states that since the number of visitors is staying the same or increasing while the length of stay is decreasing, then the quality of stay must also be decreasing. This is a good argument. It comes down to how effective monitoring the number of visitors is. The problem becomes difficult because too many visitors make the park to crowded, but too few may take the opportunity to visit away. I agree that we should not pave parks. Paving to much messes up habitat and the feeling of being alone in the wild.
ReplyDelete-Jacob Estienne
Group A argues that the decrease in average visitation length to National Parks is due the increased number of visitors present. Parks are now catering to the visitors rather than the scenery and environment in which they were created to protect. The experience has changed. The scenes are being ruined by over-crowding of visitors. Waiting in lines to see nature is not what people come to the parks for. The group’s major fix to the problem is to create a system which only allows a certain number of people to visit each park at a time. I am just wondering how this would ever work. Depending on how few this number would be, it may cause people to have to wait for years to visit a park. This would then totally destroy the experience for some who may never actually get to see it.
ReplyDeleteGroup A’s position states that the National Parks are becoming too overcrowded and that the managers of those parks seem to be catering to more of the enjoyment aspect of their mandate more than their preserve nature one.I disagree with group A on the fact the quality of the stay is attributed to overcrowding. I believe that the short stays are due to the decreasing attention span of the up and coming generation. I agree with them on the fact that trails and campsites in parks are becoming too crowded. I have experienced this in the Grand Canyon. Lots of plants were worn down and the campsites had flushing toilets and potable water. This enjoyment factor increased demand so much that there is a waiting list of over a year for groups, such as Boy Scouts to get a camping site to hike through the Canyon.I wouldn’t say a decrease in stay of an hour since the 1980’s is that dramatic of an increase.I think that solitude is an important part of the aesthetic nature experience, but should it happen in a National Park? Many places, such as National Forests, Wilderness Areas, and National Scenic Trails such as the AT, provide that solitude that many outdoor-goers seek. National Parks can provide the nature experience for people who don’t want to “rough it” by camping in other natural areas. Kids that grow up going to National Parks can develop a love for nature and solitude and then continue that pursuit when they are adults.
ReplyDeleteGroup A's arguement is that the national parks are losing site of their mission to provide profound experiences to people who visit them. They feel that people are losing these experience because of overcrowding. The solution that they proposed was to limit the number of people who have access to the park and increase the amount of education they receive while in the park. I think that it would be hard to tell somebody they couldn't come to the park especially when they are the ones paying for it in the first place. I think better solution would be to set aside some of the park as wilderness where the people who really want to get away have the opportunity to do so.
ReplyDeleteThe biggest issues with the points made by this group are there inability to provide solid facts and take different perspectives on the topics. For instance you stated that the national parks have been losing their average stay within the parks because the parks are becoming to crowded and people are staying less because campgrounds are full and turning people away or because main attractions have become a common place. Reconsider this as if we do not have enough campgrounds so people find themselves staying just outside of the national parks in hotels and if areas like Old Faithful are a commonplace and attracting people how is that turning them away. My next issue with your argument is how would you limit people into the national parks. Where is the equality in this and would you choose who goes and who does not? Parks are set aside to be recreated in for many people as they choose so how would you limit this to few and select them. Don’t you believe by turning this away that people who support national parks may not want to support what many of their tax dollars pay to be preserved? Many people bring their family to recreate with so these places do need some hardening in order to stay open for us to see. Why don’t people use national forests?
ReplyDeleteB. Group A’s position can be fairly opinionated based on each individual belief. Group A believes that the land of nature is diminishing based on human visitation to our natural parks. They say that if our visitation numbers increase then the number of our “finite” sources will diminish. Is it worth the experience to waste our land away? There are many families that enjoy the outdoor experience for a family tradition, but is it worth the great experience? Going out and enjoying nature is a wonderful experience and should be something everyone should give time to do because it is healthy, wholesome, and enjoyable. Therefore, should we consider cutting down on these experiences?
ReplyDeleteThis paper demonstrates arguments that resound with the lover of nature (as many in this class consider themselves to be). Group A makes the point that there have been an increasing number of visitors to National Parks in the last half-century. The overcrowding leads to the sullying of the sanctity of majestic places. Fascinating is the correlation between the level of respect visitors show towards our National Parks and the number of fellow visitors in the Park at the same time. We have a subconscious respect for the solitude of nature. Group A’s suggestions on how to return our parks to their glory days of respectful visitors are somewhat flawed: it would be difficult, if not impossible, to stem the flow of visitors to such hotspots as Yellowstone and the Grand Canyon. In addition, their suggestion of educating visitors is probably not plausible. Few visitors to National Parks want to be educated on how they make an impact on the area they are taking advantage of. In addition, it is likely that there are already massive efforts to educate park visitors about Leave no Trace; further education would be redundant.
ReplyDeleteThe paragraph was very well written and has interesting points and theories explaining why a decline in visitation is prominent when an increase in visitors also takes place. Although, I find it that the increase in visitors is a probable statement, I believe it is unrealistic to solely argue this sake. I feel like Group A would have established a more powerful argument also if they had researched how much of the space was populated by people on an average visitation day. Then they could possibly argue that it is overcrowded. I feel like 2.2 million acres would be enough room for the meager 450 million visitors a year. It is not probable to say they ran out of place or they couldn’t escape from one another. I understand it would feel like an amusement park when they had excursions to certain attractions, but I believe it would of been crowded in the past as well. One could of not of traveled the distance thinking they would be able to view the Old Faithful Geyser in peace or seclusion. I do understand though that the accommodations necessary for people today would have destroyed aesthetic in addition to take up wildlife space. I feel that Group A has to take in account that society’s standards of living as well as interests have changed compared to the previous generation. Another argument: the creations of recreational accommodations were not created necessarily for the surplus of visitors, but rather a way for a park to stimulate a capital income. I agree in the aspect that the intention of the original park was to preserve the land and wildlife, not necessarily for visitation purposes, but now park owners encourage visitation and exploit the original purpose of invention. I do agree in the long run that the prime purpose is to preserve the sublime and picturesque settings of the land for our future.
ReplyDeleteI think that this paper is very well organzied, and seems to have great solutions on how to bring back the appreciation of natural habitat. The limiting number of visitors is a great solution. It will make the natural habitat become more respected and I lso think that it will make visitors more eager to see the parks knowing that they have a smaller chance of getting in. Exactly how would they go about controlling the amount of visitors?
ReplyDeleteGroup A held the position that parks should be “wild” and that a visitor’s experience should be “authentic” and “natural.” This being the case, they declared that fewer visitors should visit the parks on a daily basis and that they should stay in this natural site for several days. This seems to be the best way to experience the land in all its pristine form; however, the group did not give any solutions for these matters. How can they prevent the number of visitors each day from getting too high, and what might this cap off number be? What about the number of days in which each visiting group is there; or what type of supplies they are allowed to bring into the site? Where is the line drawn between natural and unnatural setting; can campers bring in a flashlight? A tent? A portable grill?
ReplyDeleteGroup A has the position that our parks are overcrowded and we should limit the number of people admitted. I agree with them that we should set a cap so that we can focus on improving the the individual experience, but I don't think they explained how to go about this and how to keep it fair. Places like Yellowstone are publicly owned and limiting admittance may be tricky.
ReplyDeleteGroup A is campaigning for limited access to National Parks, and an end to the development of National Parks. They feel the overcrowding and the amenities found in National Parks, make solitude impossible and detract from the natural experience individuals were seeking. Using statistics about trends in National Park visits was a good way to debate your position. A change in visitation trends is a very good indicator that something has changed either good or bad, in the mindset of the visit, or the tourist site. When people go to a National Park they envision themselves standing in an open meadow, or atop a mountain trail, quiet, peaceful, and alone. Often when they arrive it is crowded and loud, much like tourist attractions in urbanized areas. In Group A’s opinion the only way to protect natural experiences is quality not quantity. By allowing in less people, those that do get to come receive a better experience. I feel like you could have gone into more specifics about how to limit access to the public. Knowing who gets in and who doesn’t will be something the public will be very interested in. Will environmental education groups like the Girl and Boy Scouts get access first, or will it be those who can pay the most?
ReplyDeleteThis group is for solitude and natural experiences. They show how the National Park System is becoming more like Disneyland than a place to connect with nature. I like your claim that the number of visitors to a National Park should be limited and more educated. I do find it hard to believe that the Park System shouldn’t be developed because so many young children, disabled, and elderly are able to see these areas and be forever changed by them since they are made more accessible with roads and facilities. I’m not convinced that the decrease in time spent in the parks is due to development and crowding. I think that it is more likely that there is a changing society that would rather spend less time there and more time at the movies and the mall.
ReplyDeleteThis group's position is that more natural and authentic experiences are preferable to the increasingly commercial experience that is becoming more and more popular. They back up their argument using many and various statistics of visits to national parks and the fact that the increasing amount of people going to parks is diluting the experience for everyone not to mention nature overall. They also mention the fact that many of the national parks are further diluting the experience by building more and more amenities for visitors. They say that the profound experience that one should feel when experiencing the full depth of nature is being sacrificed with the cheap, easy way of simply visual stimulation. Their main proposal is t decrease the amount of visitors and to increase the education of the visitors, hoping that this will help them pursue a deeper experience with nature. I thought that the statistics that they used were definitely helpful, and I appreciated the way that they described the way parks are becoming more like theme parks and cheapening the experiences. However, I thought that they relied a bit heavily on just statistics and would have liked to have seen more resources that were not just government stats.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteGroup A argues that parks should have limited access rights in order to preserve the experience of nature. They point out that over the years Yellowstone has seen more visitors with a decreasing amount of time spent at the park. They say that the decrease in time spent at the park is because there are so many people there and that destroys the experience people are looking for so they don’t stay as long. I agree with this groups chosen side but they don’t offer any suggestions on how to go about limiting this access. I believe their point to be self-evident, the hard part of choosing this side would be thinking about a realistic solution to the problem rather than just point out that more people at the park destroys both the experience of nature and nature itself.
ReplyDeleteThis group’s argument states that authentic natural experiences created by remote wild places are better than developed, overcrowded, regulated experiences. I agree with this statement until I think of the consequences to these wild places if they weren’t regulated. A good guideline to follow is the Organic Act of 1916 which states that the national park service has a dual mandate: “to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wildlife therein and to provide for such enjoyment of the same in such a manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.” Educating the public that visits the national parks about their impacts is a great way to help preserve the experience for future generations, but regulation of the amount of traffic of visitors presents a problem. It would not be favored by the public if only a certain amount of visitors were allowed to national parks. This is the only question left unanswered: How do we limit access to national parks? This group presented their topic very well.
ReplyDeleteThe fact is your own feet take you as far as you will go. If you want to seek the isolation of the wildnerness, whether alon or not, this experience is available. If the physical developments of the parks cause significant degradation to ambient environmental levels than regulations and limitations should be imposed. If you think there are not oppurtunities for these experience drive up to Wind Rock at Mountain Lake. Piack a direction, North or South, and hike and camp two days on the Appalachian Trial. Then turn around and hike back. My point is not eveyone wants this kind of excursion.
ReplyDelete