20060705 Soap Box Derby
Ask anyone who has stood on the south rim of the Grand Canyon during the Independence Day weekend. Or waited for Old Faithful to erupt. Or waited longer to descend into Carlsbad Caverns. Or waited even longer on this particular weekend to ascend the Statue of Liberty, to step inside Independence Hall, or to view the Liberty Bell. Ask any visitor if National Park Service units can be busy places and the answer will resound: Yes!!
I often ask visitors who have been to these crowded places if they received the national park experience they expected. In a number of cases the answer is yes. We know well the reputation for throngs at these major attractions. It is no different from our daily lives. We are accustomed to waiting in line with crowds at the movies, grocery stores, and on freeways to name a few.
Now ask the same people if they received the experience, not that they expected, but that they desired. I believe you’ll find the answer to be quite different. Crowds may be fun at a football game or dance club, but based on eighteen seasons of experience in three national parks I believe most park visitors are not looking for that kind of fun. We like people but we do not come to national parks to be elbow to elbow, speared by the next person’s tripod.
The National Park Service has a two-pronged mission as dictated by Congress in 1916. In a nutshell, the Service must conserve the resources within the park while allowing for visitor enjoyment. That enjoyment is limited to the extent that the resources remain unimpaired for future generations. No one generation should be able to degrade the resources to the detriment of generations that follow.
National Parks could be closed to everyone always. This would certainly fulfill the conservation portion of the park mission but who could enjoy the parks? Park Superintendents could allow everyone to do what ever they wanted wherever and whenever they wanted. This policy would allow for much enjoyment, save that lost to incompatible uses. After a while, what would be left to enjoy?
The National Park Service has the duty to prevent us from loving parks to death. To protect resources, park managers must decide what forms of recreation are acceptable and for how many. In theory, anyway.
Park managers do not make decisions independently. Decisions must be made in compliance with laws, regulations, and policy. The decisions are subject to pressure from other branches and levels of government and from park users.
We all can see the effects of too many people on a natural setting. Litter and trampling of vegetation come to mind immediately. After considering a bit, I think of pollution of all kinds, including sound and light pollution, as well as the effects on wildlife. I’m sure you can come up with more.
Not everyone agrees that natural [sic] parks have carrying capacities. A few years ago I exchanged letters with an elected official whose influence extended into the national park arena. I was concerned with what I considered to be the overcrowded condition of Yosemite Valley. This representative countered that the parks are for the people and that facilities should be added until demand is met. Hmmm.
But what about an attraction like the Liberty Bell? How can you harm it just by looking? While we may not harm this symbol of our freedom with our eyes, great numbers of us can impair the experience that any one of us has. Is there time for quiet reflection when others are waiting two or three hours just to catch a glimpse?
Sooner or later, busier parks will reach a limit. I recall that at one time Yosemite was considering closing the entrance gates at times when Yosemite Valley contained no available parking spaces. This tells us that the national park experience may become scarce. That is, there will not enough of it for all of us to have as much as we want.
How will we as a society allocate this scarce resource? Is it to be a willingness to wait in line? Will VIPs be allowed to take cuts? Should a lottery be held to see who gets to view the presidents at Mt. Rushmore? Will Americans have preference? Will we need to make reservations two years in advance to camp in Yosemite? Three years? Five years?
Will we allocate based on the ability and willingness to pay? The Katmai experience is allocated that way now, at least in part. Yosemite saw a dip in visitorship after raising entrance fees from $10 to $20. Why not raise them to $50 or $100 to cut down on crowding? You could have your contemplative moment at the Liberty Bell if ten minutes cost $250.
In my view these are decisions that must be made in the coming years, like it or not. Can you and I influence these decisions? Let Freedom Ring!
I often ask visitors who have been to these crowded places if they received the national park experience they expected. In a number of cases the answer is yes. We know well the reputation for throngs at these major attractions. It is no different from our daily lives. We are accustomed to waiting in line with crowds at the movies, grocery stores, and on freeways to name a few.
Now ask the same people if they received the experience, not that they expected, but that they desired. I believe you’ll find the answer to be quite different. Crowds may be fun at a football game or dance club, but based on eighteen seasons of experience in three national parks I believe most park visitors are not looking for that kind of fun. We like people but we do not come to national parks to be elbow to elbow, speared by the next person’s tripod.
The National Park Service has a two-pronged mission as dictated by Congress in 1916. In a nutshell, the Service must conserve the resources within the park while allowing for visitor enjoyment. That enjoyment is limited to the extent that the resources remain unimpaired for future generations. No one generation should be able to degrade the resources to the detriment of generations that follow.
National Parks could be closed to everyone always. This would certainly fulfill the conservation portion of the park mission but who could enjoy the parks? Park Superintendents could allow everyone to do what ever they wanted wherever and whenever they wanted. This policy would allow for much enjoyment, save that lost to incompatible uses. After a while, what would be left to enjoy?
The National Park Service has the duty to prevent us from loving parks to death. To protect resources, park managers must decide what forms of recreation are acceptable and for how many. In theory, anyway.
Park managers do not make decisions independently. Decisions must be made in compliance with laws, regulations, and policy. The decisions are subject to pressure from other branches and levels of government and from park users.
We all can see the effects of too many people on a natural setting. Litter and trampling of vegetation come to mind immediately. After considering a bit, I think of pollution of all kinds, including sound and light pollution, as well as the effects on wildlife. I’m sure you can come up with more.
Not everyone agrees that natural [sic] parks have carrying capacities. A few years ago I exchanged letters with an elected official whose influence extended into the national park arena. I was concerned with what I considered to be the overcrowded condition of Yosemite Valley. This representative countered that the parks are for the people and that facilities should be added until demand is met. Hmmm.
But what about an attraction like the Liberty Bell? How can you harm it just by looking? While we may not harm this symbol of our freedom with our eyes, great numbers of us can impair the experience that any one of us has. Is there time for quiet reflection when others are waiting two or three hours just to catch a glimpse?
Sooner or later, busier parks will reach a limit. I recall that at one time Yosemite was considering closing the entrance gates at times when Yosemite Valley contained no available parking spaces. This tells us that the national park experience may become scarce. That is, there will not enough of it for all of us to have as much as we want.
How will we as a society allocate this scarce resource? Is it to be a willingness to wait in line? Will VIPs be allowed to take cuts? Should a lottery be held to see who gets to view the presidents at Mt. Rushmore? Will Americans have preference? Will we need to make reservations two years in advance to camp in Yosemite? Three years? Five years?
Will we allocate based on the ability and willingness to pay? The Katmai experience is allocated that way now, at least in part. Yosemite saw a dip in visitorship after raising entrance fees from $10 to $20. Why not raise them to $50 or $100 to cut down on crowding? You could have your contemplative moment at the Liberty Bell if ten minutes cost $250.
In my view these are decisions that must be made in the coming years, like it or not. Can you and I influence these decisions? Let Freedom Ring!
posted by Tim at 5:23 PM
.jpg)
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home