There's an article in The Economist about the decline in visitors to US National Parks. They give several reasons including competition from cities for tourism and conservationists attempts to reduce impacts on local ecology. The point of the article seems to be that if conservationist manage to thwart all efforts to upgrade park infrastructure (e.g. nicer hotel accomodations and new campsites), Americans will stop going and eventually stop supporting the parks through taxes.
I'm not sure where the right balance lies between protecting the parks and providing access and amenities that make them more enjoyable for more people. I recently noticed for the first time on a hike up Card Canyon that fire roads provide pretty good access for ATVs and 4WD vehicles in the Cache National Forest. One the one hand, it kind of takes away from the hike when you're left in the dust of a dirt bike and realize you aren't as remote as you thought you were. On the other hand, I realized that if my dad made it out in June/July, I would be able to take him into meadows of wildflowers.
BTW, the Card Canyon Hike was on in late June. The Mountain Bluebells were at their peak. On the east side of the loop, we walked through waist high stands of them. The east side trail was also a bit overgrown, but still easy to follow. At the pond (misquito pool), just make sure to walk left toward a dead tree that currently has a pink marker flag.
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I wonder about this, because the vast majority of people I grew up with never set foot in a national park. Ever. If they did, the most common experience was likely to be driving through GSM on the way to and from Cherokee and Gatlinburg.
And even though my parents took us on trips and we visited national parks, we didn't actually stay in them. (My mother does NOT camp.) We hiked short distances, visited the visitor centers and museums, drove scenic drives, listened to rangers give talks. Then we stayed in the hotels on the edge.
I think those experiences--no park experience and day tripping--are probably more typical American experiences than those of people who have the time, experience, and money to stay in a lodge in a park or go camping. This is probably most true in the SEUS, since there aren't as many park opportunities here.
Despite that, the idea of national parks is still compelling for those people. The idea of giant redwoods or Old Faithful or the Grand Canyon or the Everglades is one of those things that means "America" in the back of our minds.
So I'm not sure that the lack of upgrades will affect public support (such that it is) for national parks. It may not hold true for people in different parts of the country--or people whose use of the parks may change because of new regulations.
In any event, there seems to be a lot of negativity in the article about conservationists while it glosses over reasons like the internet (which it merely dismisses as implausible) for attendance declines. In my eyes, this article conveniently ignores the process that led to the federal court's decision (indeed, it doesn't even mention the case) and the likelihood that this scenario would apply to other national parks and federal lands or projects. Based on its listed reasons, I think its conclusions are a little hysterical.
Sorry for writing a book in your comments!
Post a Comment