The Guardian on National Parks

Grab your bear can or camp chair, kick your feet up and chew the fat about anything Sierra Nevada related that doesn't quite fit in any of the other forums. Within reason, (and the HST rules and guidelines) this is also an anything goes forum. Tell stories, discuss wilderness issues, music, or whatever else the High Sierra stirs up in your mind.
User avatar
dave54
Founding Member
Posts: 1059
Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2005 10:24 pm
Experience: Level 4 Explorer
Location: where the Sierras, Cascades, and Great Basin meet.

Re: The Guardian on National Parks

Post by dave54 » Thu Nov 22, 2018 10:54 am

The National Park Service was created to promote public use of the Parks.

The NPS Organic Act:..."shall promote and regulate the use of the Federal areas known as national parks, monuments, and reservations hereinafter specified by such means and measures as conform to the fundamental purpose of the said parks, monuments, and reservations, which purpose is to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wild life therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations".

The phrases 'provide for the enjoyment' and 'leave them unimpaired' are becoming mutually exclusive.


=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~
Log off and get outdoors!
~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=






User avatar
rightstar76
Topix Expert
Posts: 716
Joined: Mon Jun 26, 2006 3:22 pm
Experience: N/A

Re: The Guardian on National Parks

Post by rightstar76 » Thu Nov 22, 2018 11:18 am

.
Last edited by rightstar76 on Sat Aug 24, 2019 10:29 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Wandering Daisy
Topix Docent
Posts: 4597
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2010 8:19 pm
Experience: N/A
Location: Fair Oaks CA (Sacramento area)
Contact:

Re: The Guardian on National Parks

Post by Wandering Daisy » Thu Nov 22, 2018 11:54 am

The NP act says PRESERVE the scenery, etc, FOR the enjoyment, SUBJECT TO the form of enjoyment not impairing future generations from the same. Preservation comes first, because without preservation, there will be nothing TO enjoy. I do not see that as a conflict. To me it is pretty straight forward preservation agenda. The wilderness act simply limits the bounds of "enjoyment" not include roads and other permanent man-made features. The debate should be on what exactly constitutes "enjoyment" particularly now that technology is invading all spaces. Many National Parks are a combination of the older version of "parks" with the designation of wilderness areas within the parks, if there are such lands that meet criteria for wilderness preservation. Within the entire system is another designation, as National Recreation Areas. In these, easy access and recreation IS the main objective. For example, Bureau of Reclamation lands surrounding reservoirs.

User avatar
Harlen
Topix Expert
Posts: 726
Joined: Sat Mar 11, 2017 9:13 am
Experience: Level 4 Explorer
Location: California

Re: The Guardian on National Parks

Post by Harlen » Thu Nov 22, 2018 12:59 pm

Luckydrew wrties:
The pristine Yosemite of Muir is not a reality for anyone living today - and it never will be.

Well lets see: Yosemite is sadly missing all of its gray wolves and grizzly bears, and most of its bighorn sheep, and its former populations of giant sequoias, and other conifers have been much reduced... on the other hand, bighorns are being been successfully reintroduced here and there, and because of the consolidation of visitor use in The Valley, vast areas of Yosemite's National Parkland have been nicely preserved in the interest of the the remaining wildlife, and for people interested in "wilderness" travel.

Yosemite Valley was sacrificed for the greater ecological good, and likewise, we should be willing to make personal sacrifices. E.g., though I wouldn't like it, I would be willing to follow a rule to have just 2 entries into the Park per season, and hopefully, more entries allowed during the off-season. There are so many other areas to enjoy; however, I'm not sure how much limiting us locals would ease the crowding problems.

As for developing other areas of the Park for the visitor's enjoyment, should we worry about how that might play out? Do we want telepheriques and gondolas strung about the peaks? I'll bet that those of us who have traveled in the European Alps will abhor the introduction of a European-style hut system. Do we really need 4 course meals and fine wine in the mountains? I reckon even our wine-guy Balzacom would disapprove?

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: dave54 and 4 guests