DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
US Environmental History Class at CSW
HTML https://cswenvirohistclass.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Mod 4, 2019
*****************************************************
#Post#: 216--------------------------------------------------
#11: Edward Abbey, "Polemic: Industrialism Tourism and the
National Parks," from Desert Solitaire: A
By: TeacherRachel Date: January 25, 2019, 9:05 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Edward Abbey, "Polemic: Industrialism Tourism and the National
Parks," from Desert Solitaire: A Season in the Wilderness (pp.
273-278)
"In Maine, a Public Park in Search of Public Support," New York
Times (pp. 260-263)
Stuff to chew on while you read:
You might approach tonight's reading (and the piece on
Yellowstone) by exploring the place our national parks occupy in
your imagination. Have you visited any? What was your experience
like? What stands out in your memory? What about the impression
the park made might have been affected in some way by the work
of people?
If you've never been to a national park in this country, you can
still play: when you think of them, what comes to mind? When
people describe them, what do they emphasize? Why do you think
people visit them (to the tune of nearly 300 million visitors
per year)?
P.S. - Edward Abbey (1927-89). An avid proponent of desert
preservation through books and essays, Edward Abbey served as a
National Park Service ranger and firefighter in the Southwest.
His book Desert Solitaire (1968) opposed "industrial tourism" by
automobiles and excessive development in the national parks as
being both destructive to the parks and to those who visit them.
The Monkey Wrench Game (1975) and Hayduke Lives! (1990) made the
case that the West was being destroyed by dams, irrigation
systems, bulldozers, and logging trucks. His work inspired the
movement Earth First! to advocate "monkeywrenching," or the
practice of sabotaging the machines that were destroying the
land by strip-mining, clear-cutting, and damming wild rivers.
(Source: Carolyn Merchant, The Columbia Guide to American
Environmental History, 2002)
Like last night, please post a question and answer the question
that came before you. Please, make yourselves weep with your
excellence.
#Post#: 217--------------------------------------------------
Re: #11: Edward Abbey, "Polemic: Industrialism Tourism and
the National Parks," from Desert Solitair
By: Kasey Date: January 26, 2019, 9:38 am
---------------------------------------------------------
National parks are usually shown to be a way to step into nature
and admire the beauty and environment around us. I have been to
Muir Woods, and I recognized that the pathways are not just dirt
but are built wooden floor paths. I find this to be very odd
because it’s almost as if while admiring and noticing the nature
around us, we couldn’t even touch the ground or truly be a part
of the park. Eventually, we went onto a path that required more
hiking and didn’t have wooden paths because they were not our
preference, but these barriers were keeping us from connecting
with the natural ground. This reminds me of the roads these men
want to build because they think it will bring more tourists.
The goal is to earn more money and get more people rather than
sustain the natural environment that is already there. If the
goal is to attract people who do not even want to be out in
nature, what is the purpose of the park? There are so many
people who can easily walk and hike and there is no point in
putting a road in a national park that was made to preserve the
land. I think people have become so “civil” that they struggle
to accept anything that is not natural, and in doing so, they
are changing the natural environment around them, even if it
first was meant to be a preserved park.
Why do people feel the need to build man-made creations in
perfectly natural and untouched places, especially places that
are meant to be preserved as natural and untouched?
#Post#: 218--------------------------------------------------
Re: #11: Edward Abbey, "Polemic: Industrialism Tourism and
the National Parks," from Desert Solitair
By: alaina.h Date: January 26, 2019, 11:14 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I’ve been to a couple national parks over my life, like Grand
Canyon, and Zion National Park. Before I went to those places I
always had this idea that they would be so serene and pure. I
was definitely expecting many people to be visiting them, but
not as many as when I went. It was kind of sad for me to be
looking out on these places and you could just see hundreds of
people scattered around it. I did not look as natural as you
would hope anymore. I feel like nowadays National Parks are
places people go to when they want to be “immersed in nature” or
go on a hike, and this becomes a tactic for amusement for
people. It doesn’t seem as though the park is actually being
preserved as it should be. Abbey mentions that “the primary
responsibility of the national park system” is to “preserve
intact and undiminished what little still remains.” (p.274) I
don’t know for sure if national parks are doing that job because
there is not much remaining that hasn’t been touched, changed or
destroyed in some way. That connects to Kasey’s question.
[quote author=Kasey link=topic=12.msg217#msg217 date=1548517135]
Why do people feel the need to build man-made creations in
perfectly natural and untouched places, especially places that
are meant to be preserved as natural and untouched?
[/quote]
I feel as though people have no awareness, or people have a
distorted sense of what is actually helping nature and what is
not. Some people build these man-made creations with good
intentions of “preserving” but it only adds on to this chain of
the destruction of natural things.
Is there anything that you think could be done at this point to
improve the status of the wilderness and these national parks?
#Post#: 219--------------------------------------------------
Re: #11: Edward Abbey, "Polemic: Industrialism Tourism and
the National Parks," from Desert Solitair
By: Reed Date: January 26, 2019, 12:25 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I took a weeklong backpacking trip through the presidentials
with the AMC the june before my sophomore year of high school,
with five or six other teenagers. It was sunny and cool as we
approached Mt Washington from Tuckerman Ravine, roughly four
miles south of the peak. Suddenly, the slope flattened away
before us, and there it was, the mount washington auto road,
unnaturally smooth, bright grey and regulation-striped, a far
cry from the texture of the thin mountain plants and new england
rubble that’d characterized the landscape for five days
previously. It was characteristically breezy on washington, but
when I knelt on the road, I could pick up the faint stink of
cars and motorcycles coming off the asphalt. A black minivan
rushed by.
We kept hiking, weirded out and a little amused about this mark
of so many muggles nearby. The next thing we encountered was the
summit train station. The park maintains a fake-vintage steam
train, the Mount Washington Cog Railway, that was originally
built by Sylvester Marsh in 1869-- a dude who got rich off the
meatpacking industry who got lost and almost died trying to
summit Washington, and decided that he could get even richer if
he built a train to the top. A lot of workers died getting it
built, but thousands of people ride it every year now, and it
makes buckets of money. It runs on diesel. The owner wants to
build a 35-room luxury hotel on the top of the mountain in honor
of the 150-year anniversary of the train. There’s a thirty-year
old tradition among hikers to moon the cog as it passes by, to
protest the smoke and noise pollution generated by the train.
Anyway. We got to the summit, where there’s a massive weather
observatory with a radio station. You can buy curly fries and
hot dogs, and bumper stickers that say “This Car Climbed Mt.
Washington.” After a lot of joking around about being unshowered
and uncivilized mountain goats, the merry band continued
relievedly down the mountain.
I totally agree with the reading about how small things get when
you put roads on them. I hate the auto industry as much as any
urban planner, and I’m all for designing spaces for people not
their cars, that get people to look around, see each other, see
the world, and live better lives.
I also think that observatories with thousands of dollars’ worth
of equipment generally need a good way of getting that equipment
delivered, and that whatever highway gets decimated, there needs
to be an accessible replacement to get equipment, “old folks,
fat folks, ...pale faced office clerks,... and children”(275) to
the spaces they want to get to. When I get old and fat, I still
want to be able to bask in the beauty of nature and be healed by
it… it seems like there are plenty of ways to move people around
without need of a car, and access to wilderness that is not so
remote.
Do you enjoy seeing nature through a car window? Why? I don’t
understand the appeal of road trips through national parks, and
I'd like to hear somebody's thoughts on it.
#Post#: 220--------------------------------------------------
Re: #11: Edward Abbey, "Polemic: Industrialism Tourism and
the National Parks," from Desert Solitair
By: Cale is not me. Date: January 26, 2019, 2:53 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
The only national park that I can remember going to in my life
was the grand canyon in Arizona. My dad had to go to the state
anyway for a business related thing so my mom and I tagged along
so we could go to the grand canyon. Keep in mind I was like 12.
The experience for me was similar to the industrial tourism
mentioned in the Abbey reading. We drove up and went to a spot
to look down at the canyon from where dozens of others were
also. Later, the next we came by during sunrise to see the view
again before leaving but from inside our car. What was more
interesting was the drive to the canyon and the flat landscapes
that my Canadian raised eyes were not used to. The best way to
describe it is basically all the highways or towns off the
highway in the movie "Hell or Highwater". At the canyon itself,
we didn't do anything but look. Meaning my memory of the park
isn't have much to do with nature. Where we were looking from
was designed for tourism so wasn't quite natural. I would tend
to agree with Edward Abbey's views on these parks. All the most
memorable experience I've had with nature haven't been in a
place that other people usually go or are convinced to go.
#Post#: 221--------------------------------------------------
Re: #11: Edward Abbey, "Polemic: Industrialism Tourism and
the National Parks," from Desert Solitair
By: Shi Shi Date: January 26, 2019, 9:31 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
A couple of years ago I visited Acadia National Park up in
Maine. Unfortunately, I didn't get to do any hikes or anything,
but I got to visit Sandy Beach and the Thunder Hole. I found
both places to be beautiful. However, similar to Kasey's
experience, I was deterred by the man-made concrete steps and
metal railings that were everywhere. The railings were mostly
installed as a safety precaution for tourists, and I completely
understand why they would install them, however, I still felt
extremely limited and constrained while I was there. There was
also a type of walkway integrated into some of the natural rock
at the Thunder Hole location.
In order for installations like these to be put in place, parts
of the rock must be removed and altered. After these changes,
are the rocks still natural?
I also have section-hiked many ranges of the Appalachian trail
both in New Hampshire and Maine. The Appalachian trail has made
many adaptations to the land, for example: adding metal ladder
rungs to steep boulders, creating bridges across rivers, wooden
planks over muddy or swampy areas, et. When I am on these types
of trails I do not feel constrained at all by the man-made
additions. I find the metal ladders quite useful especially when
I am carrying a 60liter backpack. The bridges make the trek much
easier and the little wooden platforms help limit how muddy my
boots get. Why do these man-made elements not affect me to the
same degree as the ones in Acadia National Park? What makes them
different? In order for the ladders to be installed, the rock
that is attached to has to be altered in the same way as the
rocks supporting the guard rails. Am I not affected as much
because I am spending several nights in the same woods?
I am curious as to what makes us determine how "unnatural"
man-made products are in a protected natural environment. Why do
some things feel more or less natural than others?
#Post#: 222--------------------------------------------------
Re: #11: Edward Abbey, "Polemic: Industrialism Tourism and
the National Parks," from Desert Solitair
By: Tommy Is The Person Who I Am Date: January 27, 2019, 12:05 p
m
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Shi Shi link=topic=12.msg221#msg221
date=1548559913]
A couple of years ago I visited Acadia National Park up in
Maine. Unfortunately, I didn't get to do any hikes or anything,
but I got to visit Sandy Beach and the Thunder Hole. I found
both places to be beautiful. However, similar to Kasey's
experience, I was deterred by the man-made concrete steps and
metal railings that were everywhere. The railings were mostly
installed as a safety precaution for tourists, and I completely
understand why they would install them, however, I still felt
extremely limited and constrained while I was there. There was
also a type of walkway integrated into some of the natural rock
at the Thunder Hole location.
In order for installations like these to be put in place, parts
of the rock must be removed and altered. After these changes,
are the rocks still natural?
I also have section-hiked many ranges of the Appalachian trail
both in New Hampshire and Maine. The Appalachian trail has made
many adaptations to the land, for example: adding metal ladder
rungs to steep boulders, creating bridges across rivers, wooden
planks over muddy or swampy areas, et. When I am on these types
of trails I do not feel constrained at all by the man-made
additions. I find the metal ladders quite useful especially when
I am carrying a 60liter backpack. The bridges make the trek much
easier and the little wooden platforms help limit how muddy my
boots get. Why do these man-made elements not affect me to the
same degree as the ones in Acadia National Park? What makes them
different? In order for the ladders to be installed, the rock
that is attached to has to be altered in the same way as the
rocks supporting the guard rails. Am I not affected as much
because I am spending several nights in the same woods?
I am curious as to what makes us determine how "unnatural"
man-made products are in a protected natural environment. Why do
some things feel more or less natural than others?
[/quote]
I suppose that this is in part determined simply by how natural
something looks, and by how much man-made products alter the
appearance of a space. A set of concrete steps and metal
railings take up more space than metal ladder rungs on steep
boulders, and I would imagine that they do a worse job of
blending in, too. I also think that there is a distinction
between concrete steps and wooden planks beyond the fact that
wood is a more natural material. Wood does a better job of
blending into a forest, even if the wood has been altered and
its placement planned out by humans.
I would like to point to two National Parks I have visited,
Volcanoes National Park on Hawaii's Big Island and Badlands
National Park in South Dakota. On both visits I got out of my
car and actually spent time in nature. I did also spend time
viewing the parks from a car. What I find interesting is that in
these parks (in certain areas) I did not feel that we were
necessarily being obtrusive by being in a car driving on a paved
road. I think this has to do with how well a man-made feature
blends into its surroundings. I have attached links to images of
roads in the two parks because inserting them directly into the
post made them horribly large:
HTML https://static1.squarespace.com/static/564d14dfe4b0290681184a82/5897b079ebbd1a42309233bc/5897b0cdd482e95fd8735c46/1486336215872/Badlands+National+Park+-+013.jpg
HTML https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ac/Chain_of_Craters_Road_1960_lava_flow.jpg
The roads are definitely noticeable, but when compared to a road
running through dense forest, they blend in quite well with
their flatness. I suppose that things feel less natural when we
sense that they have replaced something that was natural. In the
portion of Volcanoes National Park covered by hardened lava,
vegetation has already been "paved over" by nature itself, so
how much different is it when humans come along and create a
similar surface? Furthermore, in such an environment it doesn't
feel like humans have exactly taken over the environment.
HTML http://www.bogley.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=59916&d=1349882630
If a park's man-made features are knowingly at the mercy of
something as powerful as a volcano, then those man-made features
feel less obtrusive. I also suppose that an active volcano goes
against the view of nature a balanced, unchanging space, which
again makes human alteration feel like less of a permanent
detriment.
Do National Parks contribute to you/we as humans viewing
yourself/ourselves as at the mercy of nature, or as its
controller and protector?
#Post#: 223--------------------------------------------------
Re: #11: Edward Abbey, "Polemic: Industrialism Tourism and
the National Parks," from Desert Solitair
By: renee Date: January 27, 2019, 1:06 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Tommy Is The Person Who I Am
link=topic=12.msg222#msg222 date=1548612321]
Do National Parks contribute to you/we as humans viewing
yourself/ourselves as at the mercy of nature, or as its
controller and protector?
[/quote]
Humans have added many modern, man-made elements into National
Parks in order to make nature more accessible to everyone. I
think that adding in these elements was a way to control
nature’s unpredictability. Many National Parks have railings and
a designated trail. This past summer, my family and I spent a
day in Rocky Mountain National Park and came across a trail
running alongside a mini waterfall. There was a railing to
clearly separate tourists from the “dangerous” waterfall (it
wasn’t really a waterfall since it wasn’t completely vertical or
a strong current; it was really a rocky stream at a slight
incline). My siblings and I, being adventurous, went beyond the
railing and climbed up and down the waterfall. Clearly the
railings were put in place as a caution, but it wasn’t that
risky, and aren’t National Parks there for humans to immerse
themselves in nature? There are always people who defy the
designated, safer trails in National Parks and those who abide
to them tightly. I think that those who follow the trails are
protecting nature, while those adventurous tourists are at the
mercy of nature.
How do man-made elements in National Parks limit tourists from
experiencing the truly natural environment? Is there actually
anything in these parks that are completely natural?
#Post#: 224--------------------------------------------------
Re: #11: Edward Abbey, "Polemic: Industrialism Tourism and
the National Parks," from Desert Solitair
By: JTodd Date: January 27, 2019, 2:22 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
This is shocking, but I am going to start with my personal
experience with the National Parks.
I live about 10-15 miles from Grand Teton National Park, and
around 80 miles (which isn’t very far at all by Western
standards) from Yellowstone National Park. This means a few
things: one I have been in and out of Grand Teton more times
than I can count; and two, I face the brunt of the influx in
tourism each year, as Jackson Hole serves as one of the final
places of civilization before tourists depart into the parks. I
have been to Yellowstone around 3-5 times. I have visited parks
all throughout Utah, Idaho, and Montana. I have been to Arches 3
times, once within the last year. I have been to Zion, Bryce
Canyon, Canyonlands, Mesa Verde, Rocky Mountain, Dinosaur, Great
Sand Dunes, Santa Fe, and many other state parks and
reservations. Western National Parks hold a very special place
in my heart.
Words really fail me in my description of the parks I have
visited. Each has its own unique beauties, all incredibly potent
and breathtaking. I side with Abbey completely in his arguments.
My own way of phrasing it is: protection first, visitation
second.
To answer Reneé’s question:
[quote author=renee link=topic=12.msg223#msg223 date=1548616018]
How do man-made elements in National Parks limit tourists from
experiencing the truly natural environment? Is there actually
anything in these parks that are completely natural?
[/quote]
One of the greatest challenges parks face is keeping up with the
increasing demands of tourists while maintaining an intimate
relationship with the wild unknown. There are so many people
that visit Western Parks in the summer that it is always hard to
find the places that feel wild, untouched, and natural. Those
places do exist, there are simply fewer of them. You have to be
committed to your search.
Do people really need to experience creature comforts they are
accustomed to in their homes while visiting National Parks,
something meant to be a preservation of the wild and natural?
For anyone interested in National Parks, I highly recommend Ken
Burns’ The National Parks: America's Best Idea. It’s a very long
documentary series, but so worth viewing. It is informative and
simply gorgeous.
#Post#: 225--------------------------------------------------
Re: #11: Edward Abbey, "Polemic: Industrialism Tourism and
the National Parks," from Desert Solitair
By: juliab Date: January 27, 2019, 4:55 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
"Do people really need to experience creature comforts they are
accustomed to in their homes while visiting National Parks,
something meant to be a preservation of the wild and natural?"
I personally believe that a journey is better when the place you
explore doesn’t have these comforts we’re accustomed to having
at home. However, I think that in building the tourism industry
at these parks it is a better move to appeal to everybody by
making it a little bit more like home. I think especially now
people can be hesitant to leave the comfort of their homes, with
the modern mentality of “why spend money to visit this place
when I can see it from my couch on TV?”. On top of this, not
only does this comfort maybe provide an incentive to go, but it
also makes it far safer. In reality, most people aren’t equipped
to deal with many of the animals that are native to the parks,
and it provides shelter from this.
National parks to me are a sort of transitional introduction
from the material world that we are used to living in to the
bare yet beautiful ways of nature when untouched. When I was
younger I went to Yosemite with my parents to recreate their
honeymoon. My memories include art galleries, built up paths,
and fancy hotels with pools (we stayed somewhere far less nice
and modernized, but I remember sitting in the lobby for lunches
at the park and wishing that was what they chose to do). So very
few of my memories actually correspond to the nature of the
park. This probably has a lot to do with my priorities from when
I was young, as that was a point in my life where I was often
very out of it and happy to be home, but I think it also speaks
to what is there. I now feel much more comfortable in my life
the further that I push myself into nature, so I wish that they
were maybe a little more separated than I remember (but I can't
say I'm sure how clear my memories really are)
I have many questions : Is there a way to better separate the
manmade world from the parks in the US? Should they be separated
more than they are? What creates the boundaries between what
should and shouldn’t belong in a national park now?
*****************************************************
DIR Next Page