DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
US Environmental History Class at CSW
HTML https://cswenvirohistclass.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Mod 4, 2019
*****************************************************
#Post#: 226--------------------------------------------------
Re: #11: Edward Abbey, "Polemic: Industrialism Tourism and
the National Parks," from Desert Solitair
DIR By: mayafb
Date: January 27, 2019, 5:18 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: JTodd link ---
>
>
> 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?
>
>
--- End Quote ---
In response to Jake's question, I think it is important to
provide comforts for people. I think access to the wilderness
has become such a privilege and by removing these creature
comforts it further alienates people who are not comfortable in
the wilderness. I think that with the parks in the west (I have
only been to a few), there are huge differences than the
national conservation lands. I am most familiar with the ones in
Maine (hi Reed) and having the ability to have larger access
makes more people visit the parks. For instance, with the AMC
huts in the White Mountains and elsewhere, people who do want to
get outside but are not confident or comfortable being really
"out there" have the opportunity to. Personally, I think without
these accommodations, many people would never experience the
joys of the outdoor parks and therefore the parks themselves
would loose funding and maintenance. At least in many of the
parks, once you get off the edges of the park and into the
heart, then the infrastructure disappears and then the
"wilderness" is open for experience.
On a different note, I want to talk about land usage in Maine. I
feel frustrated with Roxanne Quimby because she seems to be
asserting her own values on the land without much context or
understanding. In Maine, there is a huge culture of being a
"Mainer." This title comes with generations of having your
family work the land and live in the state. Especially when you
work away from the coast towards Moosehead, this culture
intensifies. There are larger tourist places that have less of a
"Maine" identity, but there is such a strong connection between
the people and the land in these rural areas, it is difficult
for me to support Quimby. The major quip I had with this article
was how it neglected to mention how hunting in Maine is highly
regulated and used as a conservation method. Near the Allagash
River (a little more north than the north woods, past Kahtadin
and towards the border), the logging business is what sustains
that local economy. In order to actually gain access to the
public lands of that surround and encompass the river, a few
hours of logging roads must be navigated. When I was up there
the fall of my junior year, hunting season had just started and
as we were getting ready to start our trip, we were watching
trucks pass us with dead moose in their flatbeds. However, these
were people how had gotten the fewe permits available and knew
the rules and regulations of hunting. They were also hunting on
these logging lands. This speaks to the casual sense of land use
in northern Maine. The sense of ownership rested with the
community although the land lawfully was granted to these large
cooperations, who were actually doing more sustainable logging
than logging that was detrimental to the land. The kind of
community that is created in the northern woods is one of
interconnected land use and culture. Although what Quimby is
doing might be honorable, I expereince the connotation of her
purchases as telling the Mainers that their land use is
inncorrect and unsustainable.
Question:
How does land use of a community dictate the culture of
communities? In other words, looking at the community in the
North Woods region by Moosehead, how does their opposition to
the creation of a national park show their cultural values and
land ethic?
Is Quimby's actions just? If they are who are they "just" for?
#Post#: 227--------------------------------------------------
Re: #11: Edward Abbey, "Polemic: Industrialism Tourism and
the National Parks," from Desert Solitair
DIR By: Casey A
Date: January 27, 2019, 7:59 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
In response to Maya’s questions, I think that land usage/purpose
is reflected from the environment itself because it is what
people are used to. In connection to the Maine reading, there
is a question on my mind of how it is possible for people to be
against building conservation land, where I always thought the
majority of people viewed said action as ethical. To that I
have deduced that for me, I am used to preserving nature because
of where I live, but if you live somewhere else, like in a
hunting community or a large city, you are not going to be as
used to those ideas and therefore have different ethics. I
think that answers the first question. In response to the next
couple of questions, I think Quimby’s actions are just towards
the environment and everything benefited by her actions. It
does feel weird that one person can just convert all of the huge
land area which was used differently in the past into
conservation land. But that area is now hers and for me, that
makes it feel like the governments fault for letting her
purchase such land if they are even at fault at all.
#Post#: 228--------------------------------------------------
Re: #11: Edward Abbey, "Polemic: Industrialism Tourism and
the National Parks," from Desert Solitair
DIR By: Casey A
Date: January 27, 2019, 8:01 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
My question for next person if there is one: Why, in the reading
is it said that people love their national parks, is it really
theirs, why might people think that it it is important to them
personally while other’s don’t?
#Post#: 229--------------------------------------------------
Re: #11: Edward Abbey, "Polemic: Industrialism Tourism and
the National Parks," from Desert Solitair
DIR By: jterry2020
Date: January 27, 2019, 8:17 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?
In theory, no. As Abbey implies, I think National Parks were
originally created to be a preservation of the wilderness and a
chance for the public to experience that wilderness. I think
that the reason that people want the comforts of home is because
they don’t actually want to fully experience the wild and
natural. The general public wants to see and partially see
nature but only to a certain extent. As we’ve talked about in
class, there is a human desire for control and control of the
environment, and experiencing nature fully in a National Park
would be losing that control. I think another factor is that the
definition of experiencing nature has changed over time with
culture, and now it would seem that “fully experiencing nature”
is in the comforts of car.
Is the “wildness” of National Parks forever relative to cultural
norms and expectations?
#Post#: 230--------------------------------------------------
Re: #11: Edward Abbey, "Polemic: Industrialism Tourism and
the National Parks," from Desert Solitair
DIR By: liamf
Date: January 27, 2019, 8:24 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Casey A link ---
>
> My question for next person if there is one: Why, in the
reading is it said that people love their national parks, is it
really theirs, why might people think that it it is important to
them personally while other’s don’t?
>
--- End Quote ---
In Response to Casey’s question, there are a multitude of
reasons why some might think a national park is important while
others might not. At least today, I feel like some don’t really
feel the need experience the world around them. With technology
giving us the ability to be amazed and entertained within the
comfort of our own home, some might think that it makes little
sense for them to get outside and see everything there is to
see. Personally, I feel like this point of view is hard to get
behind. The first national park I ever visited was Acadia
National Park. In the summer of 2012, my family went up to Maine
to spend a few days camping at the park with some family
friends, and it was a great experience. While I don’t remember
the entire trip as it was a while ago, I particularly remember
the beautiful beaches which were covered in smooth, round rocks.
Our campsite was right near the beach too, and I remember seeing
the beautiful sunset over the water. The most notable event
though was when there was a thunder and lightning storm when we
stayed overnight in our tents at the campsite. I don’t remember
anything too specifically, except for the fact that 11 year old
me was really scared by it. The part of the park that I think
was most affected by the work of the people was the campsites.
The importance of having bathrooms, and access to water was
crucial and we wouldn't have had as good of a time had we been
camping without those basic necessities. The ability to have
them, however, takes away from the “natural” experience a little
bit, as you’re still relying on humans in one way or another. I
think this ties heavily into Abby’s idea of “accessibility.”
By making a national park more accessible, does it retract from
the “natural” experience that one might have while being in the
park? Why or why not?
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 2
DIR Previous Page