DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
US Environmental History Class at CSW
HTML https://cswenvirohistclass.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Mod 5, 2019
*****************************************************
#Post#: 402--------------------------------------------------
Re: #11: Edward Abbey, "Polemic: Industrialism Tourism and
the National Parks," from Desert Solitair
By: yzhu2020 Date: March 3, 2019, 8:40 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I haven't visited national parks in the US yet... unfortunately.
Though when I think of them, I think of massive "natural"
monuments (rocks, mountains, trees, etc.). I also don't discuss
with people about national parks either, but when I do, they
almost always the greatness of those natural monuments and how
it is beautiful to look at. People visit them to see such art of
mother nature and just feel the famous landmarks that represent
the States.
To reply to Annaliese
From the NY times article, I don't fully understand all of the
opposition for the public park Roxanne Quimby wanted to build in
Maine. Were people really that unwilling to give up using their
snowmobiles and ATVs there? It sounds unreasonable. Because that
article was written 13 years ago, has public opinion on this
topic changed since then?
I think it wasn't that the people didn't want the park, it is
that they didn't trust Roxanne Quimby; she was a businesswoman
after all. Not everyone trusts businesspersons because they are
profit-driven in the eyes on public sometimes. Because of this,
people might think that she is using her money earned to buy
land and making profit under the name of "preserving land". In
addition, banning the use of snowmobiles and hunting hinders the
benefits of those who engage in one or both of those activities
(and I am going to assume that they were popular activities or
else people wouldn't be so opposed).
#Post#: 403--------------------------------------------------
Re: #11: Edward Abbey, "Polemic: Industrialism Tourism and
the National Parks," from Desert Solitair
By: zwalker2020 Date: March 3, 2019, 11:06 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Like some others here I haven't gone to any national parks, and
when I think of them I think of them as huge empty (as in nobody
living there) places that are normally either forests or
mountains. I think of them as places that are far away from
cities and are pretty inaccessible. This relates to our
discussion on friday, where I think of these parks as both
nature and wilderness (though it's a limited wilderness
spatially). Personally, I think its best for these parks to be
preserved as natural habitats for local animals, and we should
limit trails and roads being built in them, as well as vehicle
access which might damage the ecosystem there. I think national
parks should be more focused on preserving the environment than
being a place for people to visit in their free time (even if
its fun to visit them). Pretty much the whole country is already
dominated by human activity, and these parks are kind of the
last place that nature, and the wilderness, really still has
dominance. Sure, they can be landmarks at the same time, but
this shouldn't be their primary reason of existence.
#Post#: 404--------------------------------------------------
Re: #11: Edward Abbey, "Polemic: Industrialism Tourism and
the National Parks," from Desert Solitair
By: ebartel2020 Date: March 4, 2019, 6:37 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The last person did not end with a question so I just picked
one. The question I am answering is: What is more important to
value, the people having easy access and being able to enjoy the
parks or the preservation of land, or is there a way to
compromise? I found this question to be intriguing because my
first thought as well if people cannot see the land then how do
we know how much value it really has. Like a tree falling in the
woods. I think it is important and would be great to have access
to these places but if not possible, I think they should not be
touched. There is more then one way through a national park and
if by making a place accessible, you are ruining it or making it
less than, I would think of a different way of entrance or
simply, not touch it. A question that I am throwing around in my
head is what is the future of National Parks going to look like?
#Post#: 411--------------------------------------------------
Re: #11: Edward Abbey, "Polemic: Industrialism Tourism and
the National Parks," from Desert Solitair
By: Ahmed_A Date: March 4, 2019, 6:44 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I will be attempting to answer the following question: what is
the future of National Parks going to look like?
This question is hard to answer based on the reading alone as
both were written more than a decade ago. However, I think that
the American values remain similar in regards of the
preservation of “wilderness.” both readings point to people's
need to see natural sights amidst the city; it gives the public
illusion that nature is alive within the civilization. Whether a
National Park is natural or artificial is another dilemma that I
have been wondering about. Although the purpose of a National
Park is to preserve nature, the act of preserving is not left to
the natural ecosystem, but is maintained by humans, which takes
the natural aspect of it. Regardless, people perceive it as
natural, which means that National Parks would last as they are,
due to the public demand.
*****************************************************
DIR Next Page