We love our national parks. We love the wildlife they hold, the seashores with their sparkling sands, the forests with their wildlife and hiking trails, the soaring red-rock cliffs and plunging canyons.
But please, don't ask us to abide by their regulations.
Uproars over managing off-road vehicles in both Cape Hatteras National Seashore and Big Cypress National Preserve, the oyster farm at Point Reyes National Seashore, air traffic over Grand Canyon National Park, snowmobiles in Yellowstone National Park, and now bike races in Colorado National Monument all seem to drive home that point, no?
There are other examples, to be sure, whether you point to non-native fish being stocked in North Cascades National Park, off-road routes in the crooks and crannies of Death Valley National Park, or climbing fees being raised at Denali and Mount Rainier national parks so the Park Service can afford its climbing programs.
There's an interesting conundrum at play, don't you think? Congressional representatives and states clamor for a unit of the National Park System in their backyards, both for the preservation they bring and the economic boost they can provide. But after the ink is dry on the enabling legislation, those pesky regulatory details can be downright breath-taking, and not in the same manner as Yellowstone's Lower Falls.
* In North Carolina, the idea of Cape Hatteras being the country's first national seashore was applauded, as was the National Park Service's agreement to artificially maintain Highway 12. But what's this about seasonally blocking some access due to nesting birds and turtles?!?
* Yellowstone is beloved by Wyomingites, Montanans, and Idahoans, all who rightfully take pride in laying claim to the world's first national park. Just don't too loudly raise the issue of where or how you can snowmobile in the park, delve into the wolf recovery program, or mention bison, unless you're ordering a cut for dinner.
* Grand Canyon National Park was a god-send for northern Arizona, a hot, arid place in summer where the park's lure contributes significantly to the local economy. But now some air-tour operators are complaining that the Park Service's efforts to restore natural quiet to the canyon, something that no doubt helped lure many of those visitors, could put them out of business.
* At Big Cypress, never mind that the Florida panther, arguably the most-endangered mammal in North America, is a tail's length away from extinction. Swamp buggies are needed to pierce the dense undergrowth and boggy sections of the preserve for hunters, anglers, and wildlife viewers.
* And at Point Reyes, the tastiness of a farmed Pacific oyster is the cause célèbre in a battle over wilderness designation.
Never mind that there is better snowmobiling in the national forests surrounding Yellowstone than in the park itself; that the fishing off Cape Hatteras is better in fall, outside of the plover and sea turtle nesting seasons, than during the height of summer; that Drakes Estero isn't the only place to farm oysters in California (Tomales Bay oysters, anyone?); that there already are off-road vehicle routes elsewhere in Big Cypress; or that the Grand Canyon planners believe they have a system that will allow for 8,000 more flights a year that currently being flown while also reducing noise in the park.
No, those are all beside the point to some.
Of course, the National Park Service has no other choice but to uphold its regulations. And foremost among them is the National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, a legendary work of conservation foresight that specifically directed the Park Service to "conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wild life therein ..."
Of course, there are those who are quick to point to the second half of that sentence, the part that also directs the Park Service 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."
But as the late historian Robin Winks, who scrutinized the Organic Act to accurately interpret its intent, pointed out, the intent of the framers of the Act clearly was to place preservation of the resources above recreation.
The National Park Service was enjoined by that act, and the mission placed upon the Service was reinforced by subsequent acts, to conserve the scenic, natural, and historic resources, and the wild life found in conjunction with those resources, in the units of the National Park System in such a way as to leave them unimpaired; this mission had and has precedence over providing means of access, if those means impair the resources, however much access may add to the enjoyment of future generations.
Not impressed by Professor Winks' academic approach? Then know that federal courts have ruled more than once that preservation of the resources is the prime directive for the National Park Service.
In a case that arose 1986, for instance, National Rifle Association vs. Potter, a federal district court ruled that the Organic Act gives the Park Service "but a single purpose, namely, conservation."
Ten years later, in 1996, in Bicycle Trails Council vs. Babbitt, not only did the appellate court agree that preservation comes foremost for the Park Service, but it also ruled that the name of a unit of the National Park System -- in other words, whether the unit in question was a "national park" or "national seashore" or "national recreation area" -- did not alter that mandate. That ruling came after the court reviewed the 1970 General Authorities Act and the 1978 Redwood Amendment.
So what's the solution? Should states retake the national parks? Should Florida reclaim the Addition lands of Big Cypress, as one reader noted it could readily do? Should the "national seashore" tag be removed from either Cape Hatteras or Point Reyes? The locals are the ones seemingly most rankled by the regulations, and some outwardly maintain they could do a better job of managing the parks.
Of course, affording them is another question, as many states are finding it difficult to maintain their state parks. But that's part and parcel of deciding how to manage them, no?
Should the National Park Service Organic Act, that dusty, 95-year-old piece of legislation that gave the Park Service its marching orders, be gutted? Why not just take away that first part about conservation (which many have interpreted to mean 'preservation') and focus on enjoying them? And not for future generations, but right now!
Surely, by doing so free enterprise could be unleashed on the parks for hunters, anglers, off-road enthusiasts, snowmobilers, personal water craft owners, and who knows what other commercial enterprises that currently are shut out. True, that "national park" logo that comes in so handy with marketing would be lost, along with possibly millions of tourists who focus on "national parks," but that would solve some of the crowding issues in the campgrounds and moving about the beaches, no?
And no doubt some of the current open space could be done away with -- forests cut down, meadows plowed smooth, and asphalt laid hot and gleaming -- to make way for more lodges and restaurants and parking lots. That might detract a little from some of these places, but at least the Park Service wouldn't be around to police its regulations.
Perhaps the colonies should take a cue from the English, who have created a park system in which "(P)eople live and work in the National Parks and the farms, villages and towns are protected along with the landscape and wildlife."
But then, the concept of the American National Park System would be lessened, if not outright tarnished, no?
Though the above was typed only half-seriously, how should some of the issues raised by the vocal minorities that are complaining about how the national parks are being run be addressed? Should they just be dismissed as the rantings of local minorities, who in turn should be reminded that these are indeed "national" parks and not local playgrounds? Or should there be a serious reappraisal of some basic ground rules? After all, many of these locals moved to their present locations because they loved the parks and wanted to be close to them. But then, in some cases, lawsuits and regulatory changes followed them.
How seriously should the Endangered Species Act be taken? Wasn't it rampant development and sprawl that forced many of the listed plants, birds, fish, mammals, reptiles, etc. into the dire plights they face today? And how vital is The Wilderness Act? Do we need it to preserve and maintain our wide-open expanses?
In the end, I suppose such questions hinge on whether we believe we should leave our grandchildren photos of Florida panthers and Ivory-billed woodpeckers and grizzly bears...or the real thing.
Comments
Every time I’ve hiked along Hetch Hetchy Reservoir in Yosemite, I’m reminded of the fight between preservation and shared resource use.
The National Park Service is the only Federal agency tasked with maintaining cultural and natural resources in an unimpaired state.
BLM, US Forest Service, and US Fish and Wildlife Service all promote shared use of the resources they protect.
The Raker Act authorized a dam in Hetch Hetchy Valley in 1913, before passage of the National Park Service Organic Act of 1916. If we couldn’t preserve a beautiful part of a crown jewel in the National Park system without the Organic Act and the regulations that followed, we desperately need those NPS rules and regulations to do so now.
Many people come from local areas and from around the world to see geysers and bison in Yellowstone or the giant Rorschach tests in stone of the Grand Canyon, Arches and Canyonlands. Local people were displaced by the establishment of Great Smoky Mountains National Park in 1934. Yet if the park hadn’t been established, it would have been clearcut and a big chunk of its recreational value destroyed. You wouldn’t have had all those visitors, and the ongoing tourist economy.
Subsistence hunting is allowed in Gates of the Arctic and certain other National Park Service properties in Alaska. Inholdings like Drakesbad Guest Ranch in Lassen Volcanic are common in National Parks. So there’s been some accommodation of the original landholders and nearby residents who depend on parklands for their livelihood.
As Repanshek points out, if you want to snowmobile or ride OHVs, there are many properties adjacent to National Parklands where you can do it. I think the problem comes when folks who’ve been pursuing certain activities for generations on those lands get told they can’t anymore. Human nature being what it is, they don’t want to change.
The thing is, if there were no regulations, thousands of others would pursue activities destructive to the resource the NPS is trying to protect. As it is, you can talk to any ranger at a park like Arches, and they’ll tell you the resource is being loved to death. Normal visitation and use within the regulations causes wear and tear.
Without the regulations, it goes far beyond that. The Wetherills looted artifacts from Mesa Verde and Chaco Canyon for sale to collectors and museums before the Federal Government stepped in to stop it with the Antiquities Act of 1906.
That wasn’t the end of it. In late 2009, I followed sketchy directions to a wellhead in Northern New Mexico. That was the trailhead for Twin Angels ruin, built by the Anasazi around 1100 or so. The ruin and trail are managed by BLM, who also administers oil drilling leases. Left unprotected, there would be nothing left of the ruin – it would look like a cratered battlefield from pothunters’ illegal diggings. There are documented cases of ancient walls being bulldozed on less-protected properties to yield valuable artifacts sold to the highest bidder by pothunters.
Current Federal regulations give rangers the tools to go after abuses like that, and maintain the resource in that unimpaired state. Do you want your kids to inherit a world without natural resources to lift their spirits, or lacking cultural resources to show them where they came from?
"..giant Rorschach tests in stone of the Grand Canyon, Arches and Canyonlands".
Very nice! Can I use that?
Kurt, Bruce Bytnar and Mark Bohrer all added to my history lessons for this week and I bow to their knowledge and understanding. I find agreement with much of what they say. I would go as far as saying that I support what they say with one qualification.
I have ridden snowmobiles in Yellowstone National Park. I do not feel that this activity was detrimental in any way at the time. I passed within feet of a bison and did so as instructed and quite honestly believe that bison couldn't care less about me. In fact if anything I feel it was one of those mutual personal moments. I also snowmobiled outside the park in West Yellowstone a couple of times where we had a different kind of fun. I don't know if we were different then than those visiting now. Nor do I know if conditions have changed. So I will not venture to be an authority on this one.
I have also traveled the Blue Ridge Mountains and ridden the Everglades in an Airboat and snorkled on delicate reefs and explored caverns and canyons. Yes I have been blessed and hope everyone will be also. I say this so you will know that I have been exposed to natures wonders and I can assure you that I was always conscious of the delicacy of the environment surrounding me. I was taught to respect everyone and everything.
Now for my qualification. I have driven the beach at cape Hatteras for almost half a century now. So forget the talk about future Generations, I have taken my children and my children's children and their Great Grandmother on this beach. I can tell you that the beach is in the same condition today that it was 50 years ago with the exception of changes due to natural occurrences which I see as rather minor, all things considered. I certainly see no effects from orv use.
So my point is, every park is different and unique in its own way. Its uses are different as well as its suitability for certain uses. Cape Hatteras is different. But there are those that want to apply 'blanket science' and 'blanket restrictions' and 'blanket -------' . We all know about the plovers. We've known about them for years. I am getting a little tired of people saying I've got to get out of their way. A lot of beach excluded from use because one plover may have nested there once and may want to do it again. Never mind that he could just move over a bit where most of his buddies are nesting. Look at the NPS maps and explain that to me. We don't want all the beach and truth be known, that plover would probably say he doesn't mind, if he could talk to us. But I guess he only talks to Audubon, then they speak for him.
Just something to think about. It's not cut and dried.
Ron (obxguys)
Marjorie:
Sure, it's what those places are. Bicycle through any district of Canyonlands (especially the Maze) or hike GCNP or Arches and you'll definitely see it. I remember a formatiion you could see from the Maze overlook that reminded us of someone dangling a rubber chicken by the neck. Of course, nearby, you had the Nuts and Bolts.
In Arches, there was the stone alien waving at you. GCNP is more massive, but the stone characters are still there.
And don't even get me started about Bryce... ;-)
Mark Bohrer
This thread is full of fine examples of the thought processes of a certain segment of the human population which sees no difference between an individual person on foot and that person (or more than one) on a motorized conveyance. As if the speed, weight, noise and emissions of those motorized conveyances are no different than those of a pedestrian.
And why does every thread end up as a debate about the "free market"? But of course the old saying "to whom much is given from whom much is expected" is too Marxist for those who don't want to be stewards of the planet or their brother's keeper.
My understanding is that Drakesbad Guest Ranch is no longer an inholding but owned by NPS and operated by a contractor. I've read that the the public facilities at Death Valley are private inholdings and aren't subject to NPS regulations. There certainly are inholdings such as Wawona and Foresta within Yosemite, as well as the Yosemite West community that is reliant on Wawona Road for access. I remember passing by Wilsonia in Kings Canyon NP too. I guess there are some cases where the federal government didn't have it in them to force sales using eminent domain. That can be a scary thought as a property owner - that your property might be taken over by court order while having to either take a lowball offer or where the assessed value of your property is diminished because of the threat of eminent domain.
As for the oyster farm debate in Marin...
I enjoy a good oyster from Tomales Bay. I've enjoyed a Hog Island Sweetwater, Pacifics from Point Reyes Oyster Co or Tomales Bay Oyster Co. However - Drakes Bay Oyster Company is by far the largest oyster producer in California and I consider their product superior; I understand they can grow to a marketable size three times faster than Tomales Bay. Oysters grow faster there because of a more abundant food source coming in faster from the ocean. If DBOC were to close, it creates a dilemma because the farms in Tomales Bay are limited in how much they can expand. There's plenty of oyster production in Puget Sound and British Columbia, and that's probably what would pick up the slack - not Tomales Bay.
Life can be simple when you pick and choose your history and your regulations. Yellowstone National Park is a perfect example of the changing way we have interpreted the organic act. Enjoyment came first, well ahead of preservation. There were bear-feeding demonstrations with grandstands set up at the dump so that people could come and watch. Some geysers were permanently destroyed because visitors were encouraged to stuff things into them just to see the objects shoot into the air when the geyser went off. In the 60s, bears were still coming through the campgrounds nightly, their culture having changed thanks to easy pickings in trash cans. It's taken decades for the NPS to change that bear culture.
As our population has become more and more urban, parks have edged further and further towards preserving for us the picture we have in our minds of nature. They find one point in time, and declare that the goal, and then try to deny or avoid all the complexities of nature and our relationship to it. And since trying to keep changeable nature in one static time period is so difficult (impossible actually) regulations/restrictions have increased.
The reality of the situations in each of these parks is complex and this article does us no favors when it comes to helping us address those complexities. For example, it's easy to say that wilderness should outweigh oyster production in Drakes Bay Estero, Point Reyes National Seashore if you don't look at the entire wilderness picture in the seashore, or consider what oysters contribute to the ecosystem. The wilderness boundaries in this park unit seem to have been designated with a bias toward recreation, with a cherry-stemmed road running down to the edge of the estero, a parking lot and visitor buildings included. Data gathered by the NPS shows that visitors using these facilities are the cause of seal disturbances during the critical pupping season. Meanwhile, their data, and the secret cameras the NPS installed, show that the oyster workers do not disturb the seals at all. We also know that the oyster farm produces thousands of pounds of food protein in one acre, and is in fact one of the most carbon neutral ways of producing food that we have available to us. So what should we do?
I have a friend who works for the National Park Service who says "There are Nature's rules and there are Man's rules. We can't change Nature's rules, but we can change Man's rules." What man's rules should be continues to change as we change. If we are to make good rules and regulations, we need to have honest discussions about all the complexities we face. Unfortunately, there are no easy answers.
Kvoth makes a very good point when stating that the park service picks and chooses what they want to protect and how.
Cape Hatteras is a fine example. The rulings for restricting activities that have been ongoing for nearly a century for protection of one threatened species. It is constantly brought up that Mans influence on the beaches of Cape Hatteras are the reasons for this species not thriving today. Well if it were not for the influences of man it may never have even been there at all. Man created dunes, drainage systems, artificial ponds, etc... that create an artificial environment that draws small numbers of these birds to the island. Remove all of these man-made influences and let nature take over these areas and you will see a very different result when it comes to this specific threatened species.
The same can also be said for all national parks. Was the intention of the National Parks not to preserve these areas in a natural undisturbed state? If so tear out all the roads, boardwalks around geysers, and buildings like hotels and such as these are all versions of access that is unnatural and lowers the pristine views and vistas that the National Parks were to protect. Groups will pick on and sue for what they believe to be true and sometimes they win. This allows the National Parks to be one of the largest Special interest groups around. it is purely at the will of special interest lawyers that these National Parks are under funded and overrun. Where they see something they do not like they will sue until it is corrected into their likeness and then alienate one group at a time eliminating more and more funding while pocketing the fees paid for by the NPS. It took many years, many mascots dujour, and failed attempts by environmental groups to get where the NPS is today. Say what you wish but do not tell me my way of accessing the park (which leaves no marks) is worse than building permanent access roads, docks, boardwalks etc... To me that is simply the pot calling the kettle black.