Category: Uncategorized

All semester, I have talked about how the National Parks are in desperate need of receiving help–mostly financially. But this week, for my final post, I want to take time to talk about how the parks are giving back to America–to the country that has given them such amazing publicity and opportunity to share their beauty with Americans and visitors alike. And from there, I want to touch on just one last issue that they are going through–to leave you with a final thought about the fate of the National Parks.

There are so many animals and wildlife living in the National Parks. They give character to the parks and draw visitors in just as much as the land itself. That being said, the parks are trying this new thing where they donate the meat of deer to food shelters. Now, this could sound potentially bad–that the parks are trying to control the populations of animals themselves. It would make most sense environmentally speaking that survival of the fittest kicks in and the weakest links of the deer population die off. However, the deer population is beyond words over-abundant. That being said, the population is actually affecting and damaging both the land and other wildlife, such as vegetation. So in a way, the parks deciding to control the deer population is just another attempt at preservation.

The parks have taken it upon themselves to control this population. But don’t worry, they aren’t just letting the deer go to waste. Rather, they are donating the deer meat to food banks! This is absolutely awesome. The meat goes through testing to be sure that it is safe to eat before heading off to the food bank. According to the National Park Service, the deer meat that was donated will equate to 50,000 meals for people in need.

So it turns out that the decision for the National Parks to control the deer population in certain parks is a good thing. Not only is it maintaining the land and state of the parks, but it is also providing meals for people who are in serious need. The parks are literally giving back to America in a way that is simply remarkable. This new development could be something that other parks could adopt–this current situation was with National Parks in the Maryland/DC area.

Another new development occurring among the parks is that they are trying to adopt policies that will limit or remove cars on the premises entirely. Certain parks, like Zion National Park have already started adopting this policy. It is a great idea, but it definitely has roots in a past park system. With this development spreading throughout the nation, it may almost feel as though the National Parks are reverting into a more simplistic, slower pace of life–maybe like the way they were in previous centuries.

Personally, I think that this decision to remove cars from the premises is a wonderful idea. It will allow for the parks to start to repair and KEEP the repairs in tact–a lot of the reasons why parks are not being maintained is because they are not given the time to “recover” or “maintain” their repairs. And also because they are not getting repairs nearly enough–but that is a whole different story that I have already touched on.

Other people may not like the idea of removing cars from national parks because it is not in line with the current state of society. Society is very modern, with cafes on the premises of national parks. (Wow, I am really just channeling all of my previous posts and culminating the ideas into one.) People are very into a modern society and modern experiences, including transportation. The idea of people having to take trolleys or walking on dirt roads will be something that I could easily see new generations of children complaining about–with their iPad in hand of course. Or maybe their iPhone 10. Can you tell that I don’t agree with a lot of modern societal standards?! Nevertheless, people may want to bring this sense of modernism into the parks or ramp up the current modern trends that the parks are seeing. But that would conflict with their purpose…hm, pretty messy I must say.

Regardless of what people are feeling towards reverting the parks back to their simplistic, 20th century state of being, it is in the hands of the government, the National Parks Service, and advocacy groups alike. Whether or not people are going to be allowed to drive vehicles on the grounds of National Parks is something that must be addressed though.

If we want the parks to last for centuries to come, it is crucial that people put time, effort, and energy into making this happen.

On this week’s blog, we have some really exciting news! Seems like I have been saying that a lot lately…not like it’s a bad thing though! I know a few weeks ago, I addressed the fact that the government thinks that the insane amount of debt accumulated by the parks over the years can be paid off through increasing entrance fees–thus putting the responsibility of the FEDERAL LANDS in the hands of the public. If you can’t tell, I’m not a huge fan of that idea. Why? Well, for starters, there is a lot of history behind the National Parks that I am pretty sure is addressed in earlier posts. That being said, these lands were established and protected under the federal government, and I really think that it should stay this way.

But then, something changed. Mentioned in the Washington Post, “Interior Department officials are backing away from a plan to dramatically increase entrance fees at the most popular national parks after receiving more than 100,000 public comments from Americans nearly unanimously opposed to the idea.”

This is very promising! The fact that more than 100,000 people are in agreement about this cause is great. One of the biggest issues with politics today is the lack of political efficacy–meaning that people do not think that their opinion is valid and they do not think that just their work alone will make a difference. Here, we have people that are not afraid to express their opinion, and luckily enough, over 100,000 others are feeling the same way.

It was proposed that the park fees increase from twenty-five dollars to a staggering seventy dollars. This is absolutely unreal! Many people take the approach of a National Park vacation because it is truly a one-of-a-kind experience, and it does not cost an unreasonably ridiculous amount of money for a day to go into the park, unlike commercialized vacation spots like Disney World.

Currently, for a single day pass to Disney World, it is one hundred and fourteen dollars. I’m sorry, but that’s scarily close to the proposed National Park entrance fee price. And they are so different–it’s crazy that the parks that were created with the intention of educating the public and providing a place to enjoy nature is climbing up the ladder to cost as much as potentially the most commercialized place in America.

That being said, as a result of the public unrest and dissatisfaction expressed surrounding massive entrance fee increases, it appears as though there will still be entrance fee increases, but they will be a bit more doable. Not entirely sure what this means, because I think that anything more than twenty-five dollars is asking a lot, but only time will tell.

It has been said that the entrance fee increase would not make that big of a dent on handling the debt. Which is why yet again, the government has to figure out a way to work things out. The fate of the parks truly is in the federal government’s hands–the Trump administration has a lot of decisions to make regarding what to do from here.

Nevertheless, although the whole entrance fee increase debacle has people nervous for the future, it goes to show that there are still people who will advocate for nature day in and day out. These people can work together through advocacy groups. Advocacy groups can have a lot of power when they work together for a common cause. Through petitioning, garnering support, and educating the public–a lot can be achieved.

One of the most prominent advocacy groups for the National Parks is the National Park Conservation Association. On the National Park Conservation Association’s website, there is a whole article about proposed entrance fee increases. The organization agrees with the need to increase entrance fees as a means to pay for all of the debt, however, wants the government to realize that this is not a stable way to handle the issue. It is not financially sound to increase entrance fees–and with the entrance fee increase, the organization worries that it might draw people away from the parks and in fact, it could be a situation where the parks are loosing money.

All in all, the situation is messy and complicated to say the least. But everything with a political agenda is. That being said, it is important that people continue to exert their influence and are not afraid to speak their minds! With these kind of people, the parks will receive more justice and maybe things will get better. Advocacy groups are working tirelessly to help the public understand the severity of the situation, but it is also up to the public to want to learn more information. Everyone has the potential to be affected by this entrance fee increase. I hope that the government thinks long and hard about the final price before making it official!

So last week I talked about a really awesome act that was proposed, is in the process of getting support, and could potentially make a huge impact on the parks and the funding that they receive. And this week, I want to talk about some new developments and decisions the parks are taking to try and keep them in the best shape possible.

Thanks to technological developments and the society in which we live, Saguaro National Park in Arizona, could see an increased safety for its wildlife. Apparently, it has been brought to the attention of the park staff that visitors had been, in fact, stealing cacti from the park. This is not okay!!! The reason that we have the National Parks in the first place is to keep and conserve the wildlife for visitors, whether they are locals or not, to enjoy! The fact that the National Parks even need to go to such a measure as to put microchips in their cacti to track them if they are stolen is absolutely ridiculous. However, that being said, I am more than glad that this type of technology exists! Our technologically advanced society has the capability to do so much in order to maintain order.

This new development is in fact, not in its early stages. This idea of chipping cacti has apparently been in existence for ten years. The poaching of Saguaro cacti has been a problem for a while, this is so frustrating! Fast forward from 2008 to 2018, and in Saguaro National Park, chipping is still happening. Recently, just 1,000 of the cacti were tagged with a microchip, and there are definitely more than 1,000 cacti in this large piece of land. That being said, this could potentially be a scare tactic–if visitors are aware that some cacti are tagged, they will be less inclined to try and steal them out of the park.

Although this development is surely a good step for the parks to up their conservation tactics, it does cost money. The cost to tag 1,000 cacti was $3,000. That is $3,000 that came out of the extremely limited budget; surely that is money that could have been used for maintenance upkeep or something that is just as pressing–because I’m sure when good old Teddy Roosevelt (yep, welcome back old friend!) created the park system, he never imagined that people would want treat them in such a disrespectful manner as taking the parts of the parks away from their home. Hopefully with the persistence of microchipping cacti, we can crack down on this problem of poaching such beautiful wildlife!

Speaking of beautiful wildlife…it appears as though the National Parks will be getting an increase in the amount of birds that live in respective parks. Yellowstone National Park is home to a lot of unique species of birds, which draws visitors to visit the park. However, due to increased climate change, the species that are currently living in Yellowstone may have to relocate, and those who want to see the birds will have to go elsewhere.

According to National Geographic, birds are really great at indicating if there has been a change in climate, due to the fact that they can move their wings. The climate change issue has seen action here and there, however, National Geographic proposes that the parks will have to do something to help the birds. Some potential options include increasing and restoring habitats for the birds, along with gutting the parks and removing species that are invasive and thus harming the living situation. The parks additionally want to bring more birds in, and in order to do this, they will be trying to increase the habitats available, so the transition for the birds into the parks is more pleasant.

Although both of these scenarios are coming out of bad situations, I really think it’s awesome that the National Parks are trying to find viable ways to solve these problems. Because the value of the Saguaro cacti isn’t going to decrease anytime soon–the possibility of poaching will always be there unfortunately. And on the other hand, the issue of climate change is one that needs so much work. Bringing more birds into the parks surely won’t solve climate change, but giving them a fresh new habitat is a great way to bring more diversity to the parks and creating these new habitats is a great way to improve the lives of the wildlife that occupy the National Parks. With these improvements, hopefully people will still want to see the unique wildlife, which in turn, can generate money that could go towards maintenance that is in dire need of being done.

And hopefully, one day we won’t need to take such drastic measures such as chipping our wildlife, because people will start to learn the value of respecting nature!

 

Just the other day I had the opportunity to interview with PennEnvironment, a Pennsylvania state-wide environmental advocacy program. I applied for their summer internship and was lucky enough to receive the chance to talk with their Water and Conservation Advocate. Through this, both her and I discussed the necessity to act upon the environmental issues that have been propagated by the current political situation.

Some of the issues we discussed were ones that I had a genuine concern in–the fate of pollinators, clean water for schools in the city, uranium mining in the Grand Canyon, and the biggest concern plaguing environmental politics these days–climate change. Talking with my interviewer, I realized just how passionate I am about solving these problems, or at least bringing these problems to the attention of the public–because it seems like lately, people just don’t want to address it.

Another interesting point that we touched on was the fact that science has pushed towards climate change being real, yet people are wary about it. Why is this the case? My interviewer and I agreed on the fact that it has to do with political party identification. Many people’s party identification is who they are. They will listen to what their party tells them to believe, even if that means ignoring such a pressing issue as climate change. My apologies for getting so political so quickly, just really passionate about the environment up in here!!

This was definitely one of the most intimidating interviews I’ve taken part in. Why? For starters, it got very political very fast. And we dove right into ways to fix the current environmental state, mainly through proposing efficient ways to appeal to the public so people are more informed on how they can make a difference. Because as far as I’m concerned, it seems that there’s a lack of political efficacy these days–people don’t think that what they do as an individual will make a difference in the whole issue. I hung up the phone (did I mention this was a phone interview?) and just thought about the future of the parks, worrying that they’ll dissolve and beforewe know it, the future generations of America won’t have the chance to hike the Grand Canyon. 

Not even two days later, I found a very interesting article in the news that got my hopes up. A new act has been proposed!!!! It is called the National Park Restoration Act, and it is designed to, “restore and rebuild roads, buildings, campgrounds, trails and water systems in New Mexico’s 15 national parks, improving facilities for the more than 1.7 million yearly visitors to the parks.” If that didn’t make you smile a little, well, I can’t help you there. This is such exciting news!!

Under this new act, 11 billion dollars of maintenance backlog will be addressed! This means that all of the maintenance needed to be done that has been piling up will actually see some progress. According to the information I’ve gathered, it seems that this work is going to start taking root in New Mexico, where 123 million dollars of work is needing to be done.

In 2017, the parks received approximately 2.9 billion dollars, but maintenance costs were up to 11.6 billion. As we can see here, there is an overwhelming disconnect between what needs to be done and what is being put forward. So that being said, this new act could really get the ball rolling for the National Parks and their upkeep.

Here’s the catch–this proposed act needs to get APPROVED. According to Senator Alexander–senator of Tennessee, the act has a lot of support from both President Trump AND the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). That being said, this could be a pretty promising segue into more federal funding and allocation of funds for the National Parks.

If you can’t already tell, I’m so excited about this. After choosing this blog topic, I was nervous that every week, I would be highlighting the issues with the parks and what we can do to fix it. Which is definitely a good way to be spending my blogging hours, however, I was really hopeful that there would be some ground-breaking proposals or acts or exciting news that could affect the fate of the parks, and here we are!

The thing is, we can’t get complacent with this development. If we just stop here, admire the potentially great thing, and move forward, the parks will still lack funding and all of the maintenance that they so desperately need will not happen. We need to continue to educate the public on ways they can help, and we need to break party barriers–because let’s face it, whether you are Republican or Democrat, this is the fate of the National Parks at our hands. Party identification shouldn’t stop you from caring about something so rich in history and national value.

Mondays already stink to begin with. All you want is another weekend, because the one you just had went by too fast. You don’t want to get out of bed, you don’t want to go to classes, you just don’t want to do anything. Morale is low… And then you see this article, stating that the Trump administration is majorly cutting budgets to the National Parks.

Lovely. Just when you thought morale couldn’t get any lower.

So let’s investigate this and figure out exactly what happened on this hazy Monday when budget cuts were released.

Trump’s administration is proposing to hit the Department of the Interior with a sixteen percent cut. Within the Department of Interior is the National Park Service, which will be feeling a seven percent cut in budgeting alone.

 

So what does this mean? Basically it means that the cuts will result in fewer facilities for the public to use, fewer services (like maybe shuttle systems will have to be cut back), which in turn, means that the staff that is remaining will have even more taxing and demanding jobs. This cut in budgets will result in a cut in staff as it is simply not feasible to give out paychecks to an ample amount of employees with a limited budget. Trump is proposing to cut two-thousand park rangers employed through the National Park Service.

It is very bizarre that this budget cut is happening, because visitation rates are at an all time high. Just in 2016 alone, 331 million visitors were present in the parks. That is just mind blowing! How awesome is it that so many people wanted to see the beauty and natural state of the parks! But with the desire to cut budgets, 331 million visitors are not going to be able to visit the parks in a year.

Chair of the Coalition to Protect America’s National Parks, Phil Francis, states, “Our national parks face real and significant challenges that threaten the integrity of the national park system.” The Coalition to Protect America’s National Parks works to spread information surrounding the struggles that the parks are facing in hopes of bringing the issues to the public attention. From there, the goal is to garner support in order to enact change. The Coalition gets their word out through “issue papers, comments, editorials, and face-to-face meetings.” It is really important that these types of organizations rooted in preservation continue to act, because they are the ones that have enough passion to move forward with change.

I think anyone can agree upon the fact that having National Parks is a privilege. We are so fortunate here in America to have a system that is dedicated to keeping the parks alive–shoutout to you National Park Service! Keep doing you! With that privilege though, comes the need to give money to the parks. As we can see, Trump is clearly not allocating the funding for the parks–so how does he propose they get the financial support that they need? Through increasing the entrance fee, of course! How logical!

The entrance fee for cars will increase by $45–the once $25 tickets will now be $70! Although the parks are surely in need of funding, this takes away from the fact that they’re supposed to be accessible for everyone. $25 is much more doable than $70…and may not be feasible for some families to pay!

This new plan does not have overwhelming support–but rather, has employees involved with the National Park Service feeling very unhappy. They are taking note of the fact that the parks may no longer be an affordable place for families to spend their time–which is so sad, because from the point of their conception forward (hey Teddy Roosevelt–thank you yet again!), they were designed so people could all have the opportunity to revel in the beauty that America has to offer.

The new prices are record breaking–a historical occasion to say the least. However, things just aren’t adding up here. With the visitation records at an all time high, it would make sense that prices wouldn’t need to increase. If anything, money should not be an issue. But it is, thanks to the new budgeting done by Trump and his administration.

Ugh. This is such a bummer. Not only are the parks receiving budgeting cuts, but people are going to lose their jobs–jobs that they probably love dearly. Jobs where they get to interact with people everyday, talking about something that they truly love–nature and all it has to offer.

I’m just going to close with this thought. Why did it take President Trump to challenge the importance of the environment, the importance of National Parks, and the importance of preserving and honoring history? Everything that the Parks stand for is patriotic and American in nature, and Trump is undermining that! Things are not looking good here, we need change.

I don’t know about you, but one of my goals that I’ve had for a long time now is to visit the Grand Canyon. I love hiking so much, and I want to backpack there and see it, because I bet the pictures just can’t even do it justice.

As I’ve done for other parks, I’m going to give a little history lesson on the Grand Canyon. It officially became a National Park in 1919, just a few years following the creation of the National Park Service. Yearly, the park receives millions of visitors, as it has become one of the most iconic places in America.

That being said, it is facing many environmental challenges. According to the National Park Service, the Grand Canyon has experienced lasting effects from mining and other pollutants in the surrounding areas. Coal power plants, combined with industrial power plants have emitted pollutants that have made their way to the Grand Canyon. Clean air and clear skies are few and far between nowadays. The National Park Service is trying its best to fight this battle, through monitoring chemical emissions and meeting with agencies to discuss ways that the reduction of air pollution can occur. Interestingly enough, the Grand Canyon staff uses shuttle systems and alternative fuel vehicles when roaming the parks, so that is a really great, simple, and efficient start on combating pollution issues.

Taking all of those issues into account, part of me is worried that I’ll never get to see the Grand Canyon in its prime state. And thanks to all of the pollution brought about by corporate businesses trying to make money, along recent political decisions and proposals brought about by President Trump, it is looking like the state of the Grand Canyon is in need of dire improvement.

Interestingly enough, there are sites that would yield uranium surrounding the Grand Canyon. Apparently uranium is a hot commodity; it is a radioactive metal used to fuel nuclear power plants and submarines. How lovely. Nevertheless, a government report that was released sometime in the recent past is saying that Trump, along with his Cabinet, are exploring the potential outcomes surrounding lifting the ban on uranium mining on the land that surrounds the Grand Canyon. So they’re not suggesting that mining on the actual land of the Grand Canyon should happen, but rather, the surrounding area. What is worrying is the affects that will come as a result of mining happening in the surrounding area.

Will people be less inclined to visit the Grand Canyon knowing that the land is going to be exposed to radioactive chemicals?

I’m going to go out on a limb here and say yes. Personally, I don’t want to be spending time in a park that is home to so much pollution and is basically being exploited at the hands of business and mining dangerous chemicals.

Another problem with deciding to lift this ban is the fact that many people drink the water in the Colorado River Basin, and chances are, it’s going to be contaminated as a result of mining for uranium. The ban also has allowed for researchers to go to the land and try and figure out the effects and dangers of mining for uranium, so chances are that this research has yielded some results. Whether these results are public or not is beyond the point; the ban has a clear purpose–to ensure preservation of a National Park that has almost officially existed for an entire century, to allow for research, and to keep drinking water safe.

This is a very bizarre situation, as the Department of Interior’s decision from 2012 to ban uranium mining on “about a million acres of land around the Grand Canyon for 20 years” was upheld in December–that’s pretty recent. This clearly hasn’t stopped Trump, as he is still working to try and reverse this decision.

I find it wildly unfortunate that places that are supposed to be havens and sanctuaries for natural beauty are now facing the threat of being subject to chemical exposure.

Nevertheless, I really hope that Trump can realize that these parks are really important. Teddy Roosevelt established the National Park Service as president for a reason. If anything, Trump owes it to Roosevelt to uphold a historical decision that has impacted so many people. And of all places, the Grand Canyon has so many wonderful things for people to take in. So all I have to say is I really hope that the National Park Service continues to do all it can to improve pollution and that Trump can take historical decisions into account–because I know that me, along with millions of other people, want to see the Skywalk, and Snoopy Rock, and ride in a Pink Jeep before time ticks away and the Grand Canyon evolves into a chemical minefield. 

As I’ve previously touched on, the National Parks are surely a symbol of America–representing centuries of deep, rich culture, while allowing people to appreciate nature when taking a break from the busy, outside world. Another way that the parks are a symbol of America is the fact that they embody patriotism.

How?

People from literally all places, whether that be in the US, or in other countries, are drawn to the American National Parks. They are wondrous and the fact that the whole National Parks Service was brought about by a former president (Teddy Roosevelt reference yet again! I’m pretty sure he will make it to every blog post this semester) surely invokes a sense of patriotism as well.

Furthermore, something that I didn’t know at first (and maybe you don’t know this either) is that a lot of former battle sites and historical sites are in fact operated and protected by the National Park Service. If that doesn’t just scream patriotism to you, I don’t know what will!

That being said, let’s dive in to the historical (mostly war) sites that the National Park Service protects. The National Park Service has been protecting and preserving battlefields in order to keep the land as a sacred, hallowed ground. The goal is to preserve these sites in order to uphold respect for veterans and honor their hard work and service towards America. Of course, with these high goals, there are going to be ways in which these goals are not met and things fall short.

Here, I’m talking about disrespecting National Parks, but more specifically the National Parks that are battlefields–that hold patriotic, emotional value to American culture. In recent news, there has been some controversy striking the Vietnam Memorial in Washington, DC. People have been leaving human remains at this site, designed to honor veterans who served in Vietnam.

Just a little bit of history on the creation of the Vietnam Memorial and its current state today. To start, the main part of the memorial was established in 1982. Since then, there was an addition to honor women who made an impact during the war, called the Vietnam Women’s Memorial, along with The Three Servicemen Memorial. The appearance of the memorial is rather striking. It consists of names of those who perished in Vietnam embossed on the surface, and while looking at these names, one can see his or her reflection in the structure itself. Pretty powerful if you ask me, and definitely intentionally created to be this way.

The National Park Service typically encourages that people leave things at the memorial–a token of gratitude to say the least. However, the National Park Service draws the line at human remains, such as ashes. Interestingly enough, the National Park Service collects the items that people leave at this memorial and display them in the “Vietnam Veterans Memorial Collection.”

This is yet again a great way to see what extremes people will go to to honor those who have been lost, a collection of items all with the same intention–all left at the memorial in order to commemorate the bravery and strength that those who lost their life had to display. Here at this structure, a common thing for visitors to do is to take paper and a writing utensil, like a crayon or a pencil, and rub the writing utensil over the paper so the name under the paper is basically traced on to the paper. It’s just a simple way of remembering friends and family lost in the war. This is a very invasive, respectful thing to do, which is surely not what people thing towards the whole idea of leaving ashes at the memorial.

So back to the whole human remains thing, I think that the National Park Service is very against this because it’s not really honoring the veterans by sparkling the ashes of someone on the memorial site. In fact, some could even see this act as disrespectful. Leaving human remains on a site that is designed to honor veterans…pretty controversial if you ask me.

But  those who have close ties to the Vietnam War do not find this action disrespectful. People are asserting that leaving ashes on the National Mall and the Vietnam Memorial is a way to pay homage and show respect for those who have fallen in battle. People who have passed can be taken to the memorial to “be with” their loved ones who were lost in Vietnam.

And leaving human remains at memorial sites, especially the Vietnam Memorial, is not an uncommon thing. It has been happening since the creation of the Vietnam Memorial, however, the National Park Service wants everyone to be aware of the fact that the facility is just not set up to host all of these remains in a respectful manner.

So regardless of what side you are on, I think that it is really something else that the National Park Service is responsible for protecting monuments designed to honor veterans. Just goes to show that there are many places with historical and intrinsic value–and they don’t have to be in the woods in the middle of nowhere.

Although the National Parks tend to be a haven for people to part from the politically charged world that we live in and just enjoy nature and all it has to offer, it seems as though especially lately the parks have experienced lasting effects of political agendas.

If you’ve been paying even the slightest attention to the news, you will most likely know know that the government recently experienced a shutdown due to disagreements on a bill that was aimed at establishing funds for the government. If you did not know that or have not seen the news, do not worry–you are not alone. According to an NPR interview conducted about the state of the National Parks in relation to the government shutdown, visitors of the parks went to the extreme as to admit that they were unaware of the government shutting down…interesting.

Ultimately, the Republicans won out in the bill battle, which Trump was very sure to tweet about (as he does), claiming that the Democrats caved and let the Republican agenda prevail. Interestingly enough, this whole debacle happened at the year anniversary of Trump’s presidency. This three day shutdown occurred during the weekend of Women’s Marches, which is rather interesting and quite fitting one could say. Definitely not planned, but it is interesting to take note of the fact that the government shut down and people banded together to protest anyways.

Now that you’ve had a little history lesson, here’s how this all ties back to the National Parks. So as we know from prior posts, the National Parks are operating under the government. They are protected by federal laws. So if you put two and two together, you will realize that the parks could not operate for these three days.

To clarify, the parks were in fact open. However, no one was “on staff” (some staff members were there, however, they were not being paid for their time), facilities weren’t cleaned, and the visitor centers were not open. This is a huge setback for people who want to visit and experience the parks, as they could not get suggestions and help when it came to planning their routes in order to maximize their time seeing as many aspects of the parks as possible.

Furthermore, the biggest concern in my opinion is the fact that there weren’t staff members there serving as security and safety. In such a wide open space like a National Park, which contains so much wildlife, there are most definitely risks and hazards. It is surely up to the visitors to be on the lookout for any potential concerns, however, it really helps to have staff that are a second set of eyes, and are typically trained in how to deal with safety hazards and potentially dangerous wildlife or trails.

I previously mentioned that some staff members would go to the parks and tell people to continue at their own risk. Not only is that stressful (like, what if someone falls to their death by continuing at their own risk, and there is nothing you can do about that), but it is extremely frustrating that these staff members who basically volunteered their time, did not earn a single penny doing so. Very. Frustrating.

In an NPR talk session about this topic, the interviewee (Nathan Rott) talks about repercussions that parks are feeling as a result of this shutdown–specifically addressing Joshua Tree National Park, located in southern California. This park was established to be a national monument in 1936 by FDR yet again! FDR most certainly did so much work to help the National Park system grow as much as it has.

Joshua Tree National Park is a hub for international visitors, as it is a big name park. That being said, visitors during the weekend of the shutdown were basically in the dark, as they had no one to guide them. Which is rather scary, because Joshua Tree National Park is known for having the most magnificent boulders to climb, and rather dangerous cacti that can cause serious damage to you. These cacti will attach to clothing, shoes, and skin–which makes for quite a painful mess. And to think that people could have been climbing these boulders with no park rangers there in case of emergency. Definitely not safe.

So this post definitely isn’t about conservation, but more so political agendas inadvertently interfering with the operations of lands, specifically lands that have been a hub for people to flock to in order to appreciate the beauty that America truly holds.

Politics are sometimes quite ugly. They divide people, cause fights, and ultimately, tear apart things that once were held together. We can’t let the ugliness of politics take away from the beauty and history of the National Parks though. The government shutdown surely wasn’t something that was planned, however, it is rather unfortunate that the effects of the shutdown were felt among the National Parks.

 

 

 

This week’s topic of discussion: Yosemite National Park, located in the lovely state of California. Yosemite was first protected under United States law in 1864, surely classifying it as a historical land. That being said, the National Park that is known for its beautiful waterfalls has seen over the years that there has been an increase in commercialization. And this doesn’t just go for Yosemite, many parks are experiencing this, but I want to highlight these problems facing Yosemite National Park. In an article from The New York Times, people are starting to fear that the parks are being “loved” and visited and admired to the point where it is actually destroying them.

In Yosemite, one of the problems that has been present for a while is the increased amount of cars going through the park. With increased flow of cars to and from and around the park’s grounds, the roads and pathways have deteriorated and above all, the increased flow of cars results in increased pollution. Pollution is obviously undesirable everywhere, however, in a national park that was created centuries ago and holds ample historical importance, it is really crucial that pollution be limited. Yosemite cannot continue to thrive for another several centuries if it is experiencing damaging rates of pollution thanks to car exhaust.

And it’s absolutely awesome that there are so many people entering the parks and experiencing and admiring their beauty, however, it’s gotten to the point where Yosemite has started to encourage and even go to the extreme of enforcing that people park their cars outside the park and instead, are shuttled into the park. This way, fewer vehicles are wreaking havoc on the land. Less common, however still relevant–parks have even started to limit how many people enter per day, in order to preserve the natural state of the parks. It’s great that the parks systems are being so proactive and working to preserve the lands, however this is a bummer for –people are going to be denied entrance because the parks are being loved THAT much. I wonder if Teddy Roosevelt could have predicted the success and popularity of the National Parks when he decided to take on the task of protecting lands. But with the passing of time, people have started to try and change the culture of the National Parks in a way that probably would not be the most pleasing for our former conservationist president.

Fast forward to 2018, over a century after Teddy Roosevelt started to take on the fate of the National Parks, and we have commercialism starting to emerge on and around these lands. A recent issue that has sparked controversy is the decision for Starbucks to add a location on the very grounds of Yosemite National Park.

From what this article has highlighted, it appears as though there is already a food court in Yosemite National Park. That being said, it is apparently composed of big corporate companies already that have contracts with the National Park Service. This is rather strange then, if these chains are already occupying a slot at the Yosemite National Park food court, what is prompting people to express dislike towards the addition of Starbucks?

If you dive deeper into the article, this question I have posed is answered to an extent. The reason that people are wary of adding a Starbucks is because it does not blend in to the culture and atmosphere of the Yosemite. Meanwhile, other chains have done a good job blending in and adapting to their environment, whether that be through decor that is woodsy, menus that are rustic, or having meats such as elk on the menu.

And then we have Starbucks. Frappuccinos, croissants, and cake pops. I don’t know about you, but that does not scream “this fits right in with Yosemite’s ‘vibe'”. Which is why there is a petition with over 11,000 people signing it to try and stall or stop the Starbucks attempt altogether.

People from Aramark, the company that runs Starbucks, gave their input on the situation, surely showing that all they were concerned about was the growth of their business, not the preservation of rich history of such a beautiful place. One spokesperson from Aramark basically downplayed the Starbucks, saying that there wouldn’t be neon signs and it wouldn’t even look like the traditional Starbucks.

But that isn’t the point. The point is that corporations are trying to wedge their way into land and a place that should be left virtually untouched. So that leaves us with the question, should more people step in to try and solve this problem of commercialization, or is it inevitable that corporations will take over everything and suddenly, a place that people went to in order to admire the beauty of our nation will just be a money making pit?

This is definitely worth our time to worry about, it’s not going to just go away. And if something isn’t done, who knows how long it will be until Yosemite and all the other National Parks are taken over by big businesses? Sounds like a real life Jurassic World. I don’t know about you, but that is not something I ever want to experience.

Look at these stunning photos and tell me you don’t want to catch a flight straight to the West Coast and spend a week admiring the beauty of Yellowstone National Park! High mountain peaks, beautiful foliage, and geysers erupting are just a couple highlights of Yellowstone. It has so much to offer, yet it is surely not getting the respect, attention, and funding that it needs!

Just to give a bit background on the home of Old Faithful (which I’ll talk about geysers later, don’t worry!), let’s have a quick history lesson. Yellowstone was established as a national park near the start of the twentieth century. National parks and their importance grew during this time period thanks to Theodore Roosevelt, who came to be known as the “conservationist president,” as he was a big advocate for national parks. Similarly to the way that many people view the parks now, Roosevelt saw them as a cultural hub that many people can visit at the same time, allowing for the enrichment of our nation’s culture and education of our youth and even adults surrounding nature and land structures that have been erect for thousands of years on our Earth. For this reason, Roosevelt created the United States Forest Service, with the intention of protecting these monumental public lands.

However, this can definitely be seen as problematic. With four million people entering the park every year, there is bound to be environmental deterioration and abuse at the hands of humans. If we look back into the past, human interference with the land was already present. In as early as 1873, it was determined that people were carving their names into the rocks and were destroying stone wall formations. People, even workers (which wow, that just goes to show how misinformed people were on the consequences of their actions on the environment) were even going to the extreme of dumping harmful chemicals like soap and lye into geysers. The parks continued to experience harm, as people littered. Today, with more education on the environment and respecting the Earth, blatant actions of disrespect such as littering and leaving harmful chemicals on the lands have definitely dwindled. However, with 4 million sets of feet traversing around the park, there is surely damage to trails and land which really cannot be reversed.

So now that you have a bit of Yellowstone’s history under your belt, prepare yourself for the news and current state of the park. Let’s talk about one of the problems that this park is facing–an overwhelming bison population. This has actually been a problem that the park has been facing for a while–even the earliest years of its establishment, which prompted people to start poaching the bison. But today, the bison themselves are experiencing a plague–a bacterial disease known as brucellosis.

Brucellosis is a bacteria that affects cattle, bison, and elk and induces abortions. Rather than treating the bison and interfering with nature, many conservationists are calling to just let the bacteria take over and run its course. Since these bison are plagued with a bacteria that is easily transferred via birth tissue, the goal is to remove the infected bison from the land so the disease eventually is no longer present in the population.

This is very time consuming and expensive to remove bison from a location. Conservationists suggest that there should be better alternatives, such as fences and vaccines which could eliminate the spread of the bacteria. Although this isn’t a problem that is affecting the state of the actual land, it is affecting the wildlife which are in fact a part of the park.

Now that we’ve highlighted issues that have been presented to wildlife in Yellowstone, let’s talk about the land itself. A new problem that has popped up is the fact that the boundaries that were established at the onset of the parks are no longer enough to keep the parks secluded. For example, parts of Yellowstone are being affected, as the boundaries are rather close to potential mining sites. This is definitely problematic, as the lands that have been protected by national laws are going to see threats of being invaded by corporate companies only interested in making money and drawing profits.

Speaking of corporate companies and drawing profits which is rather political, parks have become a focal point for political discussions. Politicians are insisting that the federal government should return the park lands to the states, rather than being owned by the government.

Based on the photos scattered throughout this blog, it is clear how important it is to be aware of the fact that there are surely environmental consequences that come with our actions in national parks, like Yellowstone. Make sure to visit my blog for next week’s episode, where we will be highlighting troubles plaguing yet another nationally protected land!