WSP05487 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

1'051- IOIII/n.. of ...........................................................N...................................N,h..............................,.~....,.".~......YVJ'N.I'N.J'....-..J Environmenf Talk Thought-Provoking '~"b ". ."'~ ....,.... 4<,.\.... ~.... ~T .-.. ,., . ..-;- .,' . .....rI'NhY............^..........^.....N.........~......NoYH..NH~^.rlV'thBy Joanne Ditmer Tbe meeting wa! ll\Xll1sored blf the Rocky Mountain Center on the Environment (ROMCOE) with the Comerva- lion Foundation and the ~ational Park Service to discuss "The Next 100 Years of the National Parks." In addition to lhi.s wide variety of park users represent- ed. George B. Hartzog, director of the National Parkl Ser. vice, (};PS) and Nathaniel P. Reed, assistant secretary of the tnt.r1or Department, spoke at the meeting. There wtn another half-dozen speeche!, and small group dtscussioll.'l. but most Important. there wal an exchange of Ideas - not just a confirmation of ideas, but an exchange. And while the discussions may not have changed anyone's Ideas, I hope it broadened the thought process. Let's take the transportation problem for an example. Many automatically thought that aU private vehicleJ should be stopped at the entrance. Some lelt that there should be pubUc buses, or perhaps narrow-gauge tra1n!, transportation inside the park, For example, there 15 8 pilot bm system that transport! vlsitors free from a parking lot at the entrance to Yosemite Park to the major attractions. Its record Is b@lng closely watched, J would think: 8 loop bus sy!ltem that runs rf.'gularly lUld offers visitors the opportunity to hop on and ofl wherever they wished, would be a boon . . . especially for the poor soul who usually has to drive and watch out for everyone else rather than for the scenery. Perhaps something as "different" as the cable cars 01 San Francisco be even more attractive and enjoyable - not nece-s!arily cable cars per lie, but that "riding outside" design, which people seem e.llger to ride on In most aU kinds 01 weather. Many Alternatives At any rate. there hIlS to be many more alternatives than those we presently contemplate, with more Imaginative thinking. The lagt day we participated In a survey of what we felt Important to favor or oppose in future planning of the parks. From among ~ items. "'''' picked 10 for. 10 against. Gin'n first priority in deft>rmining NPS program! WM preservation of the natural em-ironment. It was followed by the belief that the NPS should Immediately establish ['{'search program!!' to determine 'envirionmental carrying capacity" of all park areas. Participanlg also favored in this (lrder; The use or cri- teria oUler than 'number of ,'Isitors' as yardstick for allocat- ing fund to particular park; expanding ~nvlronmenta.1 research of 'most appropriate uses' of national park.J; es- ~~ ~6' tabllsh1ng clt1z.en advisory group. for NPS and tach regional director. Strong emphasis by NPS on non-motorized acces.ll and use of national parks; establishing new natural resourte parks to provide II. park system representative of all land- acapt>a in the nation, such as a Great Plains National Park.. Making existing parks more accessible for poor and urban minority groups; combining all resource, recreaUon and wildUfe agencies at the federal level into a single ad-.: mlnlstratlve unit (Parks, Bureau of Reclamation, Forest Ser. vice, Bureau of Land Management etc. into one,) Those proposals most adamantly opptlsed, in order of the votes th~y got, are: The expansion of all.terr8ln vehicle use, III and around national parD; use of the 'fee system' II means to limit access to overcrowded parks; provision forJ more winter sports (skiing, snowmobiling, etc.) In partl; no restriction on public acces.!J to national parks; moving all! concessionaire facilities outside park boundaries. Still opposed - park concessions run by a quasl-pubUclIl corporation such as postal !Iervlce or Amtrak; lent camping I laeiliU!'!! only In national parks; phasing out all motorized' transportation in parluJ; foot or bicycle transportation only inJ parks; expanded we 01 park! and park service for VIP en-:l tertainn1t~nl This,)'ou must realize, wasn't a poticy-makIng meeting." But it did giv8' some lodication of the wncems of many park users. The connJd between the Ideas of preservation by llmlt- lng use aod utili2atlon today will continue for a long time, n deserves considerable thought from all or UJ who .hare ill the irreplaceable legacy that the national parks, and our other public lands, represent. r- I _._-~. ---.-