I figured we'd get a spirited discussion going here.
Quote:
|
As for the idea of destabilizing the conservation, we must ask ourselves what we are conserving and should recreation be the cost of such a practice.
|
In the case of
Padre Island National Seashore, the rule of no driving on the dunes is to protect the
longest remaining undeveloped barrier island in the world. The island, and primarily the dunes on it, are what provide that all important barrier when hurricanes and tropical storms make landfall. Think Claudette was bad? Imagine if she hadn't had the undeveloped barrier islands of Padre & Matagorda to help buffet the storm surge and keep it away from our heavily developed commercial/tourist coastline. Destabilize the dunes (by hiking, driving
or ATV-riding on them), and the next big storm washes away even more of the island than it already does. In
Saving the Best of Texas: A Partnership Approach to Conservation it is noted that the "Texas coast features some of the best naturally stabilized barrier islands... in North America." We didn't get there by allowing hikers, ATV's and pickups to tear through the dunes..."moving dirt a couple feet", as you describe.
Quote:
|
There would be no need for parks without suburban sprawl.
|
If that were really true, why was the National Park Service founded in 1916? Yes, cities were growing by then, but suburban sprawl wasn't really in widespread existence at that time. The need for parks is not just for recreation and solace, it is also (to borrow from the National Park Service's mission statement): "...
to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wild life therein and 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." The parks exist not for the NOW but for the FUTURE. Living in the now means we'd make decisions that are self-serving and could harm the parks, their unique habitats and continued existence. Already, many "natural wonders" we have set aside as parks are encroached upon by things outside of the park services' control -- pollution from neighboring cities or from Mexico, increased flooding or drought due to damming of rivers upstream, etc.
There has to be a balance between the recreational use of parks and the conservation element. Otherwise, just pave some more lanes, add a roller coaster, and make a theme park with sand dunes, wave pools and the like out of every park.
Quote:
|
It all boils down to what destruction of land really is. Take a look at the grand canyon. Now that is destruction. That is one of the largest ecological catastrophes to ever take place, correct? Some may say it was the most amazing things to see, regardless of the fact that billions of tons of Earth were moved to create it. I realize that is a rather exaggerated example, but you get where I am coming from.
|
Not really... you are comparing a natural "disaster" over eons to man-made actions over, what, decades? That's like comparing the meteor impact that may have led to the extinction of the dinosaurs to a brick of Black Cat firecrackers. The scale is
just a little off, and the forces at work are entirely different -- nature, in one, man in the other...
Quote:
|
Land cannot be destroyed by displacing it and neither can vegetation. A 4 foot wide trail hurts little.
|
I encourage you to read the book I mention earlier in this post,
Saving the Best of Texas. While I respect your view, it's slightly ill-informed on topics such as conservation, land degregation and general land use policy in Texas. Destruction of the stabilizing vegetation on the dunes at Padre Island National Seashore, for example, immediately accelerates the rate of erosion, allowing the dunes to "blow out" and become part of the Gulf of Mexico or Intercoastal Waterway system. No more dunes means bad things, washing even more of the island away. In remarkably short order (years, not decades or eons), it wouldn't be surprising to find you could only drive 1/2 the distance down island as you can now because a new channel from the Gulf to the Intercoastal waterway has formed through/over what used to be the island. Driving through tundra has similarly devastating effects.
Driving in your family's farm fields is a completely diferent "environmental" impact. For one, I doubt you drive OVER any crops your family is planning to harvest.