It seems that I did have a bit of a misunderstanding about the dunes when I made that post. After going back and examining the images that I took of the coastline when I was there, it is clear that you (WT) are obviously right about the erosion factor. I was applying the same ideas of erosion to the land in my area; which is quite different than a dune.
However I still stand by one of my statements. While "Urban Sprawl" may have been a bad choice of words on my part, the idea remains the same. Although it is unavoidable with the development of society, the growth of the population forces people into all parts of the land. As your quote stated, the purpose of the National Park Service's is:
Quote:
|
"...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."
|
There would be no need to make an effort to preserve any areas if the population had not grown to the current numbers. That was the basis of my point.
Quote:
|
why was the National Park Service founded in 1916?
|
The answer to that is that even in 1916 it must have been clear that there would be a point in the future that the population would eventually eliminate all of the natural wilderness if something was not done. This makes me wonder how much longer parks will be around. From looking at the numbers alone, one would have have to figure that there will be a time where our population reaches a point that the parks will end up being done away with to allow people to move in and replace the parks (if this was clear in 1916, then it must be even more of a threat today). I'm not saying I expect that to happen, but that statement was only meant as a "what if".
Quote:
|
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
|
How much longer can it last?