Thanks for the well-reasoned reply, schef -- certainly what I expected from you and it's a pleasure to engage others in this type of passionate discussion about nature and recreation -- things both dear to my heart!
In regards to our discussion about why parks exist at all, in particular the Federal Park System, you are right in concluding the following:
Quote:
|
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.
|
Parks will be around as long as what they offer is seen of value to historians, conservationists and most importantly society -- people. Bear in mind that not all parks are natural wonders like "Old Faithful" or Niagra Falls. Many equally important parks are of the simple "playground and a softball field" city park, not just the "hiking and nature trail system park with seasonal hunting" variety.
Parks serve many interests, both here in Texas, throughout the USA and indeed worldwide. In fact, some parks are strictly historic -- to protect valuable national monuments, like the Statue of Liberty, the
San Antonio Missions National Historical Park (including the Alamo) and famous battlefields. Why do they exist? They exist for the very same reasons libraries and museums and old black and white silent films exist -- they remind us of where we have come from and, in some cases, where we may return if we're not mindful of certain lessons history has tried to teach us (Holocaust Memorial, etc.)
Quote:
|
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".
|
I think we can agree few of us would want to live in a world like that. There's a reason many people who call themselves environmentalists are as much, if not more, concerned with curbing/stabilizing popultion growth (particularly in undeveloped countries, the places on this earth the
least capable of sustaining even more population growth). Humans can live on this earth without becoming the scourge you allude to, crowding out every other living thing and taking up every usable area of space. For one, while we are social creatures I imagine society itself will unravel long before we reach a point where we have to debate in Congress, "Hmm....should we colonize the Grand Canyon and Zion National Park? Let's start with 15 subdivisions and a large community center at the base." At least, I hope we never come to that. Some would say the over-development of some of our national parks amounts to that... abusing the areas we have set aside as "natural" to the point that there's little of their true "nature" left. I, for one, am not that cynical. I do grimace when I see (or get trapped in)
traffic jams in a national park because a doe and her young are out grazing, or a grizzly's been sighted, but that's the challenge and curse of working in the Park Service. Those folks deserve a lot of credit for making things work as well as they do, on the limited budgets they're provided and with some of the... hmmm... a little brain dead folks who visit parks.
I believe as long as there are people who enjoy nature, "fresh" air, wildlife, outdoor recreation and something more than just prepackaged (false-)"reality TV" we will have no problems ensuring there are many parks of various sizes and pursuits for future generations. That doesn't mean it doesn't take constant vigilence and constant education, which is one very big reason I've run this site -- to show folks, Texans and visitors and lurkers alike, that there's a LOT more to Texas than just a couple big cities, some cattle and oil derricks (many of which are inoperable ever since the "oil rush" days), cowboys and pickups. The first step to protecting something is to experience it and learn about it.
I wouldn't give up on the future of parks anytime soon...but I'd definitely advise you, like me, to be very vocal anytime a (potentially) well-meaning but misinformed congress person, a neighbor or anyone else tries to negatively impact a park or other public area you value for its beauty, recreation potential and conservation value. Together, we ALL can make a difference...and I'm not a child of the 60's, so that's not left over "flower power" talking. It's the God's honest truth.
You deserve fantastic places to ride your ATV. Texas is sadly short on those, just as it's sadly short on actual park acreage comparable to the size of this state. (I tried looking for the exact percentage while drafting my original email to you, but let's just say Texas ranks VERY low out of the continental United States when it comes to public park land versus total land area. One reason for that is our long history as a farm and ranch land; the other reason is we just haven't been vocal as a community and seen the value in a spring or cliff face or river front like folks in other states have.)