It was discussed in my previous posts that National Parks are being harmed because of the pollution that occurs around the park boundaries. While this is an unfortunate consequence, we must consider the situation if no boundaries existed. Would the area still be as natural as it is now? Would it be in a better condition, or worse?
National Parks were created with the passage of the Organic Act in August 25, 1916 which the mission 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."While there have been some conservation issues associated with visitors, the National Parks were created to protect opportunists from exploiting the land and have done a successful job. If we didn't have Yellowstone National Park, we would probably have a huge railroad cutting through the middle of the ecosystem and additional development around it.
Also, it is with its protected status as a National Park that the ecosystem is able to stand up to industrialization efforts. Just recently, there was a proposal to allow for uranium mining around the Grand Canyon National Park boundary which would have increased the probability of radioactive water spills, wildlife degradation and urbanization. However, mining has been banned as people understood the importance of the land and understood the negative effects pollution around the parks would have had. Thus, while on a local scale, individual communities may not understand the environmental impacts their actions are having on the ecosystem they surround, when we are viewing the parks through a wider scope, we are able to see that the close proximity of industrialization would negatively impact the parks and are preventing it from occurring.
No comments:
Post a Comment