Often, when it comes to national parks, there is a clash of values that doesn't fit very neatly. First of all, there is inherent in any discussion of park visitation the issue of economic class. Since parks were created in part for "the benefit and enjoyment of the people," anything that tends to meet the use of some people at the expense of others will always have critics. The limit on "benefit and enjoyment" has always been the protection of the natural features and wildlife within the parks; however, a lot of people cannot agree on how to balance the two calls. Any rule and regulation that is set up will divide the population and determine who can and who cannot use that park. You allow only snowcoaches and snowmobiles in Yellowstone in the winter, and you will get only those who can afford to travel to Yellowstone and use that means of transportation. And, it's inevitable that access in a park can't be all things for all people. You can't for instance make every trail up a mountain available to a person without legs. You can't open up roads to drive on for people who are blind. You can't make a remote park closer to everyone equally.

Protection of the parks, however, historically has not simply been a matter of the reasonable limits placed on us by nature. In fact, parks were set up for the benefit of corporate interests like the railroads to reach a certain class of people. Over time, changes in the parks have been ad hoc adjustments to that reality. But, the class system that existed then essentially exists now.

I think that environmentalists have often failed to appreciate this in their protection of the parks. Often, environmental protection goes hand in hand with protecting the class status quo or even exacerbating it. In the Tetons, protecting the view has meant spiraling property values that have outpriced the labor market in Jackson. Workers cannot live in Jackson, professionals cannot often live in Jackson. The area has become inaccessible not based on reasonable natural limits but on the limits on growth that may favor the view but also favor the wealthy.

Kurt has in the past also had Wayne Hare here to discuss the race gap that exists in the national parks, a gap that is harder to identify because it's not rooted in class--according the available research. Whatever the reason(s) for the lower and lower racial diversity in the parks and public lands, it is not uncommon in the cities to hear complaints among otherwise liberal people about environmental racism. Often, this applies less to parks and more broadly to the "green economy" and the effects that it has on people of color, but there is a parks element to it when one looks at the reasons that make the park visitor more and more homogeneous when it comes to class and race.

What I'm getting at here is that it's not as simple here as talking about environmentalism as the cause of lower visitation to parks. On the one hand, like a lot of you, I feel a strong, "Good riddance." Let's be rid of all the people, especially the ignoramuses who come to parks to be entertained by something they might easily see in their home towns. On the other hand, it's not a good thing if environmentalism is used to perpetrate the other evils of our society. If access is based on class, is based on race, is based on something else that shouldn't be happening, then environmentalism is a problem. Unfortunately, I don't think the piece mentioned here has any interest in that aspect of things.

Jim Macdonald
The Magic of Yellowstone
Yellowstone Newspaper
Jim's Eclectic World