Erick Solheim’s article on national parks and conservation efforts clearly depicts his passion for the environment. His piece, “National Parks Are Not Enough to Protect Nature” was recently published in Time Magazine. The article revolves around a biennial Protected Planet Report released in 2016 by the U.N Environment, and the International Union for the Conservation of Nature. The report notes an increase in the number of countries who are working towards conservation efforts and meeting global preservation targets. Solheim also emphasizes the benefits of preserving the world’s most productive and diverse areas, which are often national parks. However, Solheim argues that the preservation of national parks draw public attention away from …show more content…
Although, the author could have benefited from the incorporation of these outside resources into his piece, the Anthropogenic focus of conservation and the romanticized ideal of national parks is still highlighted and credible through other literature.
In the article, Solheim interprets the data released by the Protected Planet Assessment of 2016. He presents the data with a minimal bias and challenges the traditional public views of conservation to bring to light underlying issues of management. Although, some details are not thoroughly supported by concrete evidence, there are outside resources that clearly support Solheim's claims. Making Solheim's interpretation more graspable for readers who want to look further into the matter. Moreover, he utilizes an appropriate tone by adjusting it to the context that is presented. In general, his piece appears to be for a general audience, who could be overwhelmed by a factual report. In the end, Solheim makes it clear that increasing the extent on a spatial and geographical scale does not mean that biodiversity targets are met and that all management strategies are satisfactory (Chape et al.,
We are so fortunate to live in California and have access to so many of the properties operated by the National Park Service. There are thirteen national parks in California and I have been to seven of them. Enjoying the outdoors is something that is innate to our family. Even before our children could walk they were enjoying hikes through Yosemite in backpacks. This is an amazing fact that I learned from the map given to me in Sequoia National Park; “The only place Giant Sequoias grow now is on the west slope of the Sierra Nevada Mountains in California. The 75 distinct groves are found within a narrow band about 260 miles long and 15 miles wide, at its widest point.” (Sequoia National Park, 2012). Without the National Park Service protecting and maintaining parks like Sequoia National Park, there may not be any place like this for my children to learn about this beautiful country that we live
... environmentally safe. Second I think it is important to keep our national parks open to the people but this has shown the need to protect them to a point so our children and grandchildren can enjoy these National Parks in the future. Third, It is nice to see that the case studies go on. Without this research we would not have a direction to go although expensive, I think it is well worth it. The research needs to be compiled correctly by professionals and have no bias or slanted opinions contaminate the overall conclusion to the study.
Cronon argues that “any way of looking at nature that encourages us to believe we are separate from nature—as wilderness tends to do—is likely to reinforce environmentally irresponsible behavior” (87). Yet if we were to view ourselves as one with nature, as we are, then perhaps society would be more concerned with protecting and preserving the entire natural world, versus specific areas that have been deemed worthy. I personally achieve a much more satisfactory escape from human modernization by simply going off the grid and finding my own wilderness that is distant from all signs of humans versus a regulated park. A national park is similar to a museum; one simply looks around and attempts to gain insight on the subject at hand, yet there is no possible way to actually immerse yourself in the display. Although individuals do not realize this – they are not aware of what true wilderness looks like given that no one boasts about it. There is such a distinct line between actual wilderness and the false one that people idealize, that genuine wilderness is disappearing, since it is not actively being preserved. However, by actively preserving wilderness, would we not be separating ourselves further from
The more than four hundred locations that are currently recognized as national parks have been set aside because they are considered special places of beauty, character, or uniqueness. Whether visitors come from the natural state or the concrete jungle, the magnificent aesthetics of these sites can cause anyone to be astonished. As they ponder on the wonderful landscapes and the closeness to the wilderness, their souls are nourished. Some people acknowledge the planet or the creator, but all appreciate the splendor of biodiversity and gain a new understanding of it. According to Frye and Nuest, “watching other species and interacting with them helps [people] better understand and appreciate [their] place among them and [their] obligations to other living creatures and the same planetary environment that sustain both [their and the lives of other species]” (54). Furthermore, since these sites have been carefully preserved, they have undergone very little physical or geological change in centuries. The NPS claimed through its website that “by preserving biodiversity, [they] also ensure that future citizens, artists, and explorers of science experience [America’s] lands as the founders of the parks did long ago.” National parks allow visitors to relive scenes from the past and appreciate the nation’s history as expressed in these iconic sites. However,
The documentary “The National Parks- America’s Best Idea” explained the history of national parks and how they came to be. Monuments, battlefields, and military parks were transferred to become national parks. Though they weren’t what they are now at first, they seemed a lot like zoos, focusing on tameness and less on wildness. There is an abundance of life in the national parks, and George Wright tried to let everyone know the equilibrium was out. People were getting in the way of the plants and animals, instead of letting the plants and animals thrive on their own. Each of these species, including the predators should be protected. He saved the trumpeter swans.
Overprotection of Biodiversity "Extinction is normal"(pg26, 1st paragraph). However, the rate this process is happening is up to us, to some extent. In this article, two sides are discussing this rate. One side is arguing that biodiversity is overprotected and the other the opposite. The first argument, against protection of biodiversity, states that "at a macro level, there is a tradeoff between production/consumption of timber and production/consumption of related environmental amenities"(pg28, 2nd paragraph).
...hat it is in process of making for the enrichment of the lives of all of us" ("Greenpeace usa," 2014). By closely viewing the reasons for national parks, the definition of wilderness, a critique of reasons to build or not build roads in a national park, a comparison of preservation, cost-analysis, and conservative approaches to the environment, I feel that the best approach is preservation. This preservation approach would not eliminate access to the park but seek to control public access to protect the natural environment. The end result would allow the current generation to enjoy Yellowstone Park and make sure that future generations could as well. In speaking about wilderness, Robert Nash may have expressed it best when he said, “Its preservation is not only one of the best ideas American culture ever had; it may be a better one than we ever knew” (Nash, 2001).
Landscape fragmentation contributes to loss of migratory corridors, loss of connectivity and natural communities, which all lead to a loss of biodiversity for a region. Conservation of biodiversity must include all levels of diversity: genetic, species, community, and landscape (CNHP 1995). Each complex level is dependent upon and linked to the other levels. In addition, humans are linked to all levels of this hierarchy. A healthy natural and human environment go hand in hand (CNHP 1995). An important step in conservation planning, in order to guarantee both a healthy natural environment as well as a healthy human environment, is recognizing the most endangered elements.
The National Parks Service has been working to ensure that America’s national parks are preserved and taken care
National Parks are a thing of true beauty, in order to maintain these national treasures, it took a lot of Laws, Movements, and Important key figures in history to preserve these national beauties. The national parks are treasure that people would have turned into ruins. The killings of wildlife, leaving trash everywhere, and cutting-down trees. George Grinnell saw the wonderland that's was being ruined and he fought for the preservation of the park and its wildlife.
By placing this emphasis on beauty in the wilderness the American people expected to see a beautiful wilderness, although in reality these two are not mutually exclusive. Muir supported a form of natural improvement in which alterations to the natural world are made, but not with any economic value in mind. Interestingly, Muir suggests that our wildness is a commodity to which, we are glad to see how much of even the most destructible kind is still unspoiled”. (Muir) By the time the National Park Service was founded in 1916 the American people wanted to be entertained by, and in, nature
“… It is apparent, then, that we cannot decide the question of development versus preservation by a simple referral to holy writ or an attempt to guess the intention of the founding fathers; we must make up our own minds and decide for ourselves what the national parks should be and what purpose they should serve.”-Edward Abbey, Desert Solitaire
This anthropocentric theme continues throughout his narrative but is personified on a societal level. This matter is first introduced in the chapter “Polemic: Industrial Tourism and The National Parks.” In this chapter Abbey notes the expansionist nature of the industrial economy and how it is affecting the national parks. Abbey critiques arguments for uni...
The Convention on Biological Diversity (hereafter: “CBD”) is an international treaty adopted by United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, held at Rio de Janeiro in June 1992 and came into force on December 29, 1993. Initially when it came into force there were 168 members now it is 193 in total. The aim to protect biodiversity and the dramatic steps taken for conservation, sustainable use and the fair and equitable sharing of benefits attracted the world communities to become members (History of the Convention, n.d). In principle the convention on biological diversity changed the ownership concept of biodiversity protection i.e. (“common heritage of humankind”) to the “sovereign right” of each member country (Hirsch, 2012). It is the responsibility of the each member to develop and implement policies in a way that helps in the conservation and sustainable use of biological resources. It also recognizes the knowledge of local and indigenous people for conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity (Brahmi et al., 2004).The article 8(j) of CBD has an important provision which gives the member state rights to “respect, preserve and maintain” traditional style and knowledge about the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity. The protection must promote the wider application of such knowledge and stimulate innovation and also ensure that the benefits are shared in fair and equitable manner to the communities.
Such ploys seek to undermine any legitimate eco-consciousness in the audience, replacing it with rhetoric that is ultimately ambivalent toward the health of ecosystems, but definitively pro-business. These tactics assume a rigidly anthropocentric point of view, shutting out any consideration for the well-being of non-human existence; they seem to suggest that nature lies subordinate to our base desires. In addition to upholding the subordination of nature to business and leisure activities, this view establishes nature as something privately owned and partitioned (243), rather than something intrinsic to the world. Our relationship with nature becomes one of narcissism.