Denali National Park Rhetorical Analysis

The Denali national park takes up six million acres of Alaskan wilderness. Yet the wildlife levels are slowly depleting. Animals such as wolves and brown bears are becoming harder to measure and track as the years go on. Do we continue to keep such a large portion of this national park open? Or do we shrink the borders to allow for better use of the lands natural resources? Tom Clynes discusses this in his 2016 edition of the National Geographic. In his article titled “Denali,” he effectively uses images and logos to argue both sides of the preservation versus the use of the Alaskan National parks.
The authors use of images is pertinent to arguing both sides of the article. Debating the point of preservation versus the use of such parks needs

substantial evidence on both sides. Clynes does this effectively through adding images such as these. When arguing the side of preservation, he uses photos of a river delta with wildlife cruising the edges, grizzly bears crossing roads, and pack of wolves pushing their way through the snowy terrain. He does this to show the importance of keeping these animals homes and protecting their future. The placement and formation of these pictures plays a key role as well. When choosing images to place in, he makes sure to use images that have a high density of animals and wildlife. Pairing this with close up images to contrast the vast Alaskan wilderness, the photos give a sense of importance to the parks. Picture formation is a very subtle but an important addition to the article. The author places the pictures in between every page which each picture supporting the points made in the previous paragraphs.
These points are almost directly contrasted for the opposing side of the argument, to decrease the size of national parks to better use of its land and resources. In order to do this, he consistently chooses pictures of a spanning Alaskan landscape filled with nothing. For miles and miles the only thing to be seen in Denali national park, are trees and snow. This is used to support the main point against preservation; which is that the size of the parks are too large for the amount of animals that live there. His choice of pictures shows the importance of using the land for its resources. Showing a hunter carrying back his dinner for the next few months, or showing a crystal clear lake with clean drinking water. All these photos have in common one thing: they require the parks to be used for its natural resources. Without having access to the rich landscape of Denali, Clynes argues that the land isn't being used to its full extent. His Choice of color, or lack thereof, supports the fact that the Alaskan wilderness is barren in some places and hold very little wildlife. As shown in this photo,(hyperlink) the grays have taken a prominent tone to show a dull, boring sense of the park. The is almost in direct contrast to the photos discussed earlier in this paragraph showing a wide range of greens, and yellows, signifying life and importance. While Clynes uses images to argue both sides of the argument, he also uses logos to do the same.
To argue the preservation of Denali national park, clynes needs to use facts to outweigh the negatives of keeping the national parks.

Stating the sheer size of the national park emphasizes the importance of keeping this land sacred. Quoting it as the “home of the biggest mountain in North America.”() This emposes a sense of importance to keep this land safe and protect it from those who believe it should be shrunk. Using the size of the park and the visitors it pulls is Clynes’ biggest piece of evidence. Stating that the park brings over 500,000 visitors per year and offers an once in a lifetime experience. These all have in common one thing, they all use logistical reasoning to justify the park remaining open. The vastness of the Alaskan wilderness is what attracts tourists, as park ranger Sarah Hayes puts it, “If you’re seeking solitude, it’s not hard to find.” () The expansion of Denali is also argued through logos, “We increased it twice, but it was never big enough,” says Sam Cotton commissioner of the Alaskan game and fish department when discussing the the illegal trapping and hunting of wolves. Pushing for expansion to protect the wildlife is a hot button issue as attempts are being made to keep expanding the border to allow for a more safe environment for the inhabitants of

Denali.
The active argument against the preservation and expansion of the national park, uses the same facts and statistics to push against the values discussed earlier.

Instead of constantly expanding the borders, some argue that expanding only widens the areas for endangered species to travel to. This makes tracking species much more difficult. Wolf sightings made in 2014 were measured at 6%, this is a 45% drop since 2014. Dennis Miller, a pilot and researcher flew for 4 days and didn't spot a single wolf. On the fifth day, he spotted a white wolf trekking through the forest, 2 helicopters swooped down and tranquilized it for further tracking and data research. With rapidly decreasing populations, we are knowing less and less of what's causing such a drop in indigenous species in Alaska. Hunters and trackers alike, hypothesize that the increase of natural predators are to blame. Shortening the borders and enacting predator control is thought to be an effective way of stabilizing and rebuilding the population of species and keeping the predator count low. This is thought to be an effective plan because hunters and trappers can use this to hunt predators for food, and at the same time rebuild the wildlife levels to a stable

position.
Clynes effective use of Logos argues both sides of the story and brings the two together to ultimately end at a compromisable position. The Denali national park needs to have more control over the wildlife levels and keeping them at a stable rate, while at the same time keeping the park a sanctuary for the Alaskan wildlife.