National Parks, Monuments, and the Des. Affect

National Parks, Monuments, and the Designation Affect. The reality and other side of the story to the feel good coastal liberal's love for creating more monuments.

To start this is a paper I wrote for my Colorado Plateau Studies course a while back. I'm sure there are plenty of grammar mistakes, you can get the point without being an English Nazi. I have a lot more to add especially at the local level here and a little on the Bears Ears National Monument.


In Chapter 5 of Desert Solitaire titled Polemic: Industrial Tourism and the National Parks Edward Abbey writes about his observations of the affects of industrialized tourism and it's impacts on National Parks and monument lands. It's a sobering opinion on what is often considered America's greatest treasures has unfortunately been marketed and designed for the American motor driven tourist which as he describes robs the people of an experience that they may unknowingly crave and desire. He explains that we being humans have primal needs and want certain experiences that the majority no longer knows or understands how to have. Being a ski bum for twenty two years and have worked in the tourism industry for much of that time I can really relate to some of Abbey's sentiments on this and especially so after my seven years driving Pink Jeeps around Sedona. Although my comparisons are more broad than pinpointing the National Park Service I do believe they are related.
       First I would like to point out how the new motorized tourist has experiences that lack any sort of authenticity. Edward Abbey writes “Industrial Tourism is a threat to the national parks. But the chief victims are the motorized tourists. They are being robbed and robbing themselves. So long as they are unwilling to crawl out of their cars they will not discover the treasures of the national parks and will never escape the stress and turmoil of the urban-suburban complexes which they had hoped, presumably, to leave behind for a while.” After a few years of driving tourists around the red rocks of Sedona I really didn't feel comfortable about the experience that they were paying for any longer. Sure, they often enjoyed themselves and didn't complain about the money spent but it all felt like such a sham to me. They wanted adventure but some sort of prepackaged Disney like version of one, something safe where they could pretend there was danger but not too much at all in reality. The
                                                                                                                                                                P-2
majority of today's tourist likes to be coddled and isn't interested in putting forth much effort into creating anything truly memorable or adventurous. Sometimes people would share stories about their worst experiences ever, you know the ones where things didn't go as planned, maybe a giant storm interrupted their cruise ship vacation or they were on a jeep tour in Africa where the jeep was stuck and lions were roaming about. They said it was the worst thing that they had ever experienced but all I ever heard them say that it was the most exhilarating and exciting thing that had ever happened to them. There is this culture now in our society where it's no longer about the experience but sharing photos of being somewhere and scoring likes on social media sites. It's a look at me and what I'm doing more than turning all of that shit off and tuning out somewhere far away from the hassles of every day life. It's more about bragging around the water cooler than actually getting their hands dirty. I call them the checklist tourist or the drive by tourist, these are usually one and the same. The checklist tourist goes on their vacation with a strict agenda, an itinerary where all hours of their vacation are planned for. They have a checklist or bucket list of sorts and their vacation isn't a success unless they check everything off. They rush from one spot to the next like Chevy Chase stopping to take in the Grand Canyon in National Lampoons Family Vacation. I have heard two or more groups of these people on my jeep tour get into pissing matches about the places they have seen, sure they got to “see” the place but I doubt they ever experienced anything valuable there. They basically do drive by's like the gangsters in 90's movies about living in the hood but instead of guns they lean out of their car windows with cameras swinging from their necks. This culture has basically turned what should and could be a life altering and moving experience into a simple form of material where it's not the experience but the value of it is being able to say that you did it. The more I worked at Pink Jeep the less I could tolerate this distorted sense of wealth. I realized that this culture paid my bills but that somehow didn't make things better, it almost made me hate my job even more.
       Abbey also writes “The motorized tourist, reluctant to give up the old ways, will complain that
                                                                                                                                                                P-3
they can't see enough without their automobiles to bear them swiftly (traffic permitting) through the parks. But this is nonsense. A man on foot, on horseback or on a bicycle will see more, feel more, enjoy more in one mile than any motorized tourist can in a hundred miles. Better to idle through one park in two weeks than try to race through a dozen in the same amount of time. Those who are familiar with both modes of travel know from experience that this is true.” This rings so true for me, somehow though this mentality has been lost in today's tourist culture. It's sort of a chicken or the egg scenario where I don't know if the tourist created the industry or the industry created the tourist. Regardless I didn't want to be part of it any longer and I desired a career that has more meaning and I find to be more fulfilling.
       This industry has a domino effect as well, it takes lots of resources to keep these people driving swiftly from one check list location to the next. Abbey writes “ the indolent millions born on wheels and suckled on gasoline who expect and demand paved highways to lead them in comfort, ease and safety into every nook and corner of the national parks? For the answer to that we must consider the character of what I call the Industrial Tourism and the quality of the mechanized tourist- the Wheelchair
Explorers- who are at once the consumers, the raw material and the victims of Industrial Tourism.” He continues with “Industrial Tourism is big business. It means money. It includes the motel and restaurant owners, the gasoline retailers, the oil corporations, the road building contractors, the heavy equipment manufacturers, the state and federal engineering agencies and the sovereign, all- powerful automotive industry.” It's an industry that wastes our valuable natural resources to create a product that isn't even authentic compared to an experience of just going out into the bush and getting away from the hordes of people that flock to the check list locations.
       The other big affect I have observed over the years that doesn't sit right with me is how the tourism industry here in the west has in part also created this ridiculous real estate market. These once small western towns that are surrounded by natural beauty have become getaways for the super rich. The  
                                                                                                                                                                P-4
beautiful backdrops of red rock and mountain scenery is obscured now by 5000 square foot homes that sit empty for majority of the year. The local workforce and longtime, multiple generational locals are forced to sell their family properties. You might ask how do these relate? I think that the tourism industry has brought these very rich people in from the big cities that then decide that they would like to own property there. Maybe to retire at or just to invest in and enjoy a few weeks of the year. Eventually these town are no longer affordable for regular working people and then experience housing crisis like in Sedona, Jackson Hole, and Moab. The environmentalists over the years have complained about and fought against the cattle and sheep herding industries, the mining and logging. Then they even have even fought against activities such as mountain biking, off road vehicle use, and skiing but still claim that eco-tourism or adventure tourism is a good answer to create sustainable economies for the local community . It's this industry though that has in some ways created the real estate boom that had been going full speed from the mid 90's up until 2007 and in my opinion has been more destructive and wasteful then all of the other previously listed industries combined.
      So as you can see Abbey's book Desert Solitaire is something that I really relate to, I think we have seen the affects of the tourism industry that he was warning us about. I have to say that right now I feel like I will never work in the tourism industry ever again, it burnt me out but there were moments that being a guide that were very cool, where you could share something with tourists and you could see that all of a sudden it clicked for them and they got it. I'll close this up with one more Abbey quote, “They will complain of physical hardship, these sons of pioneers. Not for long; once they rediscover the pleasures of actually operating their own limbs and senses in a varied, spontaneous, voluntary style, they will complain instead of crawling back into a car; they may even object to returning to desk and office and that drywall box on Mossy Brook Circle. The fires of revolt may be kindled- which means hope for us all.”

Very good insight based on your experience.

I offer that eco-tourism is not the drive by aspect of visitation to national parks.  It is more about getting into remote locations and experiencing nature for truly what it is.  It also includes emersion into native cultures.  

I certainly understand the burn out effect of dealing with the motor centric populous that invade the over marketed parks. However in no way should this be an inditement of the national park system, national forests or preservation of open space.

The national park system and preservation of land is America's greatest achievement.  

People will continue to reproduce. However the planet is not manufacturing more land.

I try to put it in context. When TR started creating national parks look at how much open space there was in North America and where our population stood. 100 years later those numbers are markedly different .  


 as someone who grew up in a place where i was able to walk out the back door and hunt only to see those opportunities disappear in less than a decade, I always support more land preservation even if it means less access.  I support this because maybe i cant ride my mtn bike in a wilderness area, but i cant ride in a ticky tacky subdivision or strip mall either.  So Id prefer the option of not riding in wilderness.  

I also never want to live in a world without apex predators and intact ecosystems.  Without setting aside significantly sized tracts of land in perpetuity we will doom wilderness and wilderness opportunities for future generations.

Fuck Trump!!    

   

Monuments and parks are often expensive to recreate within, much more so than BLM or NF lands. In a way it's excluding a lot of people of certain income brackets and types of users. Parks and monuments generally don't offer much in the way of recreation other than walking and motorized site seeing.

Form what I've seen eliminating activities in places where they have been for years excepted and part of the local culture and economy can create a lot of animosity and often has a less than desirable affect as far as preservation goes.

In most places these other activities can be managed and everyone should have a place on our public lands, turning large areas into National Monuments is often a land grab pushed by so called environmentalist that actually have a personal agenda. The local Sierra Club has been vocally open about their hatred towards mountain bikers and off road use. These moves easily gain attention by Democratic Presidents, generally on their way out to likely please their voting base. The problem is is that the majority of supporters are liberal democrats from the coastal urban areas that don't have any clue of the local aspects of such proposals.

I'll include more soon on the local proposed National Monuments recently, the supporters, their motivation and the affects on local communities.

ScottyJack wrote

Very good insight based on your experience.

I offer that eco-tourism is not the drive by aspect of visitation to national parks.  It is more about getting into remote locations and experiencing nature for truly what it is.  It also includes emersion into native cultures.  

I don't know the numbers but I bet it's <5% of Monument/Park users travel more than several hundred feet from their parked cars.

Also, if your main argument is F-Trump, it's pretty clear that any argument you make is based on emotion and little on facts. I can't stand that fuck face either but I'm proud to say that I can remain objective in my decision making process.

An article on the Bears ears NM. Remember, when the writer lists tribes that are in support of the NM they are speaking of the tribal governments officials statements and not the actual tribal people. There has been a lot of use in that area long before this proposed designation and much of that sort of use will be eliminated under a NM designation.

http://www.sltrib.com/news/2812195-155/bears-ears-monument-debate-is-splitting

The last few years there was a very small group in Sedona that was trying to create a National Monument on the National Forest and wilderness areas that surround Sedona. The community was greatly opposed to the idea.

http://www.redrocknews.com/news/13-top-news/49261-kill-monument-idea-now-to-prevent-disaster

I can tell you from experience that this sort of proposal was a land grab move to gain control over their newly aquired back yards. Sedona has a large population of wealthy retirees that really don't like the mountain biking and off roading that people enjoy there. In their minds it would be best to limit use and remove all activities other than hiking. Again, these are mostly rich retirees from the tri-state region and California that have been in the area for less than 20 years. The mountain biking and off road/jeep tour use has mostly been successfully managed as long as I have lived in the area. These are integral sources of income for the working sector.This sort of designation would most likely squeeze out those uses eventually. It could increase visitors of mainly the drive by tourist variety which would also create more restrictions, closures, and fees. The designation would probably also have a desired affect on their (those in support of) real estate values. It's the classic move to paradise now lets close the gates scenario.

I'll update this thread later with more information on our local Sierra Club chapter and their affects on the proposals made for our local trail system and the proposal made to increase the boundaries of the Walnut Canyon National Monument just a few years ago.

raisingarizona wrote

I don't know the numbers but I bet it's <5% of Monument/Park users travel more than several hundred feet from their parked cars.

Also, if your main argument is F-Trump, it's pretty clear that any argument you make is based on emotion and little on facts. I can't stand that fuck face either but I'm proud to say that I can remain objective in my decision making process.

Its a good thing the people do not venture far from their parked cars.  The bears appreciate that.

My emotions are based on facts. Facts written in blood long before their was a trump.  

Good thread, and I'm happy to see the other side represented. My thoughts are similar to SJ's when he says this:

ScottyJack wrote

The national park system and preservation of land is America's greatest achievement...

 as someone who grew up in a place where i was able to walk out the back door and hunt only to see those opportunities disappear in less than a decade, I always support more land preservation even if it means less access.  I support this because maybe i cant ride my mtn bike in a wilderness area, but i cant ride in a ticky tacky subdivision or strip mall either.  So Id prefer the option of not riding in wilderness.  

I also never want to live in a world without apex predators and intact ecosystems.  Without setting aside significantly sized tracts of land in perpetuity we will doom wilderness and wilderness opportunities for future generations.

I think in 50, 200, 500 years, the human species will be more upset about not preserving lands, rather than being upset that they missed out on a little bit of economic growth from short-lived drilling operations or family grazing rights. Yes, it sucks for the people that live there and want jobs now now now, but I really think retraining and learning new skills should be a lifelong thing (as RA is doing right now) so that people aren't SOL when the assumed Natural Gas Wells don't get built. I think there should be federal money available for this.

Yes. There will always be people who do drive by tourism. I've been guilty of this, too. But there's a funny thing about nature (at least for me). If you spend a bit of time in the woods, you start to crave more. If you scratch the surface on one trip, you want to go deeper next time. And if you bring some friends with you on an adventure, you might find that they start to appreciate nature a bit more, too.

Sure, some of the people on the Pink Jeep tours were jerks who loved to talk about the places they've "seen". As skiers, we know that just because someone says they skied a trail (or a mountain), it doesn't mean they actually skied it. People love to talk themselves up. But as you mention in your last paragraph, if you can just get the lightbulb to go on, sometimes you can hook them in - this time it's a Jeep tour to a "vortex", next time it's a mountain bike trip, then maybe a backwoods hike, then an overnight, etc. Ski instructing is the same way. If you can just get a couple of lightbulb moments, people start to open up to more possibilities and start to gain confidence in their ability to tackle new things.

One thing I'm in total agreement on is the stand against NIMBYism. Just because someone has a second or third home in a place (that gets used maybe 8 weeks a year - generously), it shouldn't mean they get to determine how the people who actually live there get to use the land.

There's a constant battle in the ADKs between Protect The Adirondacks and people who want to use land for development, recreation, or whatever. I'd assume that everybody has different opinions on each individual case. I'm with them on some things, against them on others. I disagree with the strict wilderness designations they sometimes call for and development they try to shut down, but I can see why some people would want to err on the side of more forest.

Tough issues. Good thing we have a well functioning democracy, untainted by corporate interest, to answer these questions Democratically.

Thanks for sharing your perspective RA. I would counter that I don't think Trump is ordering this review to deal with the phenomenon you speak of, but rather because he is in bed with the oil and energy companies. I don't have a problem with the "review" as it now stands, but I fear that it could be a harbinger of things to come.

Do you think there is a legitimate chance that some of our nation's beautiful places could be turned into mines? How would you feel if some of your favorite biking spots in the Sedona area were turned into mines rather than national monuments?

jjp24 wrote

Do you think there is a legitimate chance that some of our nation's beautiful places could be turned into mines? How would you feel if some of your favorite biking spots in the Sedona area were turned into mines rather than national monuments?

I suppose there is a risk of this happening, but I don't think it is very likely.  The are lots of intangibles in the cost-benefit equation that just wouldn't work for the miners.  Most mining operations are focused on finding low hanging fruit.

I'm with Edward Abbey on this one... lands should be preserved as wild... development (creating "drive-ups" to areas that were originally remote) of our preserved lands has put them in greater danger of rape... think about it... the harder it is to get to... the harder it is to rape.

IMO: Everything from this point forward should be declared a wilderness area... all roads through these lands should be gated... if you want to see it... grab a pack, and use muscle power to observe the beauty.

RA, you're much more of an Alexander Supertramp than you are of a Clark Griswold.

D.B. Cooper wrote

RA, you're much more of an Alexander Supertramp than you are of a Clark Griswold.

This is funny. We're all someplace on that spectrum aren't we?

jjp24 wrote

Thanks for sharing your perspective RA. I would counter that I don't think Trump is ordering this review to deal with the phenomenon you speak of, but rather because he is in bed with the oil and energy companies. I don't have a problem with the "review" as it now stands, but I fear that it could be a harbinger of things to come.

Do you think there is a legitimate chance that some of our nation's beautiful places could be turned into mines? How would you feel if some of your favorite biking spots in the Sedona area were turned into mines rather than national monuments?

Yeah, good point on Trump. I don't trust him either but I can see where and why people are fed up with creating more monuments and the fuckery that has become of the EPA.

But I'll wait and see instead of jumping on board with the sky is falling crowd.

As for your Sedona question, every location is unique and has its own complications. There isn't anything to mine in Sedona and their most valuable asset is the natural beauty. The Forest Service has been doing a good job of management so why does it need a designation? Does your house have heat? I bet everyone on here owns a car. What I'm getting at is that none of this is black and white even though those liberal voters want to paint it that way.

I'm glad we have our parks but I prefer to spend most of my time on National Forest lands. It's just easier to go get a slice of freedom on them compared to park lands.

D.B. Cooper wrote

RA, you're much more of an Alexander Supertramp than you are of a Clark Griswold.

There is probably some truth to that!

I'm actually reading the book his sister wrote now. My micro biology course has taken most of my time these last few weeks but I'll finish it after finals next week.

raisingarizona wrote

As for your Sedona question, every location is unique and has its own complications. There isn't anything to mine in Sedona and their most valuable asset is the natural beauty. The Forest Service has been doing a good job of management so why does it need a designation? Does your house have heat? I bet everyone on here owns a car. What I'm getting at is that none of this is black and white even though those liberal voters want to paint it that way.

I'm glad we have our parks but I prefer to spend most of my time on National Forest lands. It's just easier to go get a slice of freedom on them compared to park lands.

I think I agree with your main point, which is why I said I don't have a problem with a "review," which should allow for the considerations of which you speak. Is the review just a guise for selling the lands to the highest bidder for a short term profit? That's certainly what lots of media sources want us to believe... There's also the fact that by far the highest acreage of lands under review are actually marine areas which I'd imagine is a whole different ballgame.

I think one interesting twist is that many of the roads that provide access to some of these places would not be there today if it weren't for past mining industry.

The news has become so ridiculous, I don't take anything they say as factual. They are always just trying to yank on people's emotions.

But yeah, it's hard to say. I can't see Trump doing anything that doesn't benefit himself in some way making more $.

Either way I don't think blindly supporting more monuments is a good thing either.

<quote author="jjp24">

raisingarizona wrote

I think one interesting twist is that many of the roads that provide access to some of these places would not be there today if it weren't for past mining industry.

 
Indeed. Uranium, copper, gold, silver, logging, cattle grazing, sheep herding, oil drilling, etc.

It's sort of funny but not funny how in a lot of places trails were developed by the motocross guys/gals and were later discovered by hikers, many of which had an influence on making motorized use illegal!

A lot of the Sierra Clubbers here in Flagstaff and Sedona would like to see mountain bikes banned as well. I think that was a big part of the proposed Sedona Monument. That town has always had quite the power struggle between the retired hiking crowd and the younger mountain bikers. Over the last ten or so years the mountain bikers have really taken more control then years past due to changes in management. The proponents were painting this happy go lucky picture of shared use on the Monument but I suspect that was mostly bullshit and the proposal was a land grab-power move.