1

Chris Donnelly
Efstathion
ENC 2135-0032
11/4/15
Preservation vs. Conservation in Americas National Parks
John Muir, founder of the preservation movement in America and indirectly responsible
for the creation of the National Park system (Freitag), had no idea the controversy he would
eventually cause when he lobbied for the protection of wilderness areas in the late 19th century.
Over the years, many influential people picked up on his ideas, eventually forming into two
groups with opposing ideals.
Ever since its inception, Americas national park system has had a difficult time
expressing exactly what its goals are. It would seem to be straightforward, they exist to protect
the lands from harm and to allow people to enjoy them for as long as possible, but right away
this creates controversy. In allowing people to interact with the parks, are they not violating their
other goal of keeping the lands in their pristine and natural condition? On the other hand if they
focus on only preserving the parks and do not allow us to visit and learn from them, what is the
purpose of them existing at all? I hope to identify the goals and methods with which they are
accomplished of these two competing strategies in search of a potential median between them.
The origin of the national parks in this country was in 1864 when Abraham Lincoln
declared the Yosemite area and Mariposa Grove which housed many Giant Sequoias property of
the state of California. Yosemite would go on to be the first official national park declared by

congress in 1872. This began a trend of marking off select areas of land that are deemed
important enough for preservation. Many such national forests, battlefields, and monuments were
named in the next few decades. The goal in mind behind all this was that as a young and growing
nation America needed to show off its natural and cultural wonders to the world, as well as
prevent them from being commercialized as Niagara Falls had been (Mappes 4-6). So from the
beginning the mission of the parks seemed to be on the side of preservation, despite the motive
behind it all being tourism and recognition.
In 1916 the National Park Service was founded under the Organic Act which laid out a
mission statement. This founding document seems to be the original source of all the
controversy, as it states that they will both keep the natural state of the parks unimpaired and
provide for the enjoyment of current and future generations of guests. Some have argued that this
is in itself contradictory, as the two goals cannot both be accomplished. Others argue that the
mention of enjoyment is only a clause to the main point of preservation. While this has continued
to cause confusion to this day, in 2001 the National Park Service attempted make things a little
clearer. Their 2001 Management Policies showed an attempt to create a modern interpretation of
the Organic Acts mission statement. Siding with preservation over use, they decided that while
the parks are for the benefit of all citizens, the service does have the authority to allow or
disallow something they feel may impact the park (Orr,Humphreys 86). This was only to be
overturned in 2006 when they stated that conservation, preservation, or protection; which had
been used interchangeably in the past; were not to restrict the enjoyment of guests or the
caretaking of natural resources (Mappes 28-29).
Regardless of what the official ruling is on the goals of the national parks there will
always be outside forces challenging them. These can range from outside parties intruding where

they shouldnt, to the attitudes of some of the guests and workers. Yellowstone for example was
forced by outside commercial and political factions to accommodate its increasingly large
amount of guests by building hotels within prime grizzly habitat. Not only does this effect the
ecosystem of the park but by driving the bears further away it upsets the guests who come from
around the country to see them. Another example is Denali national park in Alaska being made
to allow visitors to take their vehicles onto their roads, which for many years wasnt allowed.
While guests saw this as a good thing, thinking it gave them more freedom to explore the park on
their own, there were reasons for the original ruling. Safety as well as the protection of the
ecosystem were in mind when it was decided not to allow driving on the road system as many of
the gravel roads are along steep cliffs and only one lane wide, and the environment in the area
surrounding Mt. McKinley is fragile and in need of the protection it previously had. Both of
these examples are part of the trend of park visitors being increasingly older, wealthier, [and]
more dependent on private cars or campers, and expect[ing] more comfortable accommodations
than in the past (S.F. 1).
The other side of the challenges to national parks come directly from the visitors
themselves. Some feel that the service should be obligated to do whatever they can to make their
visit more pleasurable, even if it means removing wildlife the guest sees as a nuisance. An
example of this comes from a Canadian national park in which a guest was pleased to hear that a
bear had died. He seemed to feel that animals such as this were nothing but a danger to his
enjoyment of the park, and failed to realize that if not for the park service doing their job at
keeping the environment the way it is naturally he wouldnt be visiting the park at all. Posing the
question what good is a bear to society? the park employee responds

Well, youve kind of got it backwards sir, were in a national park, so were here to preserve
nature and wildlife. If bears in the park didnt have the protection that they do, then there would
be no reason to come here instead of, say, Toronto, and you wouldnt be calling me now.
(Harding 1)
Despite all of the threats to national parks and the mission of the NPS, there have been
plenty of instances where an addition to the park improved visitor accessibility without throwing
off the natural balance. An example of this is the 2010 implementation of an electric shuttle
system to March-Billings-Rockefeller National Historical Park in Vermont. This Full Circle
Trolley gets its electricity from methane generated using manure from nearby farms. This
project cut down on both emissions and congestion and appealed to guests by offering
convenient transportation via a more direct route than they could drive themselves (Anderson Et
al. 3-4, 18).
The belief that people belong in the parks and forests around them and should make use
of the resources they provide is the basic principle of the conservation ethic as devised by
Gifford Pinchot. Made first Chief Forester of the U.S. Forest Service by Theodore Roosevelt in
1905, Pinchot was committed to a scientific understanding of the land and how both it and
humans can benefit from its use and maintenance (Freitag). While it serves as a rival to the goals
laid out by preservation, conservation makes possible much of the research done in parks, some
of which ends up being used in preservation efforts. Examples of this research are the nineteen
Research Learning Centers established by the National Park Service since 2001. These are a
network of either physical locations within the park or online databases which exist to
accommodate educators and researches both amateur and professional. On top of supporting
research and studies within the park, these centers also inform others of this work as well as

promote learning about the parks, their mission, and their history. These centers work in
collaboration with universities, K12 schools, professional societies, and diverse research and
education groups to integrate research into the visitor experience. For a more involved
experience, they also offer volunteer opportunities in assisting with scientific data collection.
With no prior training required, the citizen science program provides hands on work for
volunteers and valuable information to the park (National Park Service).
The U.S. and Canada arent the only nations to have national parks, nor are they the only
ones dealing with similar issues. Some in Australia are calling for the national park program
there to more clearly declare its goals. They feel that the management measures taken often seem
to conflict with one another or spread the agencys efforts too thin, rarely making significant
progress in any singular area. These worried Australians point to many other countries, including
South Africa, New Zealand, India, and Poland and the benchmarks for conservation they have
established with regards to habitat restoration or species repopulation. Perhaps our National Park
System can learn from these same programs that Australia is taking a look at. For example in
New Zealand there are over fifty fully fenced areas that are completely free of feral vertebrates
suggesting they are aiming for a conservation benchmark prior to the arrival of introduced
mammals. This method of historic preservation is something better suited to the smaller parks
of New Zealand than we have here, nevertheless it shows that they have a clear goal of historic
preservation in mind and are taking steps to reach it. In Poland and India there is a focus on reintroducing species that have either left the area or have become nearly extinct. Polish
conservation managers saved the European bison from extinction in the 1920s by collecting
the handful of bison surviving in zoos and breeding them up in Bialowieza Primeval Forest
before reintroducing them into the wild. Similarly, in India tigers and cheetahs were

reintroduced to Sariska National Park, suggesting they are aiming for some historic
conservation benchmark just like in Poland. (Hayward 1, 4-5). These efforts show similarities
to reintroductions undertaken here, such as wolves to Yellowstone in 1995, however they are
part of a larger goal of meeting a certain historical benchmark for preservation.
Another aspect of national park conservation policy that needs to be considered is the
politics behind it. This is where the organizations responsible for the care of parks receive
funding and support, and it often serves as a restriction to conservation projects. While the
executive branch can shift its position on conservation issues as presidents come and go, what
stays the same is that all branches of government fight for political rather than expert control
over policy. Local communities, including local legislators, also fall on this side, preferring
political control over parks to provide them with use and enjoyment (Freemuth 279). All this is
in opposition to the National Park Service, who were themselves created by the government to
provide expert control over national park policy. An example of the politics of conservation can
be seen in Great Himalayan National Park in India, where politicians are experiencing a conflict
of interest between what they want to do and what will keep them in favor with the public. The
endangered Western Tragopan is a resident of the park, however this same park land it inhabits is
also used to generate hydroelectric power. This requires paved roads and other construction in
the area, which puts great stress on the species. In addition to this, there are around fifteen
thousand people living within a five kilometer ring of the park who depend on the land for their
livelihood. These factors pressure local politicians into complying with the will of the locals,
even if it isnt for the benefit of the park, because rival politicians will capitalize on their actions
against the people (Chhatre and Saberwal 2-4).

There are many factors involved in establishing policy for the National Park Service that
need to be explored. Political, economic, environmental, ethical, legal, and even historical values
all have an effect on what the goals of the NPS should be. While future research is needed to take
all of these into account when presenting a plan for the caretaking of the parks, what is certain is
that in order to best learn from and care for the parks, we will need to find a compromise
between the preservationist and conservationist ideals of management.

Works Cited

Anderson, Laura, et al. "Assessing the Full Circle Trolley: Implications for Alternative
Transportation Systems in the National Parks." Journal of Park & Recreation
Administration 33.1 (2015): 112-31. Print.

Freemuth, John. "The National Parks: Political Versus Professional Determinants of Policy."
Public administration review 49.3 (1989): 278-86. Print.

Harding, Lauren. "What Good is a Bear to Society?" Society & Animals 22.2 (2014): 174-93.
Print.

Hayward, Matt W. "Time to Agree on a Conservation Benchmark for Australia." Pacific

Conservation Biology 18.2 (2012): 69-76. Print.

Mappes, Harmony A. "National Parks: For use and "Enjoyment" Or for "Preservation"? and the
Role of the National Park Service Management Policies in that Determination." Iowa Law
Review 92.2 (2007): 601-36. Print.

Orr, Shannon, and Rebecca Humphreys. "Mission Rivalry: Use and Preservation Conflicts in
National Parks Policy." Public Organization Review 12.1 (2012): 85-98. Print.

S.F. "Are National Parks for Creatures Or Comfort?" Environment 32.7 (1990): 24-. Print.
Freitag, Amy. Wording Matters: Conservation vs. Preservation
www.southernfriedscience.com. November 27, 2011. Web.

Chhatre, Ashwini, and Vasant Saberwal. "Political Incentives For Biodiversity Conservation."
Conservation Biology 19.2 (2005): 310-317. Academic Search Complete. Web. 13 Oct.
2015.
National Park Service. Crown of the Continent Research Learning Center.
http://www.nps.gov/glac/learn/nature/ccrlc.htm. October 6, 2015. Web