Tourism destroying the environment

What's the point in having an environment if we can't use it?

 

Most of the state I live in only has 3 economically viable uses:

1) Skiing

2) Mountain biking

3) Strip mining

If #1 and #2 offend anyone's delicate sensibilities; we'll gladly revert to #3. It pays better anyway and we don't have to be nice to Californians.

 

i think i'll regret this.......but well, it is true.....

Geez, I'm really going to regret playing devils advocate here... But then, there is a slight point to be made... Which is kinda important.

Example - Yellowstone - one of the proudest and most magnificent parks in the U.S.…

It is being over-ran by tourists, by litter; and the constant human interaction with animals is changing the very behavior of the natural inhabitants.

So I mean it’s cool that this park is so often visited… but if the goal of a national park is to be without the touch of humans, well then this park has failed due to it’s popularity alone.

Is this good or bad? I dunno, it’s just if I want to go see an unspoiled wilderness apparently Yellowstone isn’t the place.

 

Gee, maybe for the millions of other species that inhabit this planet that we're determined to destroy?

 

Damnedest thing happened. I was putting some nails in my wall. Used my cell-phone to get them in there. Now my cellphone is broken, and the insurance won't replace it. They say it's my fault. I mean, really... what's the point of having a cell-phone if you can't use it?

 

Yeah, we're all "determined to destroy" the planet that we live on.

 

Wow. That was an incredibly stupid analogy.

 

In a "depraved heart" sort of way, yes.

 

Re: i think i'll regret this.......but well, it is true.....

You'd prefer to?

1) Give the park back to the miners & ranchers & let them strip mine the place or shoot all the cute animals & run cattle through what is not strip mined?

2) Pull some of the armed forces out of Iraq & Afghanistan & post them in Madison, West Yellowstone, Cody & Jackson Hole & tell them to shoot anyone who tries to enter?

Actually, these ideas would go over pretty well with area residents. Strip mining pays pretty well and shooting tourists is, I suspect, a favorite fantasy of some people up there.

Yes, the Old Faithful area does have the look and feel of the corner of The Strip and Flamingo at about 11 on a Saturday night.

But the last time I was there; it was 4th of July weekend; 2001; probably the busiest time ever for Yellowstone. I was with my wife who was 5 months pregnant at the time, so we were not hiking very far or fast. We only saw two other people on our hike. I have to imagine that you could get to even more remote and less visited places if you don't have to stop to pee every half hour.

 

Re: Re: i think i'll regret this.......but well, it is true.....

Hope you and yours had this book, then.

Seriously, this debate is nothing new if you've been interested in the outdoors.

 

Thanks, Mahoney!

Hm, some of those books linked on that page are even more interesting........

But the trail we were on was very developed. There were "facilities" at the trailhead so we did not need that book.

But that's the point of my original post....about a 5 minute drive from Old Faithful; on Yellowstone's busiest weekend ever; on one of their most developed trails; there was almost no one there.

 

Re: Re: i think i'll regret this.......but well, it is true.....

(1) No, umm - (2) No, and LOL...

Was just stating how it's a catch-22...I mean we want people to apprecaite nature, but Yellowstone is so deluged with visitiors that according to park officials this is causing problems... Not much of an issue to me, I mean if anything limit the number of visitors if it's as traumatic as they're saying....

I'n not debating you, just repeating what's already been said...

Again, just playing devil's advocate here for lack of anyone else chiming in....

 

We got two huge national parks here in Alberta (Jasper and Banff National Parks) that are real anal when it comes to regulating the environment. Jasper didn't have a city council till a couple of years ago. The same case with Banff.

In controling population in Banff, rules now dictate you can't live in the town unless you:

a) Are going to schoolin Banff
b) You work in Banff
c) You own a business in Banff

There have been complaints when ski resorts are expanded to meet the increasing demand. This even occurs when the resort already owns the property and they have the green light for development.

 

That's pretty interesting. So Canada's most conservative province now has a place that has a Residency Permit system like the old Soviet Union or communist China.

Here's my ideas for Protecting Yellowstone:

-Raise the admission fee so high that the only Democrats that can afford to go to the park are too busy making movies to visit Yellowstone and no Republicans will want to give that much money to the government.

-Old Faithful Geyser Presented by Viagra.

-The LA Galaxy forwards can sponsor some of the inactive geysers. (Get it? There's some rumbling and some hot air; but nothing much ever happens.)

-Tell the wolves that have been reintroduced to Yellowstone that they are not allowed to eat farm animals on ranches near Yellowstone. They have to eat tourists instead.

 

The Banff situation was more created by the federal government. They wanted to prevent and clah with nature (Not unusual to see animals prowling the outer limits of Banff).

Another was to prevent the town from being turned into another Vail or Aspen. The property values are quite high for the community.