Kelly Thomsen

An Ethical and Political Examination of the Purpose of America’s National Parks

My senior capstone for the Environmental Arts and Humanities major at Sewanee.

Introduction

From its founding in 1916 to present day, the United States National Park Service (NPS) has experienced numerous policy changes, legal fights, threats, and a range of debates over its true purpose. Throughout its history, a debate persists over the essential mission of National Parks. As of December 21, 2018, the National Park Service’s website states that “The National Park Service preserves unimpaired the natural and cultural resources and values of the National Park Service for enjoyment, education, and inspiration of this and future generations.” Some people believe that the “remain unimpaired” clause means that the parks should exist to preserve the land, while others take the “enjoyment, education, and inspiration of this and future generations” clause to mean that the parks should exist primarily for public use. This essay explores arguments about whether the NPS is intended for protection of the land or for the enjoyment of humans and how today’s National Parks attempt to walk this fine line. Using history, philosophy, and literature, this essay will focus on the balance between accessibility and exploitment of the land in the National Park Service. Both facets of the National Park are necessary to develop a functional and responsible relationship with the environment. In this way, the essay will demonstrate how parks must be managed for the environment and for the people in order to create an ethical interpretation of the purpose of national parks.

There is a plethora of existing literature on the NPS and its history, policies, and ideas. Some have focused on citing policy over the years. Others have discussed the ethics of the NPS and philosophized on its intentions and relevance. Still others have written personal accounts of their experiences with the NPS, such as esteemed authors Ed Abbey and John Muir. What has not been achieved, however, is a comprehensive combination and synthesis of these views. This paper looks at policies in conjunction with ethics by using a transdisciplinary approach to combine literature, philosophy, and history. Instead of discussing policy, strictly literature, or strictly philosophy, this essay combines these three disciplines of Environmental Arts and Humanities to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the NPS and its purpose. Instead of arguing in favor of either preservation or conservation, this approach will show how these objectives should be combined on a basis of ethics and policy. 

History

American settlers first encountered Yosemite in 1851. Alfred Runte, in his book National Parks: The American Experience, links the discovery of vast Western landscapes to a “cultural anxiety” that was rampant in the young United States during that time (1997: 20). The incredible beauty of Yosemite served as a point of pride for Americans who felt competitive toward European landscapes; some stated that not even the Swiss alps could match it (Runte 1997: 20). Places like Yosemite or the Sierra Nevadas served as a claim to cultural significance for America, a sort of consolation for the lack of the long and cultured history that the Europeans boasted (Runte 1997: 21). “For the first time in almost a century,” Runte claims, “Americans argued with confidence that the United States had something of value in its own right to contribute to world culture” (Runte 1997: 22). So inspirational were these discoveries of the American West that a new sense of national pride and identity was formed (Runte 1997: 22). 

This hunger for a national identity created a platform for the National Park idea. People channeled their cultural anxiety and their pride in America’s wilderness into a fight for protected lands. In 1864, Californians petitioned their senator to propose legislation to protect the Sierra Redwoods and Yosemite from abuse by private corporations. The two areas had become targets for the nascent logging and tourism industries. Abraham Lincoln signed the Yosemite Act into law on June 30, 1864, giving control to the state of California. 

The Yellowstone wilderness of Montana followed a similar timeline to that of Yosemite. Its beauty was lauded in publications and descriptions and numerous expeditions were sent to explore the area. Again, Yellowstone was compared to European culture and history, serving as an antidote to the cultural anxiety that the young United States felt during this period (Runte, 1997: 44). When Congress began to consider a protected status for Yellowstone, it too was the result of an increased threat of industry. On March 1, 1872, President Ulysses S. Grant signed the Yellowstone Park Act into a law.

A trend during this time– before an official National Park Service but after preservation became a popular issue– was that of the comparative value of land. Many people were only willing to preserve what was “worthless” of a piece of land; that is, what could not be sold or used to profit (Runte 1997: 49). When debating the Yellowstone Park bill, Congress carefully considered reports about what was or was not economically valuable. Those campaigning for Yellowstone’s protection were burdened with convincing Congress that the land was devoid of valuable natural resources. Congress agreed to pass the bill, stating that if a credible developer found value in the land in the future, then the bill could always be repealed. It was clear that wilderness preservation was not the priority, and scenic protection could be forgotten if an economic opportunity arose. Debates ensued over this subject, especially during World War I when some wanted to use NPS land to gather metals and timber for the military (Keiter, 2013: 15). Forest resources were coveted, and the 1891 Forest Reserve Act gave the president the authority to give areas of public land the status of forest reservations. 

During the early years of national parks, the Forest Reserve system was formulating its own type of conservation. Some thought that there needed to be another way of conserving land that, instead of preserving it for people, preserved it for economic purposes. This organization would focus on timber management, putting large areas of land under government protection so that it could be federally managed. While this was not in line with the preservationist ethic of National Parks, it was an initiative to manage forest resources responsibly. The Forest Reserve act allowed the federal government to protect forests from privatization and manage them to a federal standard. It also meant that these lands would experience resource extraction and could not be protected as National Parks. 

Although the rapid physical expansion of protected lands was promising for conservationists, the concept of nature’s inherent value was still forming. Utilitarian conservation was the main motivation behind these movements, prioritizing things like land reclamation, forestry, leasing of the public domain, and a greater focus on seeking natural resources rather than protecting the land for scenic purposes (Runte 1997: 70). Roosevelt’s chief advisor Gifford Pinchot supported this idea, and was able to make it a reality when he was named Chief Forester of the newly created U.S. Forest Service in 1905. U.S. Congress put the Forest Service under the U.S. Department of Agriculture, since Pinchot and other utilitarian conservationists believed that trees should be managed as crops instead of protected for their inherent worth or beauty (Runte, 1997: 70). 

After so much rapid and controversial change, the public lands in the United States were in a state of nascent disarray under the Department of the Interior. Without a clear structure, contradicting laws and programs undermined the main objectives of protecting the land, for either conservation or for public enjoyment, utilitarianism or scenic preservation.

Quick changes occured in the following years. New parks were fitted to encompass only the most visually impressive sections of the land, keeping the purpose of the parks focused on the aesthetic quality of nature. While the utilitarian conservationist movement still provided protection for the land, the National Park system relied on scenic nationalism to keep interest and support alive (Runte 1997: 71). This nationalism relates back to the state of competition with Europe as new America struggled to form a national identity; the scenic beauty of the American west compensated for a lack of ancient European history. Since so much of the conservation movement at the time was focused on profit, national parks needed to prove their worth to the government as an institution while simultaneously proving its worthlessness as a potential source of economic or resource prosperity (Runte 1997: 71). This paradox created an early tension between those who believed the land should be preserved for its scenic worth and those who thought it should be used for its resource value. While not exactly the same as the modern debate, the contradiction lent itself to today’s debate over the purpose of national parks.

In 1906, Congress passed a bill that would preserve all objects of historic or scientific interest that exist in government land, and would be called “national monuments.” The decision about what would be named a national monument was to be left to the discretion of the president. This act helped President Roosevelt move away from the utilitarian theme of conservation and toward a more preservationist ethic (Runte 1997: 72). This not only gave more power to the president in cases of land protection, but it also acknowledged the United States’ desire to further establish a national and cultural identity (Runte, 1997: 73). Parks were not only created because of scenic beauty, but also for cultural and scientific significance (“50 Years of Leadership,” 1966: 240). This was a step closer to nature being preserved for its own sake instead of simply for utilitarian reasons.

A disparity still existed between the preservationists and the utilitarians. Preservations achieved a small victory in the National Monuments Act, but still struggled against the economic focus of utilitarians. They were still charged with proving that the protected areas were worthless in terms of natural resources so prospectors would not miss out on potentially valuable land (Runte 1997: 74). This created a further cognitive dissonance in the identity of the parks as they owed adherence to purposes of both resource exploitation and scenic conservation. This insecurity in the land policy is what led park advocates and preservationists to seek legal protection to guard parks in their “natural state,” resulting in the 1916 National Parks Organic Act (Keiter, 2013: 15).

The National Park Service was officially created in 1916 with the passage of the National Parks Organic Act. It stated that the purpose of the NPS was “to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wild life therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations” (“Act”, 1916). While this statement, and other aspects of the legislation, have been amended and interpreted, the basic mission has remained. While this maintains the importance and near-sacred responsibility of the NPS, it leaves many aspects of the service up to interpretation. Congress was not specific about how the NPS should go about accomplishing the mission. In an attempt to clarify its purposes, the agency released the “Lane Letter”. This is widely viewed as the NPS’s attempt to interpret its management responsibilities (Keiter, 2013: 8-9). 

The Lane Letter names three main principles:

First that the national parks must be maintained in absolutely unimpaired form for the use of Future generations as well as those of our own time; second, that they are set apart for the use, observation, health, and pleasure of the people; and third, that the national interest must dictate all decisions affecting public or private enterprise in the parks. (“Secretary Lane’s Letter”, 1918)

While the letter named goals in greater specificity, both sets of interests were still represented equally: the parks should be preserved so that people can use them. They are set apart for use by the people, but in order to be set apart, they must be preserved. National interest dictates all decisions, but it is up to the people to determine if preservation or use is more in line with their interests. There is no easy way to separate the two problems, no clear favor toward one or the other in the original policies. Therefore, it is assumed that the parks must be managed in favor of both. Neither side can be ethically approached with a purist view, especially if land designation is up to the president; a compromise must be reached between the two major interest groups in order to ensure a democratic process.

While the Lane Letter repeated the importance of conservation, it certainly did not designate parks to be untouched wilderness areas. Instead, the letter referred to the NPS as a “national playground system” and encouraged infrastructure to promote tourism such as building roads, hotels, and other facilities in the areas outside of the parks’ protected lands (“Secretary Lane’s Letter,” 1918). Stephen Mather, the agency’s first director, thought that if the parks had more visitors who were strongly affected by their time in the parks then they would have more of a public and political support system and would be more likely to remain protected. Another rationale was that if accomodations were not provided for visitors, then the parks would not fulfill their basic principle of serving the public. Soon, the first parks had roads to the most popular attractions and other visitor facilities in place. This created a dissonance between the goal of land preservation and the destruction of land that was necessary for paved roads. The development of these early parks is an initial example of the conflict between making the parks accessible for public enjoyment and protecting the land.

Another way the parks strayed from the concept of wilderness during this time was due to the resource management practices. The NPS sought to make nature in the parks more controlled, safe, and aesthetically pleasing for its visitors, and they did this by altering some of the most basic processes of nature. Rangers eliminated predatory animals, fought wildfires that were needed for forest health, and made other superficial changes to the landscape for the benefit of the visitors. The Leopold Report of 1963 addressed many of these issues, tackling the fact that a pleasant, scenic, and aesthetically pleasing environment is not necessarily in line with conservation practices.

An advisory board headed by Aldo Leopold conducted a report on the state of wildlife management in the parks and outlined a plan to help mitigate damage done to the biotic communities in national parks. A main focus of the report was on restoring parks to the “condition that prevailed when the area was first visited by the white man” (Leopold, 1963, 3). This meant, they stated, that each park should be equipped with scientists that could advise on the proper management practices needed to return the parks to this vision. This included the eradication of non-native species and the reintroduction of natural predators, such as wolves that had been cleared to make the parks less dangerous for visitors. These changes would restore the land to its natural state and begin the process of allowing nature to regulate itself. The report was monumental in refocusing the NPS on its commitment to conservation and providing a specific plan on how to achieve it.

The Wilderness Act of 1964 helped to further balance the parks between developed areas for the comfort of visitors and maintaining nature. The NPS, U.S. Forest Service, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service were to survey roadless land in the parks and make recommendations to the president about what should be designated as wilderness. It stated that wilderness is “an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain,” (“Wilderness Act,” 1964). 

Literature

John Muir

John Muir begins his first chapter of Our National Parks, a series of his essays, with a statement about the importance of wilderness. Instead of placing himself strictly on the preservationist side of the argument, Muir focuses on the importance of granting people access to the wilderness:

Thousands of tired, nerve-­shaken, over­civilized people are beginning to find out that going to the mountains is going home; that wildness is a necessity; and that mountain parks and reservations are useful not only as fountains of timber and irrigating rivers, but as fountains of life. Awakening from the stupefying effects of the vice of over-­industry and the deadly apathy of luxury, they are trying as best they can to mix and enrich their own little ongoings with those of Nature, and to get rid of rust and disease (Muir, 1981: 1).

He even expresses gratitude that the mountains are made more accessible and “by means of good roads are being brought nearer civilization every year,” (Muir, 1981: 2). He speaks of wilderness as an essential right and compares humans’ desire to visit the west as similar to a bird’s need to migrate south in the winter; “in coming north [the birds] are coming home, for they were born here, and they go south only to spend the winter months, as New Englanders go to Florida,” (Muir, 1981: 10).

This idea of access to wilderness being essential to human well being captures the essence of Muir’s stance on the purpose of National Parks. Though he wants to grant adequate accessibility, he also believes that an overuse of industry in the National Parks would not only take away from the conservation objective of the parks, but it would also diminish the visitors’ experience. In The Yosemite, Muir discusses the evil of those who strive to make everything commercial and profitable, including the experience of wilderness (Muir, 1912: 260). If this “natural beauty-hunger” is found in the rich as well as the poor, he states, then the National Parks Service should not be interfered with by commercialism and industry (Muir, 1912: 260). It should be widely available to all classes and, therefore, as unspoiled by industry as possible. This ethic shows a balance in the purpose of the parks: Muir believes access to the outdoors is essential to human beings, but does not want it to be spoiled by overdevelopment and industry.

In many of his works, his argument comes in the form of beautiful descriptive imagery to convince his readers of the vitality of wilderness.  He strategically uses this creativity to convince people to care about and feel connected to places they may never have even been:

I have done the best I could to show forth the beauty, grandeur, and all ­embracing usefulness of our wild mountain forest reservations and parks, with a view to inciting the people to come and enjoy them, and get them into their hearts, that so at length their preservation and right use might be made sure. (Muir, 1981: xix)

John Muir also commanded respect because of his intensive work on the National Park project. He he founded the Sierra club in 1892, petitioned Congress to make Yosemite a National Park in 1893, and was a large influence on politicians and policy-makers to help the NPS over the years. Our National Parks also helped the issue of conservation in government and gave him more credibility for his political efforts. Because of his intensive involvement in the cause and his impressive writing accomplishments, Muir was a large influence on decision-making in the NPS. 

Ed Abbey

Ed Abbey understands and discusses the tension between the NPS’s goals extensively in his book Desert Solitaire. He speaks about his beloved Arches National Park and how disappointed he is that it’s becoming developed. He is incredibly upset about the NPS building roads and bringing more tourists in– not because he does not want people to be able to experience Arches, but because he thinks that this takes away from the experience. This is an example of the paradox between road-building and conservation; they directly contradict each other, but they both apply to the goals of natural parks in providing for the enjoyment of the visitors and the conservation of the land.

In this section on industrial tourism, Abbey acknowledges the argument between “The Preservers,” who focus on the “leave them unimpaired” clause of the Organic Act, and “The Developers,” who focus on the words “provide for the enjoyment,” (Abbey, 1968: 45). He pinpoints the root of the problem to an issue of accessibility. Should the parks be made easily accessible to everyone and their machines, or should they be kept free of industrialism as much as possible? Abbey directs his argument at those who are sympathetic to the cause of “The Preservers” but believes that “although wilderness is a fine thing, certain compromises and adjustments are necessary in order to meet the ever-expanding demand for outdoor recreation,” (Abbey, 1968: 47). Abbey believes that an ideal park would be “preserved in a primitive way so as to screen out those tourists unwilling to drive their cars over some twenty miles of dirt roads,” (Abbey, 1968: 46). In this case, a park would accommodate those who are invested enough to put in a great effort to see the landscape, to really want to get experience what the park has to offer. Abbey firmly believes that driving around National Parks in cars and looking out the windows at the popular spots is a disgraceful way to treat the parks, insisting that it is not a truly valuable experience to travel this way. “They are being robbed and robbing themselves,” he says of these automobile-bound tourists (Abbey, 1968: 51). In his eyes, building roads and allowing tourists to behave this way is actually a disservice to the people. If the parks were to really be for the people, they would attempt to liberate the tourist population “from the confines of automobiles” (Abbey, 1968: 51). 

“The Developers”, on the other hand, focus on National Parks as an industry. Tourism is a large part of the national economy and attracts private contracts to projects from hotels to roads to guiding trips. Not only does this monetary side of the debate hold significant weight, but there is also a high demand of people wanting to visit National Parks while seeking the highest degree of comfort. Although Abbey believes that this is a much less fulfilling way to see nature, he acknowledges that the NPS is anxious to please the people and, therefore, the economic powers behind the scenes. 

As a way of attacking this clear ideological divide between “The Preservers” and “The Developers,” Abbey suggests that a reexamination of the Organic Act is necessary. He says that “we cannot decide the questions 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,” (Abbey, 1968: 48). Abbey provides three ideas that he asserts will solve the problem. One is to get rid of all cars in National Parks, and the next is to stop building roads in parks. People can walk or bike around, and in this way, even if they are unable to see as much of the park, they will have a much more intimate and meaningful experience than they would from a car. Park rangers could shuttle in peoples’ camping equipment and supplies. He also suggests a bus service to accommodate the elderly, young children, and those with disabilities. This would still cut down on traffic and emissions and would provide people with a way to enjoy the parks. His third idea is to put the park rangers to work, getting them out of offices and having them guide, teach, assist, and interact more closely with the land. 

These changes, he believes, will serve both purposes of the Organic Act; they will help protect the land by cutting down on automobile disturbances and having park rangers pay closer attention to its needs, and it will improve visitors’ experiences by freeing them from their automobiles and allowing them to form a deeper, more meaningful connection with the park by forcing them to experience it face-to-face.

Abbey maintains a level of respect regarding his thoughts on the parks because of his close knowledge and relationship with the land. He documented his time as a ranger at Arches with such detail, beauty, and vigor, that his readers often feel they too have a connection with this place. He was not someone sitting in a desk at the other end of the country suggesting changes to the system; he was someone who has worked the system, who knew the land better than anyone, and who has put great thought into how it should best be managed. This commands an authority to his readers that many policy-makers and bureaucrats do not retain. Abbey makes his readers care about the land. Through his breathtaking imagery, they can feel his bitter disappointment over the development of Arches and can understand why he believes so firmly in the Preservers. Through his writing, it is clear that he truly believed that people will have a better experience in the parks with these preservation methods, an argument which is especially convincing because of his expertise. He practiced what he preaches by walking the land every day, knowing it intimately, and forgoing any of the modern comforts that development might bring.

Ethics

Utilitarianism

J.J.C. Smart discusses utilitarianism, a prominent feature in the struggle to create the National Park System. He defines utilitarianism as the desire to act for the greatest happiness for the greatest number (Smart 1973: 110). He also discusses the idea of “higher” and “lower” pleasures (ibid). For example, “some states of mind, such as those of acquiring knowledge, [have] intrinsic value quite independent of their pleasantness,” (ibid: 112). A contrast to this idea would be a self-serving mindset.

In the case of the National Parks debate, utilitarianism was used to describe the group that would rather use land for its resources and economic value rather than a scenic or enjoyment purpose. In the case of environmental ethics, “utility” referred to resources and economic gain. In Smart’s ethic, “utility” is actually what would bring the greatest happiness to the greatest number. This difference, within Smart’s definition of utilitarianism, depends on what would increase happiness for the greatest number of people: economic gain through the land’s resources or scenic enjoyment through National Parks. The modern debate is much more complicated, since today the question is not whether or not to set aside land for national parks, but rather how to use the land that has already been set aside. The question today is whether recreation or conservation create the greatest happiness for the greatest number. 

Although economic gain might be pleasant initially, the educational value of conserving land would bring more value as a higher pleasure. In this case, utilitarianism would actually argue for the national parks, since the conservation of lands would bring a higher pleasure and therefore a greater amount of happiness. Also, it would bring greater happiness for a greater number of people; not everyone profits from the money made off of recreation and exploitation of the land, but everyone can benefit from equal access to parks. In Smart’s view of utilitarianism, the original argument for the National Parks would be a utilitarian objective because it would bring the greatest amount of happiness to the greatest number of people. 

Recreation may be more pleasurable in the moment than working to conserve, but conservation is a higher pleasure because it incorporates education and long-term enjoyment of the parks. In terms of numbers, outdoor recreation is often enjoyed by the elite classes, or those who can afford to participate in activities like snowmobiling or mountain biking. A park focused on conservation can be enjoyed by many; it is not expensive to take a walk in a well-protected forest. These points could be countered; some may believe that recreation is actually the higher pleasure and is more enjoyable for the greatest number. This ethic, however, supports the idea that for the parks to be managed for the people, they must focus on conservation. Recreation in the parks cannot exist without proper management and conservation; if the land is destroyed then there is no place for recreation. Therefore, conservation would provide for recreation, which would in hand create the greatest pleasure for the greatest number of people, including those who might use the parks in the future.

Wilderness

While the Wilderness Act has been praised by many supporters of preservation within the National Parks, it has other connotations that are not as favorable. James Morton Taylor, in his 2014 article “Rethinking American Exceptionalism: Toward a Transnational History of National Parks, Wilderness, and Protected Areas,” discusses the issues that arise from the wilderness ideals of the US Park Service. In creating and praising a so-called uninhabited wilderness, people are ignoring the cultural history of native people in the land. before parks or wilderness areas were established in the US, people were already living and managing the land. He quotes Mark Spence in saying that “uninhabited wilderness had to be created before it could be preserved,” (Taylor, 2014: 14). In forcing native peoples out of their ancestral home, the NPS is actually only for the enjoyment of some. It is a constructed idea of wilderness that comes at the cost of entire societies. The NPS is based on the idea that the parks were “carved from a pristine and unpeople wilderness,” which is what Taylor calls a “selective remembrance of the history of land acquisition in the United States,” (Taylor, 2014: 7). 

Taylor points out that Americans have a romanticized idea of untouched wilderness, a kind of purity that is unrealistic and over-simplified. In reality, the complexity of humans’ relationship with nature further supports the duality of the National Park idea: that management needs to consider nature and people. This requires the participation and respect of local communities in these protected areas. A simple loyalty toward untouched wilderness is not sufficient to responsible management; the local populations, histories, and cultures must be considered as well. It is the responsibility of the NPS to “designate areas and establish policies that can mediate between the social consequences and conservation goals of protected areas,” (Taylor, 18: 2014). This is a positive take on the duality of the Organic Act; people and wilderness cannot be separated, so a positive form of management must take into account the interests of both parties. 

Anthropocentrism

Anthropocentrism is the idea that human needs should be prioritized ahead of nature, or that Earth and nature should be considered from a human standpoint (Watson, 1983: 245). Some believe that this is a problematic way to interact with nature, while others think it is only natural for humans to think in their own self-interest. Richard Watson, in “A Critique of Anti-Anthropocentric Biocentrism,” supports this idea as well. He states that “if we view the state of nature… as being natural, undisturbed, and unperturbed only when human beings are not present, or only when human beings are curbing their natural behavior, then we are assuming that human beings are apart from, separate from, different from, removed from, or above nature,” (Watson, 1983: 252). He criticizes this special treatment of humans and suggests that a better way to interact with nature would be an honest acknowledgement that humans are interested in their own well-being and success. This is not to say that humans should act without regard to the consequences of their actions, but that they should consider themselves as part of the ecological community with a vested interest in the well-being of the world. These authors suggest that we shouldn’t necessarily conserve the environment because we are morally and evolutionarily superior to other beings, but instead because we are members of the animal kingdom with a humble responsibility to protect the earth. In this way, as in the Organic Act, both human and natural needs must be considered.

  Leopold’s chapter “A Land Ethic,” in his book A Sand County Almanac, discusses the root of his own environmental ethic. He starts, however, by defining the idea of ethics in general. He believes that ethics have to do with evolution. Ecologically, he says, an ethic is “a limitation on freedom of action” in an animal’s struggle for survival; ethics stop animals from doing whatever they want (Leopold, 1968: 202). Philosophically, an ethic is “a differentiation of social from anti-social conduct,” or the difference between acting for oneself and acting in terms of others. Ethic way, he defines ethics as having to do with the way animals, including humans, interact with each other. People take the time to think about their actions toward another being when they care about this being and consider it part of the community of moral worth. If something is not a member of a community, then its worth is often not taken into account, creating an evolutionary in-group and out-group bias. This is why most people don’t think twice about killing a fly; the fly is not a member of the community of moral worth, and therefore does not warrant the same ethical consideration that a fellow human might.

After defining ethics as the way animals interact with their community, Leopold goes on to challenge the boundaries of that community. He suggests that we expand our circle of moral regard to include more than just humans and a few select animals, such as pets, into a larger land ethic (Leopold, 1968: 204). Leopold’s “land ethic simply enlarges the boundaries of the community to include soils, waters, plants, and animals, or collectively: the land,” (Leopold, 1968: 204). He applies this ethic to the treatment of the land, acknowledging that a land ethic cannot prevent management and alteration of the earth, but it can give the earth a right to existence in its most natural state possible (Leopold, 1968: 204). If a land ethic were adopted in the case of National Parks, it would mean that the land of the parks were given as much priority as the people using that land. While not everyone is likely to buy into an ethic that treats considers soil as having the same importance as a human, many ideas from the land ethic can be applied to how the parks are managed.

In this idea of a land ethic, people and the land should be in concord with each other. Leopold defines this active ethic as conservation, and he believes that  “conservation is a state of harmony between men and land,” (Leopold, 1968: 207). In this way, the purpose of National Parks does not have to be divided into “the Developers” and “the Preservers”; a proper management of the park system can be achieved in cooperation. The land and the people both have a vested interest in the land of the parks, and conservation means helping them work together in harmony. This means making sure the people can visit and enjoy the land without harming it.

Leopold also focuses on how economics play into humans’ treatment of the land. He echoes a point seen early in the debate over National Parks; most aspects of nature are only protected because they have economic value. The parks, early on, were in danger of being set aside for commercial use instead of for public enjoyment. Early conservationists struggled to get protection of land without any economic motivation. Leopold points out that when some part of nature without an economic use is threatened, “if we happen to love it, we invent subterfuges to give it economic importance” (Leopold, 1968: 210). This is similar to the history of the parks; when the land was threatened by commercial and economic motivations, people argued its importance to the national identity of early America and pitched it as a possible revenue-maker through future tourism in order to convince people to want to protect the land. In a land ethic, however, this manipulation would not be necessary. People would not need to prove the worth of conserving land in economic value because the land would already have its own inherent worth. Instead of trying to protect land from economic exploitation by claiming there was an economic advantage to protecting it, a land ethic would state that the land should be saved “as a matter of biotic right, regardless of the presence or absence of economic advantage to us” (cite?). Instead of managing the national parks solely for tourism and recreation, which brings in revenue for third parties, the parks should be managed as their own entity with the inherent worth. 

Conclusion

After looking at the history, literature, and ethics that apply to the debate over the purpose of the United States’ National Park Service, it is clear that the two goals cannot be separated and that the Parks must be managed with public enjoyment and conservation in mind. Although history reveals a complex debate between the two purposes, this complexity shows that the two are inseparable. The debate cannot be simply resolved because both sides are correct. John Muir and Edward Abbey provide their own examples of how this can work. Parks must be looked at as places of natural preservation and of human opportunity. This does not mean an opportunity for development or economic gain; this means the opportunity to see the world, to connect with nature, to experience earth in the most genuine and simple way. Environmental ethicists prove this theory in their explorations of how to live in the world and to interact with nature in a right way. The combination of this facets of environmental arts and humanities show the duality of the purpose of the parks and suggest several ways of management that would fulfill this purpose. In managing and considering the parks for both recreation and conservation, the National Park Service fulfills its duty of serving both the people and the land.

Works Cited

“50 Years of Leadership: The National Park Service.” American Association for State and Local History. 21 (12): 240-242. https://www.jstor.org/stable/42645874.

Abbey, Edward. 1968. Desert Solitaire: A Season in the Wilderness. Touchstone.

“Act to Establish a National Park Service (Organic Act), 1916.” 1916. National Park Service. Last Modified Octobre 25, 2000. https://www.nps.gov/foun/learn/management/upload/1916%20ACT%20TO%20ESTABLISH%20A%20NATIONAL%20PARK%20SERVICE-5.pdf

“Antiquities Act, 1906.” 1906. National Park Service. Last Modified October 25, 2000. https://www.nps.gov/parkhistory/online_books/anps/anps_1g.htm. 

Davis, Gary E., William L. Halvorson, and Will H. Ehorn. 1988. “Science and Management in U.S. National Parks.” Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America, 69 (2): 111-114. 

Guha, Ramachandra. 1989. “Radical American Environmentalism and Wilderness Preservation: A Third World Critique.” Environmental Ethics 11 (1): 71-83.

Harmon, David, and Rebecca Conard. 2016. “The Evolution of the National Park Service: A Hundred Years of Changing Ideas.” The George Wright Forum 33 (2): 230-251.

Keiter, Robert B. 2013. To Conserve Unimpaired: The Evolution of the National Park Idea. Washington, DC: Island Press.

Lemons, John and Dean Stout. 1984. “A Reinterpretation of National Park Legislation.” Environmental Law 15 (1): 41-65.

Leopold, Aldo. 1968. A Sand County Almanac. Oxford University Press.

Leopold, A. S., S. A. Cain, C. M. Cottam, I. N. Gabrielson, T. L. Kimball. 1963. Wildlife Management in National Parks. National Park Service.

Muir, John. 1981. Our National Parks. University of Wisconsin Press.

Muir, John. 1912. The Yosemite. In I Am Coyote: Readings for the Wild, edited by Jay Schoenberger, 260-261. 2015. San Francisco: Kimbrough Knight Publishing LLC.

“Rethinking the National Parks for the 21st Century.” 2001. National Park Service. https://www.nps.gov/policy/report.htm. 

“Revisiting Leopold: Resource Stewardship in the National Parks: A Report of the National Park System Advisory Board Science Committee.” 2012. National Park Service. https://www.nps.gov/calltoaction/PDF/LeopoldReport_2012.pdf. 

Richter, Sandy. 2014. “Environmental Law: Wisdom from the Ancients.” Bulletin for Biblical Research 24 (3): 307-330.

Rolston, Holmes. 1994. “Value in Nature and the Nature of Value.” In Philosophy and the Natural Environment, edited by Robin Attfield and Andrew Belsey, 13-30. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Runte, Alfred. 1997. National Parks: The American Experience. The University of Nebraska Press.

“Secretary Lane’s Letter on National Park Management, 1918.” 1918. National Park Service. Last modified October 25, 2000. https://www.nps.gov/parkhistory/online_books/anps/anps_1j.htm. 

Smart, J.J.C. 1973. “Utilitarianism.” In Utilitarianism: For and Against, edited by J.J.C. Smart and Bernard Williams, 110-123. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Turner, James Morton. 2014. “Rethinking American Exceptionalism: Toward a Transnational History of National Parks, Wilderness, and Protected Areas.” The Oxford Handbook of Environmental History. DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195324907.013.0011. 

Watson, Richard A. 1983. “A Critique of Anti-Anthropocentric Biocentrism.” Environmental Ethics 5 (3): 245-256. 

“Wilderness Act, 1964.” 1964. National Park Service.  Last modified October 25, 2000. https://www.nps.gov/parkhistory/online_books/anps/anps_6b.htm. 

Williams, Gerald W. 2005. “The USDA Forest Service– The First Century.” Last modified April 2005. https://www.fs.fed.us/sites/default/files/media/2015/06/The_USDA_Forest_Service_TheFirstCentury.pdf. 

White Jr., Lynn. 1967. “The Historical Roots of Our Ecological Crisis.” Science 155 (3767): 1203-1207.