WS 3371 Fall 2007

I agree with Abbey in that roads and car traffic are ruining our National Parks. Does it really made sense for us to accommodate the unappreciative to the things that they don’t appreciate? Our parks are just becoming another tourist attraction like the Statue of Liberty or Mount Rushmore. The roads allow people great access to “wilderness” which they otherwise would have no desire to see if they couldn’t merely drive there. This is a general assumption and stereotypes American tourist within the county but I think that it still hold true for the majority of the population. Abbey says that people need to leave their vehicles and hike, bike or ride horse to the sites of natural physical beauty. I do agree with him in this manner but I don’t think that everyone will be willing to do that. In fact, I think there would be a very small percentage of tourists that would actually leave the vehicles and jump on the bike. The parks are a source of income and whether or not that income covers the cost of paving, I don’t know but I would guess it doesn’t. To the higher ups in the country the success of the parks is dependent on how many people go through them a year rather than the continued preservation and restoration of wilderness. I think it would be thought of as a waste of resources if the parks were maintained and staffed and very few people actually visited them, even though the cost might be significantly less. The government’s goal is to make as many people happy as possible. If that means making wilderness car accessible then that’s what happens.

In "The Car and the Road" the car is viewed positively as means for people to explore, experience, and appreciate nature. "Car and camping technologies merged"- perhaps this quote suggests that the creation of the car promoted more experience with the natural environment, but if it doesn't go as far as to do that it at least presents the car and its implications as something to be considered natural.

After our discussion of time during class on Tuesday I noticed passages related to that subject in the reading, "Industrial Tourism and the National Parks." It seems to me that the pressure of time is the driving force behind the effort to make every space "accessible" to humans. Abbey mentions that all spaces, even extremely difficult ones such as mountains, have been experienced without the automobile by man. He believes, and I agree with him, that people should "not need to drive to the very brink of the Grand Canyon's south rim." I think that people feel that they should experience and see nature, but they don't feel they can take the time to experience it on a deeper and more meaningful, more time consuming, level.

We live in a world today where time is of the essence. We as a society are always looking for short cuts or ways to reduce the amount of time it takes to accomplish something. As in the case of visiting national parks and other points of interest. We feel the need to experience them, but at a faster pace. We desire to experience such things on the go in hopes of getting the chance or opportunity to experience more. But what is any experience in nature without physically experiencing it as it really is? Wouldn't you get more satisfaction or "experience" out the experience by hiking, biking or horseback, where you actually take in the sights and sounds of nature? Sure we all value our time greatly, but what satisfaction or meaning does a person get from a view of a car?

I found Abbey’s essay quite interesting. His view of national parks and tourism came from the inside before “industrial tourism” really got going. I can see why he wouldn’t want a road to go through the Arches National Monument because it would ruin man’s connection with nature. However, I think his views are being very stereotypical. Many people travel to National Parks every year, and many of these people take time to get out of their vehicles and explore nature. Yes, some may just zoom through the park just to say they had been there, but I believe the majority of people who are going to a National Park have a reason to go there. That reason is simply to connect with and enjoy nature. It’s about seeing the land before humans changed modified the landscape. I personally am thankful that paved roads go through national parks. Roads allow people to enjoy the landscape and nature during rainy days, and also lets people see two versions—the wide, panoramic view and the up-close view. Either view gives people the opportunity to see and experience nature.

There were a couple of points in “The Car and the Road” that made me think (even though they were kind of minor points). The first one was about the creation of the strip. After reading it and then thinking about, I realized it was entirely true. This past summer I spent a lot of time driving places and business do tailor themselves to the cars on the road. You’ll always find gas stations, fast food places and motels all lined up alongside the highway, each with a really tall sign with just their logo so you’d be able to see it from a distance. I am the worst when it comes to directions and remembering where to go, but I never had a problem finding a place to fill up, eat or the hotel I was staying at.
Another part that got me thinking was the Blue Ridge Parkway and how it packaged nature in a convenient way for the motorist to enjoy. You would think it would be impossible to package nature, I mean, that’s the whole point of it being nature, right? But then you’ve got the road going through it, little tidbits and signs to follow along on your drive, planned out areas to enjoy the view and take a hike, it just seemed kind of weird. It made me think of passing “scenic viewpoint” signs while driving. I don’t really stop at them, but I can’t help but look at them as I’m driving by, just to see what was so great that it deserved a sign.

Initially a car was something that was a new technology and almost immediately became fascinated with it. It was a technology that was used to take people further from the congested city and a tool used to create suburbs. That is not to say that car manufacturers had these ideas in mind, but the car did aid in these transformations. The automobile was only able to take people where these were roads and thus business men could exploit this. Advertizing started targeting motorists more and things like motels were starting to spring up. All these things as a result of a new technology were appearing all over the continents and were completely dependant on one another. A motorist needed place to stay if it was a matter of long distances and a motel needed motorists to keep it in business. As more roads were built a new kind of a market began to appear. Park roads were appearing more to attract tourists to designated spots based on the plan whoever designed it. He/She/They had complete control over what the motorist would see and the kind of places he could visit. This is a potential a lot of income. HHHMmmmmm

After reading the article “Industrial Tourism and the National Parks” it made me think about Rocky Mountain National Park. This is an area that goes through Estes Park Colorado and all the way over the continental divide. There is one, single lane road the whole way up an over the pass. My Grandfather actually helped build this road when it was first being developed. I have gone to this park many times in the years growing up in Colorado and I never really thought about the roads as being destructive. There are not multi-lane roads with thousands of cars flying through constantly. There is one small single-lane road that you can take as far up through the park as you would like. I thought that the line "provide for the enjoyment of same in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations" was very interesting. He says that this quote is ambiguous but I think that if you have ever experienced a drive through a National park it makes perfect sense. I think it is trying to say that with the building of the roads a new enjoyment will be found and carried on through the generations. I always went on day trips through the pass with my parents because it is something they enjoyed doing, it had been passed on through them to my generation. I think that the production of roads through national parks has not caused substantial damage. There aren’t many houses found throughout these parks, no shopping malls, fast food restaurants or other businesses. All there is are majestic animals and beautiful scenery as far as the eye can see. The production of roads through these remote areas gave a larger amount of people the opportunity to enjoy them since they were more easily accessible, which is why I think they have been a positive expansion of the road system.

The Culture for Nature told a story of a very pivotal period time in our society. The birth of automobiles caused such a huge boom in every facet of life during that time. There was massive road construction and as result, the birth of industrial tourism. After reading Automobiles and Automobility, we discovered that in 1899 there were 2,500 vehicles and by 1910 there were 458,500 cars. So we can say that by 1910 cars had become more of a necessity and as a result, people began to purchase them more. So we see from reading The Culture for Nature that in a fifty year period, a lot of changes occurred. People became touring the country, camp cars were created and highways and roads were created. For me I found myself intrigued by the impact cars had on society. So many things shifted – good and bad.

Polemic: Industrial Tourism and the National Parks was such a good read. I enjoyed how Abbey used metaphors throughout the entire article. I feel bad because I never thought about any of the concerns that he had until I read them in this article. It’s amazing that some people view the amount of visitors coming to a park as a good thing, but Abbey was very content with the level of visitors his park had. You know, this article raised a lot of good points about the overuse of vehicles. In his mind, industrial tourism taints the natural look and feel of parks. He raised a very good point, and though I feel that his three-step plan is a bit far-fetched, “the developers” should consider his argument and make some improvements.

Industrial Tourism and the National Parks reproves tourists for wanting to see everything without leaving their cars. I agree that today's tourists do want to see everything, but only because they don't realize that there could be more to it. Tourists think that seeing is experiencing. If Abbey's recomendations were implemented tourists would have to be convinced that there is more to gain from a national park than just a view. They would have to realize that there is a certain feeling to be had once they immerse themselves in nature. Abby's proposal could work, but it would take a lot of advertising.

Wilson explains in his essay that the car divided up all means of transportation. That bikes and pedestrians had to be separated from automobiles when previously; everything shared the same transit space. I think that it is an interesting to read about how these roads evolved from transportation for the masses, to transportation for the single car owner.
I think it is also interesting the way that Wilson believes cars/ roads have developed to separate the natural versus artificial. In order to visit the natural, you have to travel in a car, through the artificial to get there. Almost as if cars progressed a certain type of “anti-nature” movement. The creation of cars and roadways separated the areas in which we live, and the nature areas in which we visit.

I do not think it a coincidence Mr. Abbey uses the phrase "Final Solution" to describe the idustrialization of the nations park systems. This genocide of our nations few remaining natural Meccas is a disgrace to this country but one its citizens seem all too eager to support. In a few years time the idea of actually exerting physical effort in order to witness the parks features will seem laughable to the average eco tourist, a quaint idea reserved for some other time when things were more primitive. Directly interacting with nature will be phased out and the guided tours will comfortably escort the masses past the places of note as if it were some living amusement park or worse, a museum of natural history, for by this time the concept of pristine land will be just that, history.

Abbey's essay made me think, when does outdoor recreation become just recreation? It all seems so artificial, this path of least resistance. But it also makes me wonder if road trips are an adventure,is it the act of traveling or the act of being the master of your own destiny that makes this safe trip an adventure?I mean, what fun are interstates if you can't pick up hitch hikers? He seemed kind of Hunter Thompson-y in his dislike and rebellion against the drooling masses in their RV's traveling on paved roads making trips that thousands have made before. I got pretty anxious when he asked the question "What does it all mean?" Does accessibility by automobile compromise the merit of these national parks? I don't know if there is a logical reasoning for prefer the chirping of crickets and frogs than Eminem blasting through the campground, this definitely compromises the purpose of the trip.

After reading both passages for today, it seems as though the creation of new roads came about as a result of want rather than need. For example, Wilson states that the creation of many new roads (especially those placed in national parks) created a boom in the auto industry and played an enormous role in bringing about the recreational vehicle market. After reading this literature, it seems like many of the roads that were constructed in national parks and other secluded areas were placed there so that tourists can see the country in comfort. I think that human/tourist comfort is a poor argument to assert when trying to find rationale reasons to build a road through a particular area.

From Abbey’s descriptive writings, it seems the road that was constructed through his park was something of a personal tragedy for him. Of course it made his job more difficult by having to keep the safety of more tourists in mind, but this is not what he cared about. Rather, the landscape he considered his home had become overrun with tourists. Abbey felt a connection with his park that made it feel like home for him. It is a shame that more people do not feel so intimately about the land as to respect it in the way he did. It does seem as though environmental awareness has gotten better among our population, but roads continue to be abused with overuse and litter, both in and outside of national parks. I wonder if a limit placed on the number of people admitted into each park would help control the tourism and wear on the land.

The Car and The Road essay really showed the impact that the car had on the U.S., whether it was from creating miles of highways that gave birth to "roadside oasis" or allowing produce to be transported by refrigerated unit from the south to the north. I enjoyed how nature became a "thing along the way to the destination" and gardens/rest stops were put in to place to create a feeling that they were in nature.
One of the quotes really stuck out, "It became possible for nature to be considered a servant, or a well loved pet," isn't this what people had been striving for all along, to take full control of nature and shape it in any way they desired? It's also an interesting fact that the "gas tax" was used entirely on building the highways, and this was a deal that the oil companies had made with both the car companies and the government for that matter. They were just in it for the money and already viewed the land as their servant at that time, the didn't care what damage the vehicles may have caused in the future. There is no wonder as to why the electric car has taken so long to develop, the oil companies helped pay for all of the roads that were built.

When I read that GM and other companies bought out many of the mass transit companies so they have a better control at marketing the transportation methods at the time, I started to wonder. What if GM and the companies never took the time to try to market cars? What if they stuck with mass transits and cars were only an alternative? Would cars become as big as they are today?

It was also interesting to see the creations of different types of roads which divided the landscape. I guess I have never realized the different types of "roads" we have today. I thought it was interesting to see how certain acitivities began to merge with the use of cars. Camping for example used to be a way to get in touch with nature and be away from "technology". However, cars started to take people to these places and eventually, camping is associated with cars.

Roads definitely played a big part in shaping our country and dividing the landscape. It opened up different areas for us to explorer.

I agreed totally to what Abbey had to say about National Parks. I think if a person is going to attempt to explore nature, that they should do it free of distractions. Isn't the whole point of going to a national park is to get away from the traffic and business of the city. People need to get out more and exercise. How can you appreciate a scenic trail if you are driving it in a car? I mean you are sheltered from the elements, sitting down (not appreciating the natural terrain) and most likely distracted by the radio. What's the point then? Just drive through an inner city park or look at pictures on line. I think the reason people to chose to drive through a national park is because they don't go to national parks for the nature; they just go because that’s what you're supposed to do. It's where you go with out of town relatives to give them a good time even though you do it as quick as you can. People need to challenge themselves by experiencing nature without distractions such as a car or motorcycle. Walk, bike or canoeing is so much more interactive and the experience is much more memorable and enjoyable. And, if need be, Abbey’s idea of having a shuttle around in case you get tired will solve the problem of not wanting to walk so much.

The Car and the Road was an interesting article to read. There was a lot of things I never though about like mobile homes. It is interesting that Wilson descibes it as phyisical mobility that is standing in the dream of social mobility. This seems confusing at first but it doesn make sence. If you you can move around and live anywhere you will be able to become more social. The trailer also resembles freedom. With a trailer you are able to pretty much go anywhere and have everthing you need already in the trailer.

There is also one other way that cars and roads hurt the environment that Wilson did not mention. Wild animals are hit very often by cars and most likely result in death of the animals.

This reminds me of what we talked about on Tuesday about how automobile commercials show vehicles in the wilderness and in the open road. Basically, the automobile can go anywhere. I think having a road go through a national park is fine but only if there aren't lots of roads. Then these national parks are being conserved. One or two roads you can see the wildlife... a bunch of roads through a national park can kind of get away from the whole 'conservation' part.

I honestly had no idea that the reason why we have no good public transportation was because it was bought up by the car companies. This of course makes sense, and is great business strategy. On the other side though, because of this great business we have inevitably damaged our world and created a certain lifestyle which I think will be hard to change. That is why people want to drive into the ‘wild’, and will only visit nature if it is convenient for them.
This also had an effect on how and where roads were built. I always assumed that roads were built in certain places because of a physical or geological need. I never thought of roads as bringing one closer to nature or anything of that sort.
I also thought it was great how the article referred to the trailer as a modern covered wagon. I never thought of it that way. Americans have always wanted to be independent and this just shows that it still holds true today.

While reading the assigned reading, i kept thinking of a conversation i had with a friend of mine a while ago about how everything is getting so much faster these days. Everything is built to make something go faster - cars to take us places faster, broadband to surf the internet faster, television/internet news to get information faster... especially drive-through windows in restaurants. You can eat your food while you're still on the way to where you're going! Kill two birds with one stone; you're no longer wasting time while driving. I'm very curious to see, when will we just run out of patience completely? When will everything be instantaneous?

Another thing it reminded me of is another friend saying that big oil killed the electric car. The whole revelation of car companies buying out public transportation companies made me wonder if i shouldn't have written it off as some kind of conspiracy theory...

I took a class called Recreational Resource Management last semester, and I think the Industrial Tourism and National Parks was a bit harsh. Yes, it would be fantastic to keep all of our beautiful landmarks completely natural and untouched, but is that really a possibility? Someone would have to pay for the preservation, and it is difficult to get people to pay for something that they can not enjoy directly. It could be that the Park Service or the Forest Service are allowing x amount of traffic, roads, technology to prevent an even greater amount. They are allowing a certain amount of highly managed areas so that it stays under control. By allowing these developed places, they are better able to keep the untouched areas as they are. Recreational Resource Managers share the authors desire for keeping things natural, and they manage the lands for that exact goal. If it wasn't for visitors, they would just sell the land to developers and industries.

I agree with Abbey and a majority of the posts here in that roads are running and taking out the nature of our national parks. A lot more people are enjoying our national parks but not for the real the beauty of nature but as a tourist attraction. National parks should be tourist attractions but not in the same way that the Statue of Liberty is; the whole point of a national park is to get away from modern distractions such as traffic and to get back to nature to take in the sights and sounds that you miss when you are in the car. Most people would agree that the whole reason to go to National parks or even state parks for that matter is to get out of the car and to hike, bike, or canoe around a particular natural area free of cars.

I enjoyed reading the piece from Abbey. Though he and I may have different reasons, It really makes me sad when I see how developed some of the state and national parks have become.

When Abbey described the how remote and undeveloped the Arches National Monument had once been, I thought to myself that I'd really like to experience a place like that. But what sounds the most appealing is that the park was not the most easy place to get to.

I've lived in Minnesota all my life, where it seems every scrap of land is taken up, and every road paved. So the thought of having to carefully navigate my way to a remote area that is undeveloped sounds amazing. I drive a Jeep and I cherish the challenge of simply making my way to such a remote place. The paved roads in and around the national parks seem to insulate people from the ruggedness of the terrain.I need adventure and maybe access to drinking water. What I don't need is an outdoors Disneyland.

And it also kills me to see how roads are set up right next to the most scenic area of a park. I couldn't agree more with Abbey in regards to the practice of building PAVED roads that go right up to the scenic point. Why do that?? Can't people walk a few hundred feet? It really ruins the experience.

The rarest experience that I get to enjoy occurs when I can actually find a place in one of these parks where I'm not able to hear cars and semi trucks. I can count on one hand the amount of times this has happened. It's actually kind of an weird and interesting experience simply because it is so uncommon in this world we live in.

Automobiles are a wonderful luxury I enjoy. Aesthetic value is something I care about and enjoy also. Some think that the two are not to be mixed together and they are nothing alike. I think they can work together to create a meaningful experience for someone. Older folks would be included in this group and it is important for them to have relaxation time and enjoy beautiful things like national parks.

Abbey’s essay was interesting in the fact that I enjoy national parks and tourism and listened to his view. Some might think that national parks should not have roads or paved paths but it makes tourism user-friendly. If you want to show people things (like the beauty of nature) you almost have to make it easy for them to see it.

I toured the Grand Canyon and saw most of it by transportation of a “people mover” trolley. If I would have had to walk around it by my personal energy, I probably would not have seen half of what I did.

"The car and the road" article really points out some very different point of view. At first glance, I thought that the boom of the car industry allowed people to travel with a lot less limitation and enjoy nature more. But as Wilson states, this ruins nature and mankind's relationship with it. I feel that it could be both. Some choose to go camping or visit natural parks so that they can say that they've been there, and others trully appreciate natural parks and take time to enjoy it. This could have never been possible if it wasn't for the opportunity that cars have given us to do so. So again, I believe that idealy cars are here to provide us with more than ever possibilities of transportation, but what we decide to do with it determines whether cars impact our lives positively or negatively. We can not blame any sort of technology because we failed to utilize it to the full potential, or at least positively. I believe that cars allow us to travel to places that could not have even been imagined a century ago, but now those places are only hours away. Also, the level of one's appreciation for nature can differ from another person. People that want to truly experience life in the wilderness they'll go ahead and do so and cars and other sort of transportation allows those individuals to do that. But for people that may not have as much appreciation for nature, they might just like to drive through and see how fast they can go in an open road.

I was wondering what does "industrial tourism" mean until I found out that was the defination that author gave to people who touring the park with automobiles. This article talked about how an protected national park being developed by our industry. Isn't national park supposely being protected by government, in which means there shouldn't be further developing within the area? So maybe just for the economic benefits and because people are being so dependent on machines, we need to travel around with this mobiles. Like author mentioned in the article we should stop further developing this protected areas, but the truth of the fact is it will never stop. As our technology and population is growing, we will always need more land. But can't we find a solution to the further development on the protected area. I suggest why not national park only develop on the area where people can drive there, if they want to enjoy the nature they should be parking their car on the spot and then travel to the place where they wanted to visit. There should be a limitation of using technology to do things for us. Also, we need to consider the limit amount of resource our creator gave us as first creation. Once it ran out, it will never comes back.

The fact that Abby stated so bluntly that wilderness is a basic component to civilization was pefect: so simple, yet said so profoundly. He uses this attitude to argue why and how we need to fix the industrializaiton/pollution in certain nation parks. We have invaded nature so excessively that humans lack wilderness. His proposal to this problem would simply be to take a little nature back and provide bicycles as a mode of transportation. I find his comment about modern history and industry was also very simple and clear. The fact this is published in 1968 says he has a somewhat premature opinion about the invasion of cars--only did he know it was going to get much much worse. Too bad car's have started to poisen this planet, in more ways than one. people maybe just have to be reminded they can survive in nature before it slowly is too late...? Americans have distinguished themselves from the West by the massive cars and even bigger roads paved for our convience.

Abbey’s polemic strikes right at the heart of the problem from which nearly all modern environmental crises that this (and other) nation faces originate. It’s no one person’s fault that wilderness was commoditized. A combination of greed, laziness, and want of adventure contributed, but the true underlying cause is described aptly by Abbey thus:

“It will be objected that a constantly increasing population makes resistance and conservation a hopeless battle. This is true. Unless a way is found to stabilize the nation's population, the parks cannot be saved. Or anything else worth a damn.”

If you assume that commodifying nature is an inevitability, which I believe it is, the only way to halt what Abbey describes as – and I’m summarizing here – “road-induced intrusion upon wilderness” is to limit the amount of people demanding the commodity – that is, to curb population growth. If this does not occur, barring sensational legislative action limiting the practices Abbey abhors, industrializing nature will by no means discontinue.

On the other hand, speaking for the people who are perhaps satisfied with the snapshot of nature that driving provides (“cheapened” experience notwithstanding), those who essentially watch but do not partake are still more likely to advocate on nature’s behalf, supporting limitations to the extent to which its destruction is warranted by industrial interests. It’s an unconventional way to embrace an opinion on such issues, but it is still, indeed, a way. More people willing to voice their disapproval over nature’s destruction means a greater likelihood that such destruction will, at the very least, be curtailed. I’m not saying that this justifies past or future road-building into national wilderness areas, but, then again, I’m not saying it doesn’t.