|
Off-roaders drive closer to the Grand Canyon |
|
|
|
|
Written by BILL WADE, Writers on the Range
|
|
Tuesday, 12 August 2008 |
Part of the pride in putting on the iconic flat hat and the green and grey
National Park Service uniform is knowing you work for an organization that tries
to protect some of the most beautiful and historic places in the world. After
serving the National Park Service for 32 years -- the last nine as
superintendent of Shenandoah National Park -- a passage in the National Park
Service’s mission statement in the 1916 Organic Act resonates with me
deeply:
The agency exists “…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.”
That 92-year-old statement is what drives so
many agency employees today, and what makes working for the National Park
Service a special and rewarding experience. That is why it is so hard to stomach
a recent final management plan adopted by the Bureau of Land Management for an
area north of the Grand Canyon on the Arizona Strip -- specifically, the Grand
Canyon-Parashant National Monument and the Vermilion Cliffs National Monument.
The plan concerns lands jointly managed by the National Park Service and the
BLM, and it opens up previously protected trails, primitive roads and
archaeological sites to off-road vehicles.
In the Grand Canyon-Parashant
National Monument alone, more than 760,000 acres would be open to off-roaders.
Farther east, more than 200,000 acres would be open in the Vermilion Cliffs
National Monument. The newly designated routes in both monuments exceed what
wildlife biologists say can be tolerated by big game species such as mule deer
and pronghorn.
This is in direct opposition to everything that the
National Park Service stands for as an organization, and it’s a slap in the face
to its employees, wilderness lovers and the Organic Act itself. It discounts
the very reasons these places were designated national monuments in the first
place.
The Grand Canyon-Parashant National Monument boasts on its Web
site that, “Modern-day visitors enjoy the solitude and quiet that this remote
monument offers.” Extending off-road vehicle use to new places means that this
solitude and quiet will cease to exist. More vehicles will also lead to more
trash, vandalism, damage and looting to sensitive areas. How does increasing
motorized use leave these areas ‘unimpaired for the enjoyment of future
generations?”
The answer is, of course, it doesn’t. Opening up these
areas will damage cultural resources, wildlife, vegetation and solitude -- all
resources the Park Service is responsible for safeguarding. The only way to
protect these monuments from the damage that off-road vehicles will certainly do
is for the agencies to amend its Arizona Strip plan to wipe those routes from
the map. A reassessment should make it clear how the monuments’ route systems
impact wildlife and scientific values. Once the agencies find that the current
route systems hurt wildlife and wilderness suitability, they have the authority
to close those roads.
Without protection from the National Park Service,
Grand Canyon-Parashant National Monument could well become unrecognizable.
Deterioration will be swift and complete, and without additional protection by
the BLM, the same will be true for Vermilion Cliffs National Monument. And when
these areas have been damaged beyond repair, where will drivers of off-road
vehicles turn? Which of our national treasures will be next on their list to
treat as disposable property?
Does anyone believe that the geysers of
Yellowstone National Park would be as magnificent as they are today without the
protection of the National Park Service? Or that the spires, arches, and columns
of Arches National Park would be as pristine without the watchful eye of the
agency? These parks would be developed and roaded past recognition. But because
the American people won protection for these places from the federal government,
their remarkable resources are protected for all time.
The National Park
Service and BLM need to step forward and continue to protect these lands in
Arizona. That is what their missions require. Sacrificing portions here and
there, whether to small, special interest recreation groups or to resource
extractive industries, sets a bad precedent for the future of all federal lands,
and cheats the American people to whom they belong.
Bill Wade is a
contributor to Writers on the Range, a service of High Country News (hcn.org).
He chairs the executive council of the Coalition of National Park Service
Retirees and lives in Tucson, Arizona.
 |
|
Last Updated ( Tuesday, 12 August 2008 )
|
Subscribe to this comment's feed
