Advertisement

Environmental Management

, Volume 6, Issue 3, pp 199–207 | Cite as

National parks legislative mandate in the United States of America

  • John Lemons
  • Dean Stout
Profile

Abstract

Natural areas of national parks constitute unique ecological and aesthetic resources. Since the inception of national parks, it has been apparent that they are susceptible to threats that result in significant change and damage. Today, major issues concerning management of parks relate to questions of expanded visitor use and what types of facilities are to be deemed appropriate, that is, the dilemma of preservation versus use. In the United States of America, resolution of this dilemma must, strictly speaking, be based upon intent and meaning of Congressional legislation. The traditional interpretation of legislation in the U.S. has been to provide for a balance of use and preservation. However, extensive review of the literature of national park policy reveals a remarkable lack of elaboration and clarification of legislative meaning. Based upon a critical analysis of pertinent legislation, which has heretofore been ignored, we provide an interpretation of legislative meaning which strongly supports a policy of preservation of park resources.

Key words

U.S. National Park policy Preservation 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literature cited

  1. Committee on Government Operations. 1976. National Park Service policies discourage competition, give concessioners too great a voice in concession management. House Report No. 94-896. U.S. Government Printing Office. 87 pp.Google Scholar
  2. Dustin, D. L., and L. H. McAvoy. 1980.Hardining national parks.Environmental Ethics 2:39–44.Google Scholar
  3. Fitzsimmons, A. K. 1976. National parks: The dilemma of development.Science 191: 440–442.Google Scholar
  4. Forster, R. R. 1973. Planning for man and nature in national parks. International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources. 84 pp.Google Scholar
  5. Houston, D. B. 1971. Ecosystems of national parks. Science 172: 648–651.Google Scholar
  6. Ise, J. 1979. Our national park policy: A critical history. Arno Press, New York, NY. 701 pp.Google Scholar
  7. Lane, F. 1918. Letter to Stephen Mather. National Park Service: Memorandum 13 May 1918.Google Scholar
  8. Linn, R. M. (ed.). 1979. Proceedings of the first conference on scientific research in the national parks. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service Transactions and Proceedings Series, Number Five. 1319 pp.Google Scholar
  9. National Park Service. 1975. Management Policies of the National Park Service. U.S. National Park Service.Google Scholar
  10. National Park Service. 1980. Human impact on natural resources. Proceedings of the Second Conference on Scientific Research in the National Parks. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. 386 pp.Google Scholar
  11. National Park Service. 1980a. State of the parks—1980, a report to the Congress. National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior. 57 pp.Google Scholar
  12. National Park Service. 1980b. Yosemite general management plan. U.S. National Park Service. 81 pp.Google Scholar
  13. National Parks and Conservation Association v. Kleppe. (1976). App. D.C., 547, F.2d, 673.Google Scholar
  14. New York Times, 29 March 1981. Administration seeks greater role for entrepreneurs at federal parks.Google Scholar
  15. Runte, A. 1979. National parks: the American experience. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, NB. 227 pp.Google Scholar
  16. Sax, J. L. 1976. America's national parks: their principles, purposes and prospects. Natural History 85: 57.Google Scholar
  17. Sax, J. L. 1980. Mountains without handrails. The University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, MI. 152 pp.Google Scholar
  18. Udall v. Washington, Virginia and Maryland Coach. (1968), 398, F2d 765, 130 U.S. App. D.C. 171, Certiorari denied 89S.Ct. 620, 622, 393 U.S. 1017, 21 L. Ed 2d 561.Google Scholar
  19. Wagtendonk, J. 1979. A conceptual backcountry carrying capacity model. Pages 1033–1038 in R. M. Linn, ed. Proceedings of the First Conference of Scientific Research in the National Parks. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service Transactions and Proceedings Series, Number Five.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag New York Inc. 1982

Authors and Affiliations

  • John Lemons
    • 1
  • Dean Stout
    • 2
  1. 1.Division of Environmental and Biological StudiesNew England CollegeHenniker
  2. 2.Bishop

Personalised recommendations