Features

Like the Australian situation, the US National Park Service (NPS) has within its charter the need to perform a balancing act between protecting the parks’ values and providing access for enjoyment. National parks in both countries are good models for balancing the relationship between humans and nature. During the latter half of the 20th century it could be argued that the NPS got the balance wrong, but recent indications suggest it is being restored, as difficult as that has been in many situations.

Gas-powered bus in Zion National Park
Photo: Graeme McGregor

To those passionate about national parks and natural landscapes, the parks of the south-west must not be missed. Yosemite, Grand Canyon, Bryce Canyon, Zion and Arches, for example, are superlative landscapes you will not find in Australia. Similarly, cultural sites such as the cliff dwellings of the Anasazi Indians in Mesa Verde NP (which were occupied between 1200 and 1300 AD) are very different from anything here. Yosemite, Grand Canyon and Mesa Verde NPs are World-Heritage listed because their natural or cultural values (or both, in Grand Canyon’s case) are of global significance.

One particularly pleasing feature of most US national parks is their large size, significantly aiding their ecological sustainability, although admittedly park size has to be huge where large "game" herds are present. This is in stark contrast to the many small national parks in Australia. One tends to wonder if the term "national park" has been somewhat degraded in Australia in the way it has been applied to so many small and ecologically vulnerable areas. Unfortunately, parks in both countries seem to have political or cadastral, rather than natural, boundaries.

One of the striking features of many of the more popular parks in the US is the extensive development that occurred throughout the 20th century. In places like the Yosemite Valley and south rim of the Grand Canyon, there are major towns with all the associated infrastructure (including courthouses and hospitals). Some of the essential infrastructure is outdated and prone to failure, such as the Yosemite sewerage system that failed recently, spilling raw sewage into the pristine waters of the Merced River.

The number of visitors to US parks continues to increase year by year, particularly since the motor car has become the main means of transport. Also increasingly popular is the use of motor homes, which in a park environment are large and cumbersome vehicles. Consequently, in recent decades crowding and vehicle management have become major issues confronting the NPS, especially in the more popular parks.

What now greets the visitor to these parks is an urbanised environment pervaded by the automobile and its greed for space in the form of roads and parking.

It would appear that the NPS tried to accommodate an ever-increasing number of visitors by building more carparks, roads, accommodation houses and by expanding camping areas. Asphalt, tents, motor homes and lodges progressively replaced the magnificent meadows of the Yosemite Valley. Many other parks, such as Yellowstone and Grand Canyon, are also prime examples of this insidious incremental development.

Something had to be done, as the park amenity and visitors’ experience diminished while the environmental toll rose. As is often the case, even here in Australia, development had to become excessive before the extent of the problem was realised and action implemented.

Purpose-built, gas-powered shuttle buses are now widespread in the busier parks. The buses are free, presumably covered by park entry fees. Many park roads can only be accessed by shuttle bus, with private vehicles prohibited. For example, there can be no doubt the experience enjoyed in the Virgin River Valley of Zion NP is significantly enhanced now that private vehicles are excluded. Visitors board and alight the buses at their chosen stops, often undertaking a one-way walk before joining the bus again.

Zion NP has a particularly effective shuttle bus system that presents a good model for the busiest parks in Australia. The gas-powered buses are well designed, with an identical main body and trailer that can be uncoupled when passenger loading is less and when picking up visitors from the adjoining town of Springdale. It feels a little strange to travel through the Virgin Valley and see the abandoned carparks of an earlier transportation era.

At Bryce Canyon NP a large carpark and modern transit centre have been built well outside the park. Visitors can leave their vehicle and ride the shuttle into and throughout the park. Visitation to Bryce Canyon is very seasonal so the shuttle buses operate for the summer in the park and the ski fields near Salt Lake City during the winter. This makes a shuttle system feasible when there are seasonal peaks and troughs.

The NPS brought back the old steam train that links the south rim of Grand Canyon NP to the town of Williams. The train provides transport to the park for about 350 visitors a day without the need to accommodate their cars. Grand Canyon NP is proposing to go one step further by constructing a light-rail system to connect carparks outside the park with the main visitor nodes on the south rim; light rail is a more efficient way of handling the number of visitors. (Congress is supportive of the public transport system from the South Gate, but may end up settling for a fleet of shuttle buses because of the high capital cost of light rail.)

It is not just in transport that the revolution is occurring in US parks. Some buildings and other development are being pulled out. I saw tourist lodges, which were presumably historic, being removed from Sequoia NP because they were located within the magnificent Sequoia forest itself. At Grand Canyon – despite calls from some quarters for 1,000 new rooms, more shops and a cultural centre – large modern lodges are to be demolished, while only the historically significant buildings will be retained close to the canyon rim.

Many visitors may dislike the increasing regimentation and perceived loss of freedom to do what they want, when they want. Quite simply, when confronted with the very high visitation of many US parks, there is little choice but to bring about a more regimented management regime. The alternative of restricting the number of visitors entering the parks is much less palatable (although strict controls apply to those entering many back-country areas), but this too will have to be increasingly contemplated in time. Indeed we are fortunate not to have the same population pressures on our parks, but in our own way we are heading down a similar path with respect to infrastructure development in parks.

Before readers reel over the thought of such high levels of development in the US national parks, I need to put things in perspective. For example, about 94% of Grand Canyon NP is managed as a wild area, or back-country as they call it. The relatively small developed areas are managed to protect the rest of the park. This is much the same situation for most of the larger parks, where there are vast areas of back-country that are only accessible to walkers. In these areas, nature goes about its business with negligible human interference, despite the fact that there are back-country walking tracks (Yosemite has a staggering 1,300 km of walking tracks).

The impacts generated from visitor use in the parks, however, may be relatively minor compared to external threatening processes. I was amazed to see the extent to which serious air pollution, emanating from distant regions, has engulfed Sequoia NP, threatening the very existence of the Sequoia forests. In Grand Canyon NP, the Glen Canyon Dam has changed the ecology of the Colorado River a lot more than all the rafters have. In time, external threats may have an even greater impact on our national parks because they are generally smaller in size.

The USA national parks watchdog, the National Parks and Conservation Association (NPCA), is now focused on preservation of national parks, as distinct from just conservation. The NPS these days also seems to be leaning toward preservation of "living museum" ecosystems replete with their dynamic natural processes. The challenge for the NPS is to educate park visitors, and the public generally, so that the political will is there to support them.

The fact remains that yesterday’s solutions have become today’s problems. In the US the NPS now seems willing to prevent parks from being "loved to death" by making the hard decisions. Through good park management the future looks promising and increasingly secure, although the external threats remain uncertain.

Despite some of the problems I have outlined, make sure you visit the great national parks of the south-west USA. They are some of the most magnificent natural places on the planet and are guaranteed to captivate the Australian visitor. I was often left in awe by the landscapes that stretched out before me. Enjoy the experience and ensure that we learn and benefit from American lessons.