1

Conservation Across the Nation

Madeline Leamy

Jan Babcock

English 138
 2

Abstract
This issue brief is focused on taking a deeper look at the evolution of political policy in

the National Parks from their conception until present day. Through analyzing political actions

impacting the environment throughout the last century, it is clear that political policy has

changed for the worst, with newfound emphasis on modern political agendas that involve

corporations and big businesses. There is a need for governmental involvement in the issue of

preservation and maintenance of the National Parks, as the parks were initially established by the

federal government. There are many contributing factors to the recent lack of political

involvement in the National Parks, which are addressed and expanded upon. Potential solutions

to the pressing problem are proposed, as well as counterarguments to the proposed solutions,

thus closing with the idea that there is certainly room for change and improvement of the

policies, along with the education system, which can better the National Parks and uphold their

importance in society.
 3

Introduction
Picture this. It’s May. It is a comfortable sixty-five degrees out. The sun is shining, the
sky is blue—not a single cloud in the sky. You look around and take in the view, realizing that
you, along with generations of others, are walking the same paths, viewing the same historical
National Parks that are the pinnacle of American culture. The National Parks are rooted in a such
a deep, historical agenda. Many of the parks are home to wildlife that has been there for
hundreds of years. The parks were also established and worked on by some of the greatest names
in American history. Not only are the parks rooted in a historical agenda, but that same agenda
was largely political. The National Parks as an organization started to take shape during the era
of Theodore Roosevelt’s first presidency. By the time Roosevelt’s first presidency concluded, he
had “established 230 million acres of public lands.” 1 It seemed that politicians saw value in
establishment and upkeep of national lands. These National Parks would draw even more visitors
into a country that had already become a hot commodity to see and experience. But through the
decades, the political involvement in the National Parks took a turn for the worst. At the close of
2017, President Trump signed a proclamation that would remove protections at two National
Parks. 2 What a change—just 100 years ago, President Roosevelt was advocating for
conservation and protection, while President Trump wants to slash it. Why? The rise of modern
politics has taken emphasis and importance away from protection of public lands, resulting in
negative actions towards conservation and protection of public lands. As a result, the parks have
to try and find ways to fund themselves. The issue at hand has to do with the lack of education
that people are receiving surrounding ways that they can get involved and have a say in the
current political affairs. Before addressing the current state of political affairs in the National
Parks, one must understand how the National Parks and the National Park Service came to exist.

National Parks in the Early 20th Century

The early twentieth century was an era of birth and flourishment for the National Parks.
The National Parks were established because “a relatively small group of people had a vision—
what writer Wallace Stegner has called “the best idea we ever had”—to make sure that
America’s greatest natural treasure would belong to everyone and remain preserved forever.” 3
This highlights the fact that the idea of establishing National Parks was one that, in the eyes of a
select few, would have a lasting impact on the nation. It is safe to say no one could have
imagined that the parks would grow to be as popular as they are today. That being said, the
National Parks are united under the National Park Service (NPS). Stephen Mather, who was a
millionaire during this time period, started a philanthropic mission in order to create the National
Park service—his efforts began at the close of the nineteenth century but continued into the
twentieth century4. Joined by Mather and the small group of individuals with a sparked vision
was President Theodore Roosevelt. Known to many as the conservationist president, Roosevelt
had a way with convincing the public to support causes for which he advocated. He was a
charismatic, well-liked president—and the public was easy to persuade. All of these efforts on
behalf of many individuals served as a solid foundation for the National Parks. From the early
twentieth century to the middle of the twentieth century, the National Parks saw political,
environmental developments that surely impacted their fate.

National Parks in the Mid 20th Century

 4

The middle of the twentieth century consisted of a political agenda aimed at improving
the state of the National Parks. As a result, politicians were hopeful that this would bring in more
visitors to the lands that they worked so hard to establish in the first place. However, bits and
pieces of their political agendas were aimed at holding the public accountable for federal lands.
Lyndon B. Johnson’s presidency gave way to the creation of the Land and Water Conservation
Act of 1965. The Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965, “established a fund for acquiring
new recreation lands either within or adjacent to existing park units or new parks. Money for the
fund would come from surplus property sales, motorboat fuel taxes, and other sources. A portion
of the money in the fund would come from fees charged at existing parks.” 5 This development is
simply remarkable. At a glance, one would be under the impression that the creation of this
political development was responsible action taken on the part of the federal government.
However, after looking more closely, it is apparent that the government wanted to push their
responsibility onto others. They started to turn the future of the federal lands into a civilian
agenda. That being said, with the fate of the presidency in the hands of Richard Nixon, the
political agenda of the National Parks shifted yet again.
Under Richard Nixon, the importance of environmental health seemed to be increasing
again. The most memorable act established under Nixon’s presidency was the Clean Water Act
of 1972. The Clean Water Act, “establishes the basic structure for regulating discharges of
pollutants into the waters of the United States and regulating quality standards for surface
waters.” 6 Here in this act, the bettering of environment was put in the hands of the federal
government. There was no call to action on behalf of the public. The government was regulating
disposal of pollutants into the water, realizing that the protection of water—of not only bodies of
water in the National Parks, but bodies of water everywhere—was a serious issue that needed
attention. Governmental action here shows that political agendas during this era still had a stake
in maintaining the purity of these historical lands, and that the future of the environment was not
solely in the hands of citizens. This desire to uphold the purity of the National Parks continued
into the late twentieth century.

National Parks in the Late 20th Century

The late twentieth century saw mixed involvement from the government in terms of
environmental protection. The end of the twentieth century had seen many movements come and
go, including the hippie movement, the Women’s Rights movement, and the Civil Rights
movement. But no environmental movement. The government continued to participate in
environmental politics here and there, with the creation of the Clean Air Act in 1990. Under the
Clean Air Act of 1990, “the comprehensive federal law that regulates air emissions from
stationary and mobile sources.” 7 Again, similarly to the Clean Water Act, the government was
releasing vague statements that discusses regulation of emissions from vehicles. With the
evolution of technology, vehicle usage had increased greatly during this time period. This act
aims to protect parks that are located in a more commercialized area—which at the start of the
National Park Service, was unheard of. However, as time passed, areas surrounding National
Parks became more commercialized and businesses grew around them in hopes of attracting
park-goers to the businesses. While the twentieth century was coming to a close, a lawsuit
exposed the lassiez-faire government attitude surrounding the prominence of big businesses and
environmental concerns.
Pacific Gas and Electric Company was found to be responsible for the pollution of water
in Hinkley, California. This water was polluted with Chromium 6, and the entire situation
 5

completely defies the Clean Water Act established by Nixon many moons ago. The results of the
pollution included, “above average miscarriages and cancers.” 8 Certainly, the case was not
directly involving National Parks, but it shows that the political agenda had shifted. No longer
was the government wholly concerned about preserving and protecting lands—especially
historical lands, but rather, the government was more worried about corporate companies that
had the capacity to bring in revenue. And this was just the beginning of the era of valuing
businesses and corporations more than historically important lands that have the capacity to keep
the American culture alive for many years to come.

Statistic taken from Oregon Public Broadcast9

National Parks in the 21st Century

Fast forward. The year is 2017, and Donald J. Trump is now the fourty-fifth president of
the United States. In 2017, President Trump proposed significant budget cuts to both the
Department of the Interior, along with the Environmental Protection Agency10. The
Environmental Protection Agency works directly with the National Parks, making sure that
government created acts—like the Clean Water Act, are being implemented in the parks. With
budget cuts, this would mean that the National Parks would not be receiving the proper
protection that they so rightly deserve. This is very concerning, as the park visitation rates are at
an all-time high11. People want to see the parks and experience them, but with political agendas
today, the parks may not exist forever.
Aside from protection, the parks are also in desperate need of funds for addressing
maintenance issues—such as worn-down paths and destroyed structures in the parks. At the close
of 2017, the National Park Service had racked up $275 million in maintenance but didn’t have
the funds to take care of this maintenance.12 The political agenda has shifted to unprecedented
places. Never would Theodore Roosevelt have thought that a fellow president would want to
cause the parks so much suffering. It is clear that politics today are not concerned with the fate of
the National Parks and the environment; however, the parks cannot be saved with the public
alone. The National Park Service is so desperate for money that it has increased entrance
prices—it can safely be said that Theodore Roosevelt did not advocate for the National Parks just
so the public would get stuck taking care of them. They are a federally created entity, and they
should be a federal responsibility as well. Before pointing the finger and blaming Republican
politics, it is definitely important and necessary to address other reasons for the current state of
the National Parks.
 6

Statistics taken from National Parks Service11

Explanations for Current State

Politics are a tricky subject—which is why as an American society, we cannot put the
blame solely on the federal government. One of the recent developments that has left the parks
high and dry is the rise of technology. Look around. Kids are on their phones at age nine, when
students feel uncomfortable in social situations, they look to their phones to scroll—heck, even
grandparents are doing this same thing! No longer are the days of children spending twelve hours
outdoors reveling in the beauty of nature. The importance and relevance of the National Parks
has been taken away by the increased value that society sees in technology. This is just so sad!
Another explanation for the declining state of the National Parks is the lack of political
efficacy that citizens display. Voters lately have been under the impression that their opinion and
one vote will not make a difference in the grand scheme of politics. This mindset results in
people not voting and voicing their opinions—opinions that could have serious lasting impact on
the fate of politics as a whole.
Many people will argue that the National Parks are not nearly as pressing as some of the
other issues plaguing our nation. Other political issues are far more controversial and require a
lot more attention. This may hold some truth; however, the National Parks were created with the
intention of lasting forever, and without receiving some attention from the government, this
simply will not happen. The political agenda today largely focuses on corporations and ways that
the nation can grow and develop, rather than focusing on an aspect of the nation like the National
Parks, which requires preservation and maintenance rather than growth and development.
Politics in today’s day and age see great value in corporate business ideology. In fact, the
president of the United States’ past life consisted of being a business man—so of course this
ideology is going to be brought into politics. Everyone is so worried about climbing the
corporate ladder to get to the top—but is this really that important? It is hard to give a solid
answer, and even harder to determine whether or not the rise of big businesses has a direct
correlation to the downfall and removed importance of the National Parks.
 7

National Parks are not something that are unique to America. In fact, according to Karen
M. O’Neill, a reason that countries create National Parks is related to their involvement with
international affairs. O’Neill writes, “National parks are the keystone institutions of
environmental conservation. Because national parks make certain lands part of the state itself,
international agencies and nongovernmental organizations that promote national parks propose,
in effect, to alter the state, as well as the local economy and state relations with social groups13.”
O’Neill’s idea can prompt people to believe that National Park upkeep is done in relation to other
countries—almost like a competition. That being said, this does not uphold the value of National
Parks in America, but rather, displays them as an obligation that politicians are just fulfilling.
Taking all of these causes into account, it is important to address what can be done to fix the
current situation of the National Parks.

How can we make a change?

Clearly the United States has a very pressing problem on their hands. How is each state
going to band together and make a change? For starters, the biggest way to fix things is to
educate more people on the importance, value, and state of the National Parks. Implementing this
education at a young age is ideal—youth are very impressionable and once they find a cause they
are passionate about, there is absolutely no stopping them. Environmental education will allow
students to learn about the environment, while also addressing the political agenda that goes
hand in hand with the National Parks. Another way to educate the public is through advocacy
groups. Advocacy groups work inform people about a current issue, usually politically charged.
These groups work to get petitions signed either on a local level or national level to try and enact
change that will better the environment. One area that many advocacy groups are working on is
the topic and ever-lasting debate of climate change. For example, climate change has become a
huge political debate. But why? The science backing climate change up has existed for years, but
this has not changed anything. Here’s just one reason why this may be happening. Party
identification is so important to so many people. They will use their party identification as a
means of what to and what not to believe in. That being said, rather than listening to scientists
that are working to provide unbiased reasons for climate change, people are looking to their
party, which consists of politicians who are not listening to the science! This needs to change,
and the youth of America have the potential to be the change needed.
America is at a crossroads at the moment. The National Parks that many have come to
know and love are seeing hate from the federal government. This has been a long time coming—
the start of the National Parks was exciting, but slowly, politicians realized what a big
commitment caring for such a program was. Rather than taking this commitment and facing it
head on, the federal government tried to sprinkle the responsibility into the hands of the public—
who feel as if they have no impact on politics at times. With President Trump elected, people felt
as though they had no impact on the parks at a whole new level. Talk of slashing funding left
people worrying, and this worry has manifested into fear for the future of lands that contain such
historic and intrinsic value. In order to save the parks, the bright minds of America need to
receive more education—whether these minds are only seven years old or even forty-seven years
old. It is never too late to learn, but soon enough, it is going to be too late to enact change.
 8

Endnotes
1 Roosevelt created the United States Forest Service with the intention of protecting
public lands more efficiently. Known to many as the conservationist president,
Roosevelt was successful in the startup of protecting public lands—230 million
acres of land under legal protection is respectable nonetheless.
2 Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monuments would see big
budget cuts—reducing funding by 85 percent and nearly 50 percent, respectively.
3 This idea of the National Parks existing forever shows that the ideology has
changed over time—in the 20th century they were shiny and new and everyone had
hope for them; today—technology prevails. If one wants to see a park, he or she
can find it on the Internet, thus taking the value out of the physical experience.
4 Mather, a millionaire, was able to garner support for the National Park Service in
the industry world, along with the journalistic world, and even schoolchildren,
who are extremely impressionable.
5 Under this act, it is clear that there is still a governmental stake in the expansion of
the web of National Parks. However, it is here that we see a shift—now, the future
of the parks and the stability of them is put in the hands of visitors. This act is
where we have gotten the standard that National Parks will charge visitors a fee.
6 From the point the National Park Service was created onwards, America saw
unprecedented growth, more population, more production, all of which created
pollution. An uninformed public would dispose of waste in ways that were
positively harmful and frequently contaminated water—so this act was a necessary
measure. But was it an afterthought? (look more into the idea of this)
7 With the more commercialized, technology advanced society that was evolving,
the prominent usage of machinery and transportation resulted in heavy pollution.
This act was designed to try and target pollution via vehicles. However, its
ambiguity leads one to believe that it could also be seen as an afterthought.
8 This case with PG&E highlights the fact that government involvement, although
not directly with National Parks, was slowly fading out; chemical releases from a
big-name company onto land ended up becoming a MAJOR lawsuit.
9 The figures highlight poor water quality and how it affects wildlife and the
environment—the study was done fairly recently (2012). This shows that the US
still needs acts regulating pollution—just because Clean Water and Air acts were
established does not mean that they are properly carried out.
10 The Department of the Interior was projected to suffer a 12% cut and the
Environmental Protection Agency would suffer a staggering 31% cut.
11 This chart taken from the National Parks Service shows the sheer amount of
people who visited the parks in 2017—over 330,000,000 people! Furthermore, it
breaks down visitors into categories—addressing whether or not they camped in
the parks and more.
12 This maintenance rack up has been deferred—meaning that it just keeps
amounting without being taken care of. Some things that need attention include
paved roads, structures, buildings, campsites, etc.
13 O’Neill’s idea proposes a very important question that may not have an answer.
By linking international politics and national parks, it leads the reader to wonder if
 9

the United States was prompted to create legislation protecting the environment
because other countries did the same thing.
 10

Works Cited
EPA. “Summary of the Clean Air Act.” EPA, Environmental Protection Agency, 24 Aug. 2017,
www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summary-clean-air-act.
EPA. “Summary of the Clean Water Act.” EPA, Environmental Protection Agency, 7 Aug. 2017,
www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summary-clean-water-act.
Feller, Thomas R. "Brockovich, Erin." Policy and Activism, edited by Craig W. Allin, Salem Press,
2011, p. 19. Encyclopedia of Environmental Issues. Gale Virtual Reference
Library,http://link.galegroup.com.ezaccess.libraries.psu.edu/apps/doc/CX4002200018/GVRL?u
=psucic&sid=GVRL&xid=a6d8d3ba. Accessed 24 Mar. 2018.
National Parks Conservation Association. “Trump to the American People: Your Public Lands Aren't
Worth Protecting.” National Parks Conservation Association, National Parks Conservation
Association, 4 Dec. 2017, www.npca.org/articles/1693-trump-to-the-american-people-your-
public-lands-aren-t-worth-protecting.
National Parks Service. “National Park Service History: National Park System Timeline.” National
Parks Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, 2018,
www.nps.gov/parkhistory/hisnps/npshistory/timeline_annotated.htm.
National Parks Service. “Stats Report Viewer.” National Parks Service, U.S. Department of the
Interior, 2017,
irma.nps.gov/Stats/SSRSReports/National%20Reports/Annual%20Visitation%20Summary%20
Report%20(1979%20-%20Last%20Calendar%20Year).
National Parks Service. “Theodore Roosevelt Timeline.” National Parks Service, U.S. Department of
the Interior, 19 Sept. 2015, www.nps.gov/thro/learn/historyculture/theodore-roosevelt-
timeline.htm.
O'Neill, Karen M. “The International Politics of National Parks.” Human Ecology, vol. 24, no. 4, 1996,
pp. 521–539. JSTOR, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/4603220.
Schermeister, Phil. “U.S. National Parks-In the Beginning.” National Parks in the Beginning --
National Geographic, National Geographic, 26 May 2010,
www.nationalgeographic.com/travel/national-parks/early-history/.
Stewart, Bonnie, and Ashley Ahearn. “Clean Water Act's Anti-Pollution Goals Prove
Elusive.” Oregon Public Broadcasting, 12 July 2017, www.opb.org/news/article/anti-pollution-
goals-elude-clean-water-act-enforce/.