4 ms·
To go on, they're a result of two competing philosophies regarding natural areas and conservation from the early 20th century. The two schools of thought were e
by cwal37 12y ago
To go on, they're a result of two competing philosophies regarding natural areas and conservation from the early 20th century. The two schools of thought were essentially embodied in John Muir[1] (National Parks) and Gifford Pinchot[2] (National Forest Service). It's a really interesting narrative if you're at all interested in these distinctions and protected areas in the United States. It's the sort of thing that can be traced all the way through to attitudes today, and provides a nice context for why these systems exist.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Muir#Activism_and_controversies http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Muir#Activism_and_controve...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gifford_Pinchot#Forestry_policy_and_institutions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gifford_Pinchot#Forestry_policy...
- the_af 12y agoThanks for the links! I wasn't aware of this philosophical difference, and found this a fascinating read. My knee-jerk reaction is to side with the preservationists of the National Parks Service. One day I must visit the US and see some of those beautiful and wonderful parks they have :)
- sliverstorm 12y agoI am of the opinion that both are valuable. Preserve this plot of land, responsibly manage & cultivate for exploitation that plot of land... until we no longer need natural resources, the USFS has its place. Of course, I spend most of my time in the Parks and Wilderness areas. There are some fantastic Parks here. https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-_JNendCskyQ/VAddy-E365I/AAAAAAAABqs/7JH5eBdI4wQ/w1309-h874-no/AocqYc9.jpg https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-_JNendCskyQ/VAddy-E365I/A... https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-xhoVkkVZYIo/VAddychbCvI/AAAAAAAABqQ/E87vxKpnbJ4/w1311-h874-no/614558_10100492958459158_1436622339_o.jpg https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-xhoVkkVZYIo/VAddychbCvI/A...