
The Early Master Plans for United States National Parks - Thevet
http://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/national-park-master-plans-artwork
======
jpmattia
If you're an outdoor junkie: Ken Burns has an excellent multipart documentary
on the formation of the National Park System, including some of the
personalities and gory politics. (The political landscape doesn't sound like
it's changed much in 100 years: People trying to preserve beautiful open
spaces, and other people trying to exploit them for financial gain.)

[https://www.amazon.com/National-Parks-Americas-Best-Blu-
ray/...](https://www.amazon.com/National-Parks-Americas-Best-Blu-
ray/dp/B002GWDK6Q)

~~~
zeveb
> The political landscape doesn't sound like it's changed much in 100 years:
> People trying to preserve beautiful open spaces, and other people trying to
> exploit them for financial gain.

I am quite fond of national parks, but note that the conflict isn't quite as
morally black-and-white as your phrasing implies: when I lobby to preserve
beautiful open space, what I'm trying to do is use public resources to secure
a private good (my viewing pleasure) and prevent others to enjoy the use of
that land; likewise, when someone else tries to exploit a resource for
financial gain, he's meeting the needs of others on the market. I'm not a
selfless hero, nor is he a heartless villain. The reality is that we're both
acting in what we believe our self interest is, and we're both acting in order
to serve others.

~~~
mikeash
There's a pretty big difference between wanting to preserve nature because you
enjoy it and want others to enjoy it, and extracting resources from land to
_sell_ to others.

If the resource extractors were just doing it for their own personal use, and
encouraging others to do the same, _that_ might be comparable. Or if the
nature enthusiasts were selling access to others.

~~~
alehul
The access to nature is sold, including at national parks [1], just as access
to the resources is sold.

In both cases, there's a market need being fulfilled; that's even more
defendable for the resource extraction, as they're a business which must make
an economic profit, or otherwise die.

I'm not defending resource extraction above preservation, however the above
poster did make a solid point on the morality issue.

[1] [http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/u-s-raises-entrance-
fees...](http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/u-s-raises-entrance-fees-
national-parks/)

~~~
mikeash
The access to nature is sold, but _not by the people advocating for it_.

Imagine if people who advocate for cutting timber on public land proposed that
the government should cut down the trees and sell the results, because they
just love lumber and want everyone to have access to high-quality lumber.

~~~
alehul
National park infrastructure to access the nature requires funding, and thus
the selling of access is inherent, so indirectly, yes.

I see your perspective that it's different as the lumber companies are telling
the government "Hey, we should cut down all these trees, and I should sell
them for profit!". The OP's point, though, is that the only reason the lumber
company would make a profit is because there is a need for the lumber, and
people will pay for it.

It's still morally identical in terms of people having a desired use for the
land, just with the corporation as a middleman.

~~~
mikeash
I see a huge moral difference between advocating for destructive resource
extraction on public land where you'll be profiting from selling those
resources to others, and advocating for non-destructive access to public land
where you make no monetary gain, and your only benefit is the personal benefit
all visitors experience.

------
Theodores
I collected lots of National Park leaflets as issued in visitor centers during
the early nineties. These were masterpieces of design and consistency in that
design. I wonder if the visitor guides issued back then followed the same
ethos as the park plans.

