The end result is a restriction on all visitors. Eventually, I fear the only way to enjoy the old caves, or wind-swept dunes or delicate back country will be to have money, a study grant or connections. Everyone else will only be allowed to the ends of the railed cement path.
So if you want to see natural beauty, be willing to rough it a bit and go were people don't.
Of course, the most popular places are considered the most "beautiful" but that's not entirely true - and the popular places you can watch documentaries on.
Eventually people have enough and ban all photos at venues or animal exhibits.
Because if you aren't, what you said makes absolutely no sense.
No people go there because of all the people who go there.
I'm very confused.
I'm kind of amazed they finally introduced ticketing for Old Rag: https://www.nps.gov/shen/planyourvisit/faqs-oldrag.htm We've known for years that way too many people try to go on this difficult hike, to the point where if your hike didn't start at 9am you might be out there all day due to the log-jam of people in the narrows. Happy to see that they're improving the overall experience by putting reasonable limits on the number of visitors.
What do you mean? In this context "disturbed" means "not as it was found". Harvesting trees and mining rocks is self-evidently a disturbance over the natural environment as it was found by people.
> Trees were cut... Rocks were gathered or quarried... Small mining operations were started. Plants and animals were harvested... In a few situations, stream channels were dammed and water diversion structures were installed.
I don't think the dictionary lookup of "resource" is helpful here. I think the idea of a "Natural Resource" in the context of a park is pretty specific - especially considering the remaining context (eg. the deforestation, mining) and juxtaposing it with "cultural resource".
The "natural resources" of the national park is the trees, rocks, dirt, land etc that compose the park - the very thing being protected. The natural habitats for plants and animals that may not thrive in developed human environments. The park is conservation land and the "original" or "undisturbed" land (and everything on it) is the resource.
I think the whole framing that the authors (who are the NPS presumably) need to justify the "assumptions" is a super odd position, considering the language used in the article is pretty commonplace contextually.
Disturbed land can still be valuable, but it’s much faster to turn a forest into a field than the reverse.
Mineral resources, such as ore deposits, are very unlike that.
It a very famous joke.
To consider another perspective, if one's preferred aesthetic is grassland plains, than the natural emergence of trees might be considered a disturbance.
In common lexicon, the term disturbed is also used in reference to a 'disturbed person', as in a mentally disturbed person -- generally also a negative or undesirable status, so in that context I would agree these negative or positive predispositions tend to be psychological phenomenon driven by conscious or unconscious perspectives.