|
That
those who pay fees for use of national parks do not cause environmental
damage is clearly a myth. Cases of people having paid entry fees
and yet vandalized national parks are neither few nor far between.
Indeed, there does not seem to be any connection between payment
of fees for entry into national parks and other public lands and
sparing of their environment.
If the country Myria, which charges fees for the use of national
parks, has reported little evidence of environmental damage, the
reason for environmental protection may lie elsewhere. It is possible
that such of its residents as pay to visit national parks have a
heightened sense of civic consciousness or are more aware of the
need to protect the environment of the parks.
The passage does not say that in the country Illium entry to national
parks and other public lands is free. On the contrary, it says that
the best way to preserve public lands is to charge people 'more
money when they are using national parks and wilderness areas for
activities with heavy environmental impact'.
Some points in this observation need to be clarified. For one thing,
why should the country Illium charge people 'more money' (than probably
those of country Myria are charged) 'when they are using national
parks and wilderness areas for activities with heavy environmental
impact'? For another, what are 'the activities with heavy environmental
impact'? Both questions have been left unanswered.
People
go to national parks and wilderness areas mostly on picnics, and
picnics do not take a toll of the environment unless the picnickers
are out to vandalize the areas. Therefore, it stands to reason that
'activities with heavy environmental impact' include vandalism,
if not big-game hunting in wilderness areas. If that interpretation
is true, inflated entry fees may not be a deterrent to those so
disposed. They will probably pay the higher entry fees and yet damage
the environment of the national parks and even wilderness areas.
If, on the other hand, by 'activities with heavy environmental impact'
is meant picnickers leaving the national parks and public lands
scattered with empty bottles, sachets and other used material that
ought rightly to belong to the garbage can, a high entrance fee
may not work. A campaign for education of the public on proper use
of these areas may, instead, pay dividends.
Finally, it is not clear who the people who 'overuse' public lands
are. If they are those who go on picnics more frequently than others,
collection of fees from them may act as a disincentive and make
them use national parks and wilderness areas only occasionally.
That, in its turn, will neither fill the kitty of the country Illium
nor protect the environment of its national parks. The solution,
therefore, seems to lie in collecting fines from those causing environmental
damage rather than from looking askance at everyone using national
parks and wilderness areas.
Of course, these lands need to be preserved for the present and
the future generations, but that is best done through preventing
and punishing their misuse rather than through discouragement of
their use.
|
