National Park Service Research Paper

One of the most important aspects of American culture is the long history of conservation that very few countries have, thanks to the National Park Service, which is a Federal institution. The United States possesses some of the best­preserved landmarks in the world. However, in recent years, the government has proposed budget cuts to the NPS, which will severely limit its ability to properly maintain the parks. Because of the economic and historical

Conservation of our biodiversity not only demonstrates foresight, it protects the natural resources so vital to our own continued existence. The value of any single species to an ecosystem is immeasurable; the environment will not endure without its species, despite size or niche. These animals are not dispensable. And, they are apt to face extinction in the not too distant future, unless a resolve for their preservation is insisted by the public and enforced by governments internationally.

The national parks of the United States are a part of the few remaining regions in the country where nature is relatively untouched and natural beauty can be observed. For over a century, national parks been popular vacation destinations for citizens and international tourists alike. Regulation and conservation of these areas is necessary to allow for continued visitation and enjoyment. The National Parks Service of the Department of the Interior was created with The National Park Service Organic Act (“The Organic Act”) to maintain the nation’s parks and ensure preservation of the land while encouraging use by the general public. Whether or not conservation and recreational use are independent of each has been argued within the government as well as among the general public for decades. Vague language used by The Organic Act’s authors has allowed for manipulation of the phrasing of the fundamental mission statement of the National Park Service to support or oppose a variety of decisions that will environmentally impact the parks. Personal opinions and conflicting priorities lead to much ambiguity in the long-term implementation of the National Park Service Organic Act.

The National Wildlife Institute has published “Conservation Under the Endangered Species Act: A Promise Broken”. Their critique of the Act includes questioning the programs undertaken as a result of the Act have played sufficient roles in the recovery of species that were delisted, as well as questioning the allocation of funding to programs intended to aid listed species.

In 2016, the National Park Service (NPS) celebrated 100 years of preservation and conservation of our nation’s parks, monuments, and historical sites. Currently, the federal government has proposed significant proposed budget cuts to the National Park Service. If the government makes these cuts, then Americans could lose the national parks along with the beauty, culture, and history that comes with them. This would happen because the NPS would lose most of its funding that is needed in order to keep the national parks well­preserved. Investing in the NPS should be a priority in our nation because it provides educational programs, unites all ages and races, and preserves and conserves the national parks.

National parks are a government institution meant to preserve the natural wonders of America’s landscapes. Established as the first national park in the U.S. by Congress in 1872, Yellowstone National Park was intended as “a public park or pleasuring ground for the benefit and enjoyment of the people.” The Secretary of the Interior, along with other governmental departments like the War Department and the Forest Service of the Department of Agriculture later worked to authorize additional national parks and monuments throughout much of the West. President Woodrow Wilson created the National Park Service in 1916, which was responsible for protecting and managing the national parks already created, as well as those yet to be established. Once

Conservation: Yellowstone is extraordinarily large, with 290 waterfalls, 17 rivers and acreage spanning across portions of three states. According to Yellowstone Superintendent Dan Wenk, his park “is at the heart of the largest intact ecosystem in the temperate zone in the United States, if not the world” (interview). It’s called the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE) and within its borders lay two national parks (Grand Teton and Yellowstone), four national wildlife refuges, and seven national forests. This important biological reserve is the largest protected area in the lower 48 states and provides critical habitat for some of the world’s most iconic wildlife. Unfortunately, many plant and animal species today face endangerment, mainly because their natural habitats are being destroyed. National parks work to conserve wildlife by safeguarding these habitats that provide a safe space for wildlife to breed and survive.

The park has been threatened by logging as well as non-native species. The NPS has gone to large lengths to keep this park protected, pushing for further legislation for protection to goto a federal authority. Making this a priority has had many payoffs and has been a big factor on the result that the park is in today. This park has suffered from budget cuts and actively tries to raise awareness and increase public interest. The NPS is partnering with other organizations to provide better service such as transit and educational opportunities to visitors. Making these promises has make their approval rating go up. The NPS also has one of the highest approval ratings of all government agencies.

Although there are many management plans put in, most of the public doesn’t know or understand why and how these plans are put in to actions. Somethings are small, like littering but it could become a big impact to the park if more than one person in the society does it. I think that there should be events and programs informing the people in the society about the protection of the park, so everyone will be contributing regardless of age and

They try not to interfere with the natural ecosystem but sometimes they have to use resource management to protect the park’s resources. For example, there are not many natural predators to control the animal populations of the bison, elk, and horses. They have to manage the animal population by decreasing it using roundups and other methods. It’s interesting that when Roosevelt was president, he established the United States Forest Service and the Federal Land Management Agency to protect lands.

Today, wildlife refuges have one purpose and it is to not let these atrocities to occur because of climate changes. Despite the fact that these refuges exist to protect endangered species, they are unable to recreate the animal’s natural habitat and the animals die anyway. For instance, the Aransas wildlife refuge keeps 500 endangered species throughout the Midwest, but more species are becoming extinct annually (17). This has been happening for many years. According to the Endangered Species Act, over 40 endangered species become extinct annually, and the number increases every year. Wildlife refuges, believed by some to beneficial, cannot help species survive unless the natural ecosystem can be

Beginning in the late 1800’s, efforts to protect scenic and untouched land all across America were set in motion. From the 1800’s to mid 1900’s, many national parks were created under premises of preserving history and nature. During that period of time, Franklin Delano Roosevelt branched the National Parks Service (NPS) to manage all national parks. Now, in the current day, biological problems and resource scarcity persistently cause harm to the parks, and make it difficult for both the NPS and park management to regulate the parks. As such, current measures to ensure the longevity and well-being of the parks are not enough to keep up with the persisting financial and biological problems that the parks face. These problems entail disturbances in the ecosystem and pollution to environment, as well as a lack of resources to parks. However, each of these problems can be remedied, and possibly cured through the use of comprehensive models of action, and the participation of several parties.

This paper examines the pros and cons of the increased budget cuts to the national park system. There are major consequences for both the increase or maintaining of the income and, in contrast, the decrease of the federal budget to the preserved areas. National parks today are experiencing difficult instances with utilizing the environmental portion of the federal budget income in order to accommodate for the maintenance of the park. In addition, the sustainability of employment and ranger programs are at a fairly low rate, and the areas are unable to prolong the stay of those accommodations. However, it is costly to preserve the high-priced lands when visitation rates have greatly increased over the past decade. In result, the difficulty to

Our nations incredible 401 National Parks are some of the most iconic places on the face of the earth. From the Grand Canyon to the Great Smoky Mountains our nation's national parks are something we should be proud to have. Lately our National Parks have been under threat from both Environmental and Political issues both putting our National Parks at risk. We need preserve the National Parks for generations to come. The National Parks show the most amazing parts of this great nation, they are the source of billions of dollars in revenue, and they are the home to countless forms of wildlife.

Should more be done to protect and preserve endangered animals? The reasons for saving endangered species might seem obvious to many people, but many question why we should save a species from dying out. Isn 't this part of the process of natural selection? Is there any environmental benefit to preserving a dying species? For some it 's a question with an obvious answer, for others... it requires some thought. What benefit is there to saving an endangered species from dying out? This article outlines some of the arguments both for—and against—conservation of endangered species. Before we begin, a little background. A species is considered endangered if it is at a risk of becoming extinct, which can be due to a number of reasons, from climate change to human influence to even arguably natural causes. So, whether a species is considered endangered or not is not just looking at the current number of specimens existing, but also at the overall trend of species growth or decline and the reasons why.