Western Carolina University WCU University of North Carolina Asheville UNCA

Southern Appalachian Digital Collections

Western Carolina University (20) View all
University of North Carolina Asheville (6) View all
Great Smoky Mountains - A Park for America Back to search results
WCU - Great Smoky Mountains - A Park for America

Problems in the Smokies

4 of 7 items 4 of 7 items
  • wcu_great_smoky_mtns-11447.jpg
Copyright Download
Item 1 - Problems in the Smokies
wcu_great_smoky_mtns-11444.jpg

Problems in the Smokies

GSMNP_10184_28_05_01
Item 2 - Problems in the Smokies
wcu_great_smoky_mtns-11445.jpg

Problems in the Smokies

GSMNP_10184_28_05_02
Item 3 - Problems in the Smokies
wcu_great_smoky_mtns-11446.jpg

Problems in the Smokies

GSMNP_10184_28_05_03
wcu_great_smoky_mtns-11447.jpg

Problems in the Smokies

GSMNP_10184_28_05_04
Item 5 - Problems in the Smokies
wcu_great_smoky_mtns-11448.jpg

Problems in the Smokies

GSMNP_10184_28_05_05
Item 6 - Problems in the Smokies
wcu_great_smoky_mtns-11449.jpg

Problems in the Smokies

GSMNP_10184_28_05_06
Item 7 - Problems in the Smokies
wcu_great_smoky_mtns-11450.jpg

Problems in the Smokies

GSMNP_10184_28_05_07
Item
?

Item’s are ‘child’ level descriptions to ‘parent’ objects, (e.g. one page of a whole book).

  • I lack training and experience in these matters, and would not presume to recommend specific solutions to the problems of park management. But concern and wonderment are the persistent authors of questions that keep running through my mind. Is it not the hikers and campers, rather than the motorists, who are the greatest immediate threat to preservation of the park lands in their natural state? Over the years, millions of people can stand at lookout points along highways, and enjoy the beauty of the scene spread before them. But, aside from the road itself, will the land upon which they gaze be seriously damaged? Is it not, primarily, when these people leave the highway, and stride out on the trails, that the land is threatened? If this is true, is it not a first priority to hold the number of hikers and campers to the carrying capacity of the land itself, and to the ability of available personnel to control their actions? Should areas that are now seriously abused be closed to such use until the land recovers? Recognizing the proximity of this park to centers of population, with the resultant heavy over-demands of all kinds, is it reasonable to believe that any part of it can be managed properly as a wilderness area? Or, in fact, is strictly wilderness what the large majority of today's campers are seeking? The National Wilderness Act (P.L. 88-577) was passed after many years of study and compromise. It defines "Wilderness," in part, as, "an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain." Can this definition properly be applied to any part of the Smoky Mountains Park? "Man himself," as an individual, may be a visitor who does not remain. But, "Mankind" provides an unbroken succession of men, in continuous residence, albeit nomadic. The Act further defines Wilderness as, "an area of undeveloped federal land retaining its primeval character and influence, without permanent improvements or human habitation." Can this park land fill the needs of the thousands who use it without camp sites and shelters, protected sources of drinking water, adequate sanitary facilities, designated trails, etc., all of which, although relatively crude, must possess a considerable degree of permanence? The Act also defines Wilderness as an area which is, "protected and managed so as to preserve its natural conditons, and which generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint of man's work substantially unnoticeable." Considering those who use this land, is it not possible that most of them would become hopelessly lost upon straying but a short distance from "noticeable" evidence of "man's work" such as trails, camp grounds, etc.? The definition also requires that a wilderness area shall have "outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation." Again, considering the users, how many will be seeking "solitude?" In fact, how many will be sufficiently experienced in backwoods survival to strike out on their own, to places where solitude can be found? Will not the vast majority be campers who seek, "a primitive and unconfined type of recreation," but whose inexperience will make them sorely dependent upon facilities that are an "imprint of man's work?" Words and phrases can be stretched and interpreted to fit the desires of those who would use them. In this manner, it is possible to consider some park areas as qualified for wilderness designation. Realistically, however, would it not be far better to consider them as wild lands, where simple but appropriate camp sites, facilities and trails can be established, in effect, "permanently," and where they can be maintained by crews using off-road motor vehicles and mechanical tools? Referring again to motor travel; the number of those who prefer, or must, travel by car far exceeds those who would travel afoot. Does the present, very limited, mileage of auto roads provide the former with anything approaching the share of park enjoyment to which they are entitled? If not, and despite recent decisions to the contrary, should not consideration be given, again, to building another trans-park highway, with connecting sky-line drive, both to ease the intolerable burden on the present road system, and to provide circle trips for the visitors? Are not the millions of motorists, including men, women, children, aged persons, invalids, etc. entitled to this additional use of the park? My personal preference would give priority to proper use of the park by hikers and campers. But a sense of outrage makes me rebel against the shameful and uncontrolled damage that, reportedly, is being done to the back country. And a sense of equity suggests that greater consideration should be given to the legitimate desires of the motoring public. As mentioned above, however, I am not an expert in these things, and would not presume to make recommendations. Mine would be based upon inclination, rather than facts. So I can only hope that policies will be determined, and carried into effect, by those who are technically qualified, and also disposed to resolve conflicting points of view equitably. My father's motives in working so hard for the park's creation were, without the slightest doubt, unselfish and altruistic. He knew, full well, that the park would spoil the Smoky Mountains for him. He wrote us, on September 12, 1928: The long and difficult task of surveying, examining titles, estimating values, etc. of the Smoky Mt. Nat'I. Park lands is finished. The purchase money is all in hand. Legal difficulties have been overcome. And now, at last, the actual purchase or condemnation of the whole area will proceed to a finish. It was a big undertaking, and beset with discouragements of all sorts; but we've won! And now congratulations are coming in from all over the U.S. Within two years we will have good roads into the Smokies. And then-well, then, I'll get out. ■ AUGUST 1 977 31
Object
?

Object’s are ‘parent’ level descriptions to ‘children’ items, (e.g. a book with pages).

Related items

Part of Collection

Great Smoky Mountains - A Park for America

This digital collection was created to contribute to the public's understanding of the forces and ideas that led to the establishment of the Great Smoky Mountains National Park in 1934. The most vi...

View collection Read introduction
panzoom image
wcu_great_smoky_mtns-11447.jpg