By: Amanda Artz
As a fresh out of college 20 year old, I’ve learned very quickly the realities of living on my own. Conserving energy is more important than ever, especially now that I pay my own bills. Rent and housing prices are outrageous, really limiting my options and anchoring me to specific areas of town. I wish there was a way for me to get off the grid; to choose exactly where I want to live, all while saving money and also living comfortably. After doing a little research, I think I found my answer, and maybe someday I can turn this little dream into reality.
So many people today have the McMansion mentality, and I believe there is no surer way of destroying our planet than embracing this view. Why not head in the opposite direction? Downsize your home, generate your own power, and maybe even make the structure completely mobile, so you can travel wherever and whenever you want. I’m not talking about living in a trailer, but rather, a Tiny House.
A Tiny House is a structure that ranges from 50-750 square feet. It can moved as desired and support alternative energy generation. A fully inhabitable Tiny House can be built for as little as $20,000. You can design and build your own, or go through a company such as Tumbleweed Tiny House Company in Sebastopol, California. Strict building codes can make it difficult to construct the perfect Tiny House, but websites such as tinyhouseblog.com provide tips and advice to work with and around them.
Perhaps my favorite feature of these houses is the fact that they are so alternative energy friendly. In the video below, a Tiny House is powered by a mobile solar generator called the SolMan. For those houses in areas with less predictable weather, you could instead use a solar/gas combo generator such as the SolMan Action Packer to insure that you’ll always have available energy reserves. You could also easily install solar panels on the roof to utilize the available space, essentially taking yourself off the grid and making you completely energy independent.
A Tiny House seems like a great solution to a number of problems many people, including myself, are currently facing. Becoming a more energy efficient, sustainable individual would be such a freeing experience, and I don’t know about you, but I’m more than up to the challenge.
By: Amanda Artz
Mobile generators are necessary for countless applications, from powering shelters during a natural disaster to providing energy to heat a rural cabin in the woods. But what are the environmental implications of this technology? Although it would seem that generators are much less harmful than the traditional grid power of a home or business, they carry just as many, if not more negative environmental effects.
Typical mobile generators run on gas. Any fossil fuel burning device emits greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and ozone into the atmosphere, causing health issues. The process of burning fossil fuels is also the driving force behind global climate change. Additionally, mobile generators produce large amounts of noise pollution. Noise pollution harbors many negative effects for wildlife, causing them stress, decreasing the usability of their habitat, and disrupting the naturalness of ecosystems. Noise pollution also creates just as many negative effects on humans.
Exhaust from gas generators can also produce poisonous carbon monoxide gases that can kill if concentrated in high enough levels in poorly ventilated areas. It is also extremely dangerous to operate mobile generators in moist areas. On top of this, they can be very heavy and difficult to transport, making them inconvenient for the very purposes they are needed for most.
With all of these negative aspects, the need for an alternative mobile generating solution is great. Luckily, there is a solar solution. Solar-powered mobile generators are emission free, lightweight, and use energy from a completely renewable, free energy source. Also, advances in solar cell technology have made solar panels a much more affordable energy option.
One such mobile solar generator solution is the SolMan, made by a northern California company called SolSolutions. This all-in-one integrated unit can deliver up to 1200 watts of AC power and 12 volts of DC power. The design includes a 135 watt photovoltaic panel, three 100 amp/hour deep cycle sealed batteries, a solar charge controller, a watt Meter, a 1500 watt inverter/charger, and external AC/DC plugs, all contained in a light, easily transportable two-wheel cart. It’s an extremely affordable model made locally out of long-lasting and environmentally friendly aluminum, not plastic.
Mobile solar generators are not the technology of the future—they are the technology of today, and should be used as commonly as hybrid vehicles and reusable shopping bags. Join other sustainability advocates and support this revolutionary technology, and together, along with the sun, we can rid our earth’s atmosphere of pollution, one SolMan at a time.
For more information about the SolMan, visit SolSolutions’ website.
By: Amanda Artz
The Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) were both groundbreaking statutory decisions passed during a time of growing environmental awareness and concern. Although both laws had big goals, the clarity of how to reach them was far from crystalline. Because of this, the future of the environment and the wildlife that depend on its health is still in limbo, and unless severe changes are made to both laws, the future looks grim.
The Endangered Species Act’s primary goal is to protect species by “prohibiting the ‘take’ of endangered or threatened species on both public and private lands and to extend the law’s protection to species beyond those directly threatened by hunting and trade” (Watt et al, pg 355). Take is defined in the law as any action that would “harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect” a species (Watt et al). Because of these new policies, it was thought that thousands of species would be saved from extinction and remain in stable, healthy populations for many years to come.
The National Environmental Policy Act’s primary goal is to protect the environment by requiring federal agencies to consider the environmental impact of every major activity they undertake (Kusbasek). If an activity is found to have a significant impact on the environment, an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) must be prepared. This time-consuming process was thought to make agencies seriously consider their projects, and hopefully design them so that they could avoid the EIS process altogether. This is possible by preparing a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI), or a mitigated FONSI, in which if the project was found to have significant impacts, those impacts could be mitigated so they lessen the overall negative effects on the environment (Kusbasek).
Although both of these laws have broad reach and tough tactics (Watt et al), they fail at truly achieving their primary goals. Under Section 10 of the ESA, an “incidental take permit” can be issued, allowing take of a species to occur. Although completion of a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) is required in order for the permit to be granted, it is still a loophole in the law and the species protection process. Completion of an HCP does not necessarily mean that said HCP will actually positively affect the remaining population/habitat of the species being taken. As for the NEPA process, once an EIS is completed and it is determined that a project will have significant impacts on the environment, the project can still be executed. So in the end, NEPA doesn’t truly protect the environment, it just makes the lead agency consider it.
Big changes are necessary to make these laws more effective in protecting the environment. For the ESA, no take should be permitted and there should be no issuance of incidental take permits, regardless of whether an HCP is completed or not. The definition of take should also be changed to include habitat destruction. As for NEPA, any project that is found to have significant impacts on the environment should not be completed until the lead agency sufficiently mitigates the impact or the project in such a way that no significant impact on the environment would occur. These ideas might not seem politically realistic, but to be honest, nothing that can truly get anything done really is. By continuing to make middle ground, incremental decisions we will continue to have ineffective policies. Both the ESA and NEPA are reactive policies, and until we pass policies that are much more proactive, the environment and wildlife will continue to suffer.
Watt et al, “Reflections on Preserving Ecological and Cultural Landscapes”.
Kusbasek, “Environmental Law”. Prentice Hall. 2007.
By: Amanda Artz
When I think of government agencies that deal with conservation, I think of similar authorities with equal goals, powers, and expectations. This, however, is far from the case. Each agency has their own responsibilities, and the regulatory powers they possess vary greatly between them. Collectively, they act like a system of conservation checks and balances that allow and sometimes hinder one another to accomplish their stated goals.
There are four main roles of state and regional agencies. Trusteeship, in which agencies are responsible for a resource that requires direct management or ownership authority; regulatory authority, in which agencies grant permits, approve plans, and regulate behavior; planning authority, in which agencies coordinate amongst multiple agencies; and funding, in which agencies give and get money and assistance where needed. There are many great local examples of agencies that possess and play each of these roles. Armstrong Woods State Park is managed by California State Parks. They have trusteeship and are responsible for managing the various biological resources of the park, such as the black-tailed deer population, old-growth redwood trees, and non-native, invasive plant species out-competing the native ones. Although California State Parks manages resources, they have no regulatory authority over those said resources. All regulatory authority regarding these resources is possessed by the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). For example, say the black-tailed deer population of the park was exploding due to the absence of large predators in that ecosystem, so much so that the deer over-grazed the park’s vegetation to the point that their population and those of other, lower trophic levels were experiencing massive die-offs due to starvation. California State Parks could write a black-tailed deer population management plan that proposed the use of injectable contraceptives, but could NOT enforce this plan unless it was approved by the CDFG.
Another great example of a specific agency role is that of the Coastal Conservancy, which provides grants, funding, and assistance to agencies and non-profits that need it. Let’s say that a large ranch connecting Armstrong Woods to the Jenner Headlands just went on the market. The parcel is privately owned and contains sections of the Russian River and surrounding watershed, and valuable potential public coastal access. Armstrong Woods is a state park and therefore has no budget to purchase this land (Proposition 21 was a nice thought!), but can work together with a non-profit conservation group such as Save the Redwoods League, and the Coastal Conservancy, a state agency dedicated to protecting and enhancing the coast. By working together, the land could be obtained and eventually Armstrong Woods could be expanded. The Coastal Conservancy could give Save the Redwoods League a grant to purchase the land, and then the League could donate the land to Armstrong Woods State Park. It bothers me that it takes the cooperation of so many agencies in order to meet a main conservation goal, because the longer it takes for the agencies to come together and agree on a plan, the more likely certain land parcels could be bought by private parties for development or other, non-conservation purposes. With that being said, I still like the way that different roles of government agencies create this system of checks and balances, because I feel that this way, no agency can get too powerful and make decisions without the approval and agreement of other agencies, and this creates better conservation decisions in the long run.
If I magically got a job in a government agency, I would without a doubt choose the California Department of Fish and Game. I love that this agency has both the responsibility of managing resources AND has regulation authority to grant permits, approve plans, and regulate behavior. My dream position there would be a mixture of both roles. I would manage the California mountain lion population, with my ultimate goal being to GPS collar every lion in California so that the entire state’s population could be studied and tracked in great detail. This would be extremely useful in determining how the lions move throughout their ranges using corridors of what’s left of the habitat in the state and monitoring their behaviors and actions, especially when a human-predator conflict occurs. To accompany this wildlife management role, I would also oversee the issuance of depredation permits, which are the only approved means of mountain lion hunting besides self-defense as regulated by the California Wildlife Protection Act of 1990. Since all mountain lions would be collared, I could locate and move any mountain lion involved in a conflict with humans (such as causing a rancher grief) to a different, uninhabited range, far away from humans (and livestock) so that the problem was solved and this important species wouldn’t have to be killed. I feel that this dream position is the perfect way to interrelate both roles of the CDFG, and by working with other government agencies that possess other, different but equally important roles, we could truly make a positive difference for the California mountain lion population.
By: Amanda Artz
Due to recent unfortunate events in the mountain lion world and being overloaded with environmental planning jargon, I wrote this small summary about the need for wildlife corridor planning to ensure the safety and success of large predators (like my favorite animal of all time, which you all should know by now!).
The most common fate for a mountain lion that enters the “territory” of humans is death. These large, stealthy predators evoke fear and uncertainty among us, rendering them doomed if they ever cross our paths, regardless of whether they were doing any harm. What people don’t really understand is that mountain lions aren’t suddenly entering human territory, we are entering theirs. Urban sprawl and exurban growth is increasing the chances of mountain lion sightings and encounters immensely. The only way to lessen the chance of encounters is to plan ahead when designing neighborhoods in known mountain lion habitat (or not putting neighborhoods there at all….hey, a girl can dream). This can be done by incorporating wildlife habitat corridors in and around exurban areas. Corridors are tracts of land that create separation and protection for animal populations from human development. It is much easier to design wildlife corridors before development occurs instead of realizing the need for them and trying to design them after development, so I hope that in the future, planning for the safe and successful existence of biodiversity is taken into much greater consideration. What if we designed neighborhoods based on the needs of wildlife populations of that area? We determined the biologically optimal wildlife corridor for each population using GIS, and then designed the neighborhood around the corridor. Naturally, the houses closest to the corridor would pose a greater risk for humans, but those interested in living in them would be warned of this beforehand. A family with small children or people who leave their pets outside probably wouldn’t want to live in a house closest to the corridor. Knowing the risks before living in the area and designing neighborhoods that take these risks into consideration would greatly reduce human-predator conflicts. Leaving space for wildlife to roam would also lessen the chances of encounters. By planning ahead, we could ensure the success of large predator populations, and in turn, entire ecosystems that greatly benefit from the presence of these keystone species.
By Amanda Artz
Habitat loss is the number one threat to biodiversity. With increasing human population growth and urbanization, wildlife habitat continues to decline and become fragmented. Fragmentation and isolation can have dramatically negative effects on plant and wildlife populations, ranging from decreased genetic diversity to extinction. Restoring and protecting existing habitat and providing linkages between fragmented areas is becoming critically important to the continued existence of many species. Wildlife habitat corridors allow populations to interact, interbreed, and, as climate changes, to shift their geographic range. Planning, designing, and implementing wildlife corridors can be difficult, but GIS technology is helping to streamline the process.
It didn’t take long for Northern Arizona University’s School of Forestry professor Paul Beier to realize the importance of wildlife corridors. While studying mountain lion populations in the Santa Ana Mountain Range during 1988-1992, Beier noted habitat fragmentation was the biggest problem the big cats were facing. Without habitat corridor links between mountain ranges, the Southern California mountain lion population would be doomed. “I documented that based on their demography they must have connectivity, and that based on animal movement, they’d use linkages that were available if we gave them half a chance,” said Beier. “They were using some highly degraded existing corridors, and so I got really excited at the prospect of, what if we designed corridors on purpose? Wouldn’t that be terrific?”
Mountain Lion mother and cubs, Caspers Wilderness Park, Orange County, California. Captured by motion activated camera, photo credit Donna Krucki.
Years later at Northern Arizona University, Dan Majka began working with Beier. Majka created corridor models using GIS based on methodology designed by Beier and South Coast Wildlands, a non-profit organization dedicated to ensuring functional habitat connectivity. To improve workflow and analysis speed, Majka refined, enhanced, and implemented the organization’s tools into a toolset called CorridorDesigner.
A GIS-based Toolbox
CorridorDesigner is a suite of tools for ArcGIS for creating habitat and corridor models. It provides a user friendly, three step process that applies least cost modeling for multiple focal species. The core input is habitat suitability modeling, which allows users to assess the quality of habitat for a species within the study area or a modeled corridor and masks out any unsuitable habitat.
Modeled biologically best corridor and habitat suitability for mountain lion between Hualapai and Peacock Mountains, Arizona.
GIS habitat suitability models relate suitability to raster-based layers such as land use/land cover, elevation, topographic position, human disturbance (e.g. distance from roads, road density, housing density, etc), or other relevant data. Using this data and a habitat suitability threshold that ranks habitat quality for breeding, the user can model a single species corridor and then repeat the procedure for other species. Next, the user can join the single-species corridor models to create a preliminary linkage design. This union of corridor data is the most obvious way to ensure that all target species are included.
Multispecies linkage design between Hualapai and Peacock Mountains, Arizona.
The CorridorDesigner tools connect the best available habitat for individual wildlife species between two larger habitat blocks. All would be well if this exact region could be conserved. Unfortunately, for a variety of reasons the best choice areas are usually not available for corridor development, so the model is best used as a baseline to compare alternatives.
GIS consultant Jeff Jenness, GISP, joined the project and lent his expertise by creating an ArcMap extension for CorridorDesigner that provides a set of tools to evaluate the “best” corridors and to compare them with more realistic alternatives. These tools include calculation of patch-to-patch distances, bottleneck analysis, size-weighted general statistics, size-weighted histogram statistics, size-weighted cross-tabulation statistics, and cumulative surface tools. These statistics help land managers and conservation investors make educated decisions about what to conserve. By factoring in the reality conservationists face every day, this extension ensures that the optimal corridor is designed using what land is available.
Climate and Transportation Concerns
New concerns about a changing climate have forced wildlife managers to rethink how corridors should be designed for the success of species in the future. In response, spatial analyst Brian Brost and Jenness have added another set of tools to the CorridorDesigner toolbox, including the ArcGIS extension “Land Facet CorridorDesigner” and a set of complementary Land Facet functions that run in R. Land facets are based only on topographic and soil features on the landscape, which don’t change over time and will not change as climate changes. “Until now, corridors were primarily designed to encourage movement of focal species through present land cover maps,” said Jenness. “Because of the strong possibility that land cover maps will change in this century, any corridor linkage based on those maps might fail due to climate change.” It is thought that future vegetation (and, indirectly, animal assemblages) will be determined primarily by the interaction among land facets and future climate regimes. This Land Facet approach is a valuable geographic approach to designing wildlife corridors that considers the future effects of climate change.
Wildlife corridors don’t just conserve connectivity; they also provide ways to make highways safer for both people and wildlife. The CorridorDesigner tools can be useful in helping to determine the ideal location of wildlife crossings for various species along major thoroughfares and highways. Building these crossings reduces wildlife-vehicle collisions, leading to a decrease in mortality on highways for countless animals while keeping drivers safe. “For large mammals like mountain lions that tend to occur in low densities and take several years to raise their young, the loss of an individual can have a snowball effect on a local population” said Emily Garding, a wildlife biologist/GIS analyst for the Arizona Missing Linkages Project who has worked extensively with the CorridorDesigner tools. “I’m excited that our work promotes developing a more wildlife-friendly transportation infrastructure that will contribute to maintaining sustainable wildlife populations. I hope to see the trend toward building safer highways continue across the nation.”
The significance of wildlife corridors is clear. “Corridors are important because they provide a way of connecting species and habitats in a changing world,” said Dan Majka. “They provide a possible way to deal with increased pressures, whether its urbanization or fragmentation, increased transportation, and climate change.” GIS-based tools have significantly streamlined the design and implementation of corridors. With GIS, CorridorDesigner, and the continued support and enthusiasm from people like those who work on and with these tools, wildlife can look forward to a sustainable, connected future.
For more information, contact Dan Majka (email: firstname.lastname@example.org) or Jeff Jenness (email: email@example.com or Brian Brost (email: firstname.lastname@example.org). To download the CorridorDesigner tools for free, visit corridordesign.org.
Special thanks to Dan Majka, Jeff Jenness, Paul Beier, and Emily Garding for all of their help, support, and amazing work they’ve done for wildlife and corridors.
By: Amanda Artz
National Parks were established under extreme forms of control and manipulation, catering to the romantic expectations of park visitors. Americans viewed parks as places of perfection; untouched landscapes filled with all-natural beauties where they could escape from the growing urbanization and disappearing frontier of the western world. “The Park Service practiced a selective kind of preservation, promoting some elements of nature and opposing others–altering natural conditions largely in an attempt to meet the public’s expectations and enjoyment of the parks” (Sellars 1997). By catering to the clouded visions of what National Parks were dreamt to be, the Park Service essentially turned them into something far from what they should have been; largely unnatural, completely managed lands that required the constant control of humans.
For many people, the process of conquest and nation building seemed to alter the essential nature of the west, so the first National Parks were seen as places to share national identity and an appreciation for natural beauty (Spence 1999). But of course, wilderness preservation went hand in hand with native dispossession, and uninhabited wilderness had to be created before it was preserved (Spence 1999). Many Americans viewed wilderness as an unpopulated Eden that should be set aside for the benefit and enjoyment of vacationing people (Spence 1999). “The fact that Indians continued to hunt and light fires in such places seemed only to demonstrate a marked inability to appreciate natural beauty. To guard against these ’violations‘, the establishment of the first National Parks entailed the exclusion or removal of native peoples” (Spence 1999 pg 4). Wilderness concepts seemingly forgot that native peoples shaped the environments for centuries, giving rise to parks that were more representative of old fantasies about a continent awaiting “discovery” than actual conditions at the time of early European detection (Spence 1999). When it came down to it, Americans cared more about the scenic grandeur of a landscape than for the well-being of the natives who called these landscapes home. Indians truly distinguished the landscape, but Americans were much more concerned with the colossal mountains, giant trees, and majestic waterfalls that surpassed everything else in the known world, and with the bragging rights that came with them (Spence 1999). The concept of monumentalism fueled expectations, and wilderness became more of an American invention than an actual existing entity (Spence 1999).
America’s perception of a human-less wilderness spread beyond the removal of Indians towards the removal of visitor impact in the parks. The national embarrassment of the commercialization of Niagara Falls inspired the idea that naturalness needed to be maintained in areas of high scenic interest (Spence 1999). Because of this, the first true professions to emerge in the National Park Service were engineers and landscape architects, who purposely avoided intruding on scenery, but also aimed to display scenery to its best advantage with the proper placement of buildings, roads, and trails (Sellars 1997). They designed plans “to screen unattractive developments from view, and planned intensively developed areas, with parking lots, sidewalks, buildings, lawns, and gardens. The resolve to blend new construction with natural surroundings—to develop the parks without destroying their beauty—formed the basis of landscape architecture’s central role in National Park development” (Sellars 1997 pg 50). In reality, scenery was the key attribute that sets a National Park aside to be protected and conserved for all generations, not biodiversity and its preservation and continued success.
Destruction in National Parks frequently occurred to enhance the enjoyment of visitors. Road and structure building was an acceptable practice as long as it was coordinated with the aesthetics and scenery of the Park (Sellars 1997). Wildlife and their habitat were not taken into account, and the understanding of ecology was usually incomplete (Warren 1997). “It is important to note that while the Park Service was steadily building up its landscape architecture and engineering capability, it was content to only borrow scientists from other bureaus to manage National Park flora and fauna–a telling reflection of how much greater the Service’s interest was in recreational tourism than in fostering innovative strategies in nature preservation” (Sellars 1997 pg 70). The fact that the Park Service cared more about scenic value and tourism than it did for the plants and animals that inhabited a park is alarming, but soon enough wildlife was also looked upon as a valuable resource (Warren 1997).
“Visions of bountiful wildlife was the lure of the western land, and as such, close to the heart of America’s westering experience” (Warren 1997 pg 4). Maintaining such a situation required heavily manipulated management–preserving the scenic facade of nature and wilderness, the primary basis for public enjoyment (Sellars 1997). “The Service’s treatment of large-mammal populations did not follow a policy of letting nature take its course; rather, it involved frequent and sometimes intensive handling, such as killing predators or nurturing favored species” (Sellars 1997 pg 75). The Park Service conducted ranching and farming operations to maintain the presence and success of favored species, and those species that threatened the favored plants and animals were eradicated or reduced to a point where they would not affect populations of the more favored creatures. Bison in Yellowstone were treated like domesticated livestock (Sellars 1997). They were fed hay farmed on approximately six hundred acres of Park land, and population sizes were controlled by slaughtering for meat or donations to parks and zoos (Sellars 1997). “The Service valued Park grasslands mainly as pasturage for ungulates, rather than as areas biologically important for plants and other life forms” (Sellars 1997 pg 70). To enhance the food supply and entice animals to stay in the Park boundaries of Yellowstone, winter feeding of deer, antelope, and bighorn sheep was implemented, which used fifteen hundred tons of hay during a 15 year period (Sellars 1997). To further meet visitors’ expectations, the Service set up zoos in the Parks to guarantee that tourists would have a chance to see the more popular animals (Sellars 1997). For example, the Park Service imported a small herd of Tule elk to Yosemite, which were not native to the park and were kept behind fences (Sellars 1997). Regardless of naturalness or integrity, the Park Service did anything and everything they could to match the pre-conceived expectations that Americans carried about National Parks.
The most controversial management practice of the Park Service was the killing of predators in order to protect more popular species (Sellars 1997). “Determined to keep the National Parks unimpaired, the Service acted as though the predators themselves were impairments–threats to be dealt with before they destroyed the peaceful scenes it wished to maintain” (Sellars 1997 pg 71). Predator control was seen as a means of protecting those “species of animals desirable for public observation and enjoyment,” and that the “enemies” of those species must be controlled (Sellars 1997 pg 72). The rangers responsible for predator control were often allowed to sell for personal profit a percentage of the hides and pelts of the predators that they killed (Sellars 1997). In addition, the Parks sometimes hired predator hunters. To ensure the satisfaction of tourists, the Park Service killed thousands of animals that it should have been protecting, all because of this skewed perception of “wild”.
More extensively than any other wildlife, the Park Service manipulated fish populations (Sellars 1997). Their goal was to make fishing a leading National Park attraction and a major aspect of tourism management (Sellars 1997). “Although the Service sought to halt the poaching of mammals in the Parks, it enthusiastically sanctioned not only the regulated taking of fish but also the introduction of numerous non-native species” (Sellars 1997 pg 80). The Park Service planted millions of fish into various lakes and rivers, including non-native rainbow, brown, brook, and lake trout (Sellars 1997). Non-native fish planting was practiced regularly along with introduction of non-native trees, shrubs, and grasses for landscaping developed areas (Sellars 1997). Introducing non-native species can have dramatically negative impacts on native populations that can be out-competed by the non-natives, causing negative effects on an entire ecosystem. The careless, ignorant, attitude of the Park Service towards non-native species provides further proof of the true intentions of National Park establishment.
The historical implications of Park and wildlife management can be seen as an underlying theme of the deception and greed of early America. Nothing influences action more powerfully than economic benefit and growth of our country, and for this growth, the western landscape and those “lesser beings” who call it home have continually paid the price. Once we re-visit the historical operations of Parks and truly understand the wrongness of their management, we can continue to restore a more ecological, scientific approach to Park management and finally put to rest the embarrassing façade that once defined our National Parks.
Spence, Mark D. 1999. “Dispossessing the Wilderness: Indian Removal and the Making of National Parks.
Sellars, Richard. 1997. “Preserving Nature in National Parks: A History.
Warren, Louis. 1997. “The Hunter’s Game: Poachers and Conservationists in the Twentieth Century America.”