Summary: The Case Against Privatizing National Parks

791 Words2 Pages

National parks have always been viewed as important places that should be accessible to all Americans. To keep these significant sites in good upkeep for future generations, State parks across the country have incorporated many methods to try to increase revenue, such as hotels, lodges, ski resorts, and golf courses. However, to be able to fund maintenance projects, The National Park Service is considering selling corporate sponsorships, which in turn may stray them away from further protection of park resources and their goals to bring new experiences to the visitors and the workers. Other reform options that are up in the air for the Park Service are very risky; anything too significant such as possibly removing the NPS altogether may cause public backlash and the infrastructure to crumble completely. In John Freemuth and William Lowrys’ article “Corporate Sponsors at Yosemite? The Case Against Privatizing National Parks” from the August 25, 2016 issue of The Conversation, they effectively use logos and pathos to show that privatizing national parks is not a good idea. At the beginning of the article, the authors establish their …show more content…

The core mission that Congress wrote for the National Park Service in its 1916 charter law was that the enjoyment of the parks should be provided, whilst preserving parks resources for the future generation’s enjoyment. “National parks fit the classic economic definition of a public good - something from which no one is excluded, and that one person can consume without reducing its value to other people”. The authors bring up an excerpt from an environmental historian, Alfred Runte, who states that “national parks were inspired partly by pride and the desire to show that we had landscapes rivaling the cathedrals of Europe”. This would serve as a way to express that America has many special

Open Document