If We Don't Make A Change, Who Will?
A few years ago, I went to Yellowstone National Park on family vacation. I have never experienced anything so beautiful, delicate and complex. I was completely enamored with the geysers, mudpots, and hot springs, and I was able to witness a few rare eruptions. Thus began my obsession with geology. Yellowstone is a popular travel destination year-round, and it's easy to see why. Acres of land beckon skiers and snowmobilers in the winter, and the summer allows for a multitude of hiking, biking, and wildlife viewing opportunities. There is something for everyone in over three-thousand square miles of space. But what about the other organisms that make up this dynamic ecosystem? With tourism on the rise, Yellowstone National Park's wildlife is facing a crisis.
Dynamic analysis is of utmost importance when it comes to Yellowstone. What effects do our actions have on the wildlife that inhabits the area? Is the park being utilized in a way that maximizes it's net benefit? Which is more beneficial, recreation or wildlife? What are the future risks of using the area for recreation? Let's consider these important questions and put some thought into solutions. One of the best ways to reduce negative impacts on the environment is to educate the public of the consequences of our actions. It's important to understand the habits and movements of the animals that call Yellowstone National Park home. Our actions have the potential to severely disrupt natural cycles of life for bears, wolves, buffalo, elk, and any other of the over 400 species of animals in the Greater Yellowstone ecosystem.
There are a number of studies that have been conducted regarding breeding and hibernating habits among the animals in the park. I believe it is possible to track these animals, and restrict recreational boundaries in order to prevent waking bears up during hibernation, which can cause them to miscarry, and to prevent disrupting wolves, who rear their pups in early spring. There are also benefits to privatizing the sections of land where animal habitats commonly occur. This would ensure the safety and health of both the animals and the public. I also believe charging more to experience Yellowstone would go a long way toward keeping the land pristine. If a party is willing to drop a pretty penny on experiencing the park, they are more likely to treat it with the respect it deserves.
Property rights are critical to discussing environmental economics. Without clearly defined property rights, externalities can, and are, a problem. For example, how do we prevent air pollution on a specific property? The source of the externality must be located, and the guilty party will typically pay hefty fines, or find an alternative, clean energy that will not cause pollution to neighboring properties. If many people own the land in question, it is up to the market to determine who is using the land most efficiently. Ideally, the environmentally friendly party will be assigned property rights. The government has the duty of keeping track of who owns what land, and is able to settle disputes over property boundaries.
Yellowstone is most certainly a land worth saving, but is the government and the public willing to do what it takes to make a significant difference? Only time will tell.
Comments
Post a Comment