"Ken Fortenberry" wrote in message
. com...

There's no reason to worry about development along the road.
The road would be entirely within the boundaries of the Park.
And I think the environmental concerns are overstated as well.
The road through the Lamar Valley in Yellowstone handles a lot
of traffic year round and the elk, bison, wolves, coyotes,
birds and fish don't appear to be any worse for the wear. Then
too 95% of all tourists never get more than a quarter mile from
their vehicles which limits the damage from the teeming hordes.

There's no need to worry about private commercial
development......probably.....maybe. Um......I think I'll worry about that
anyway. I haven't spent a great deal of time in our national parks.....or
researching them, for that matter. Nevertheless, I'll bet a shiny new
nickel that there ARE private commercial ventures operating today in some of
them. At any rate, private and commercial is not the only way to go. The
pendulum swings, to be sure, but over the past century it has tended to
swing more one way than the other. There are ever more developments in the
parks......roads not being the least among them. And where there are roads
there will be scenic overlooks, rest stops, welcome centers, information
kiosks, historical markers, interpretive centers, campgrounds......and
parking lots. The mouth of Hazel creek is an ideal spot for any or all of
the above. There is, in fact, already a campground of sorts, and a ranger
station or some such beast. Much of the groundwork for further development
was done a long time ago......there was a town there. That's why the
cemetery is there.

The environmental impact would be severe long before the first tourist
automobile hit the pavement. Road building is justly famous for its impact.
Insofar as scenery is a valued aspect of environment (and I think you'll
find few who will argue against it), a road......any road.....is arguably a
permanent scar. Automobiles and, especially, trucks and buses belch forth
vast quantities of airborne pollutants and leak significant amounts of
others. Toilets leak, people dump all sorts of noxious **** is water and
along roads. Virtually any sort of development would require running in
electrical service......probably on poles. Gas, sewer and water lines are
also quite possible. Litter is a certainty.

It is certainly true that a number species of large animals appear to be
doing well in Yellowstone, and one can hardly contest the fact that black
bears thrive in GSMNP. But I suggest that a careful examination of whether
or not any of these is a good indicator species or keystone species before
accepting their presence as rock solid proof of a healthy ecosystem. And,
anyway, it is obvious that there must be a threshold beyond which none of
these species can tolerate further development or human incursion.
Yellowstone is a BIG place......lots of room to move aside, get some
breathing room. GSMNP is big too.....but not as big as Yellowstone. How
much can it take? How much can the salamanders, the wild ginseng, the
hemlocks, the brook trout and the myriad species whose names neither you nor
I know take? How many species have yet to be discovered and described
because they long ago disappeared from other, more developed, regions and no
one has yet looked here?

If 95% of all tourists (I just LOVE the easy availability of precise
statistics here in ROFF!) never stray more than a quarter mile from their
vehicles, just imagine what that quarter mile is going to look like in about
thirty years. And, what's 5% of 10,000,000 ("Visitors to the Smokies
number approximately 10 million--and visitation continues to grow yearly.
http://www.smokiesguide.com/FAQs/ )?

There's more. LOTS more.

Wolfgang