Defining the Line of Conservation vs. Preservation

Attending school at an exclusively environmental college in Maine was an informative experience for me. With students studying every hue in the spectrum of environmental studies, from conservation law enforcement and policy to horticulture and molecular biology, debates raged all over campus on any number of issues. My personal favorite was always between conservation and preservation.

You'll be hard pressed to find someone who openly hates national parks. But you might be surprised at just how many people clash with the parks system on a regular basis. The parks by definition protect large tracts of land, and more importantly, large amounts of natural resources. To the conservationist these resources should be used for the benefit of everyone and be maintained in a sustainable manner. While the preservationists prefers by definition a more hands off approach.

As a newly enrolled student at Unity College I was a preservationist to the bones. I grew up with Captain Planet, and the Rescuers Down Under and was devoted to stopping the rampant destruction of natural resources. But after only a few classes I realized this issue was almost never so cut and dry.

For instance most people agree that everyone should have the equal opportunity to experience the natural beauty of the parks. But what about people with limited mobility such as someone in a wheel chair? Will you deny the construction of roads and paved paths for the sake of preservation or deny handicapped individuals the opportunity to experience the park? Even oyster farmers who have been in operation since before the parks establishment are affected.

It's a debate that never really seems to have a definitive answer or ending, which is probably what makes it so interesting to talk about.

Relevant articles:

Wilderness Wiki

Focus West