By the early 20th century, the fractures between environmental conservationists and the preservationists were beginning to appear. Explain the differences between these two concepts and how they began to emerge in the late 1800’s and early 1900’s over the controversy the damming of the Hetch Hetchy Valley. Be sure to consider the leaders of these contradictory movements, as well as their philosophies regarding nature. What was the outcome of this controversy? Who won, and why? In the early 20th century, fracture between environmental conservationist and the preservationist were beginning to appear, especially with the controversy of damming Hetch Hetchy Valley. Before we dive into the controversy of the damming of Hetch Hetchy Valley, let’s look at what an environmental conservationist and a preservationist are and what role they play in the Hetch Hetchy Valley. Preservationist are people who want to preserve nature whereas conservationist are people who want to also preserve nature but also want to use natures resources for the environment. These concepts (preservationists & conservationist) began emerging in the late 1800’s and early 1900’s over the damming of Hetch Hetchy Valley. Let’s begin with how these concepts began and how they ended. It all started in San Francisco where an earthquake struck and shocked people. The earthquake left San Francisco in ruins with no source of water but a few miles down the road. The water was from an inhabitant forest with a source of water. This is where the controversy of building the dam (Hetch Hetchy Valley) began emerging. We had one side (the preservationist) who wanted to keep the nature how it is and then we had the other side (the conservationist) who wanted to build a dam in the forest to use the water for the people of San Francisco. Each side had a leader and also philosophies regarding nature. The preservationist leader was a man named John Muir, who wanted to keep nature safe and keep it untouched of human hands. John Muir’s philosophy of nature stated that nature is our natural home, our foundation of life from which we came from. John Muir also states that caring for nature is like caring for ourselves. An example would be religion; some people may use the wilderness to get rid of sin and to become more faithful in their religion. Although John Muir states a good point of protecting nature, the conservationist leader, Gifford Pinchot, also has good points. Gifford Pinchot’s philosophy states that we must use nature for the greater good of the nation, greater good for the people, and the long-lasting resource (of water) that will help people in need (Sand Francisco). The outcome was almost a
…show more content…
What does he emphasize in these chapters? What is the significance of his thesis/emphasis? What are the specific examples he uses in order to prove his point regarding the Great Plains region. (How bad the plains are) Webb describes the plains as a treeless land, insufficient rainfall, which leads to the scarcity of water, and a sub-humid climate. As in the Western part of the United States, the plains contains plain animals, different vegetation, and also drastic weather in some cases. Some of the animals native to the West are the Buffalo, (which was a good source of shelter, food, and life according to the Indians), the jackrabbit (true Hare), and the Prairie dog (Marmot). Some of the vegetation that grew in the (west) plains consisted of tall grass, short grass (rough texture), desert grass, and desert shrubs whereas the east may not have had. The weather is another bid thing I wanted to talk about. I was reading about the hot winds and how they had to make people wait by a railroad because the rail road tracks were beginning to become all wacky and deformed. It kind of makes me think of how hot these winds really were if they could mess up rail road tracks. Just imagining westward emigrants use of the land in the west makes me kind of feel bad for them. I say that because the emigrants wouldn't have a source of water with dry land, then animals eating food from when you do find a place to farm (by mountains), and also the different weather types experienced: hot winds and chinooks, northers, blizzards, and
What does he emphasize in these chapters? What is the significance of his thesis/emphasis? What are the specific examples he uses in order to prove his point regarding the Great Plains region. (How bad the plains are) Webb describes the plains as a treeless land, insufficient rainfall, which leads to the scarcity of water, and a sub-humid climate. As in the Western part of the United States, the plains contains plain animals, different vegetation, and also drastic weather in some cases. Some of the animals native to the West are the Buffalo, (which was a good source of shelter, food, and life according to the Indians), the jackrabbit (true Hare), and the Prairie dog (Marmot). Some of the vegetation that grew in the (west) plains consisted of tall grass, short grass (rough texture), desert grass, and desert shrubs whereas the east may not have had. The weather is another bid thing I wanted to talk about. I was reading about the hot winds and how they had to make people wait by a railroad because the rail road tracks were beginning to become all wacky and deformed. It kind of makes me think of how hot these winds really were if they could mess up rail road tracks. Just imagining westward emigrants use of the land in the west makes me kind of feel bad for them. I say that because the emigrants wouldn't have a source of water with dry land, then animals eating food from when you do find a place to farm (by mountains), and also the different weather types experienced: hot winds and chinooks, northers, blizzards, and