Smoky Mountain Wonderland
Year after year they returned to the quiet, rustic, peaceful, unhurried atmosphere of the Wonderland. Do you suppose the Smokies are treated like the redheaded stepchild by the National Park Service? Is that the reason other parks have maintained, renovated, reconstructed historic hotels for vacationers but the Smokies don’t? Or could the problem actually be management of the Smokies? Is management steadfastly behind the curve, uninterested in enhancing vacationers’ experiences by reconstructing the historic Wonderland Hotel in Elkmont for overnight stays?
Would reconstructing the Wonderland be an impossibility? No, it would not. Would it create income for the Smokies? Definitely. From the dozens of hotels in national parks, here are only five examples showing income some of these parks received in one year from the lodging and also renovation costs. This happens thanks to forward thinking management in those national parks.
1. Yellowstone National Park
2. Crater Lake National Park’s Crater Lake Lodge—$21 million renovation from 1989 to 1995
3. Mt. Rainier National Park’s Paradise Inn—$17 million current renovation
4. Bryce Canyon National Park’s Bryce Canyon Lodge creates $125,000 annual income for Bryce Canyon—$4.2 million renovation in 1998
5. Zion National Park’s Zion Lodge and Cabins creates $926,388 annual income for Zion—$1,206,800 renovation in 1997/1998
Why not in the Smokies? Why shouldn’t the descendants of the hundreds of homesteaders of the Smokies have the joy of staying in the Wonderland in the mountains their ancestors loved so dearly and called their own? Why shouldn’t that dream come true for anyone who’s ever wanted to vacation there? It is your park. It is your right to contact your congressmen and also the superintendent of the Smokies at firstname.lastname@example.org if you want Elkmont’s future to include your vacation there.
Dupree also positions abortion as a legal matter, favored by those favoring abortions, while his new barroom acquaintance may have been struggling with the moral issues—sort of an apples/oranges discussion. We don’t really know since we saw only one side, though we may have the opportunity to see a rebuttal in an upcoming issue.
In addition Dupree misrepresents Roe v. Wade. Abortion was safe and legal before Roe and would still be if it were overturned—it just wouldn’t be as convenient—perhaps safe, legal and rare .
Guidelines for Incoming Mail