National Park Reform ideas
Question:
: In the Kenyan National Parks, no driving is allowed after dark. This : is strongly enforced, there is an exception given to folks who : stay in the bandas (cottages) but go over to the Lodges for supper. : In fact you couldn’t even walk around outside of the lodge area : after dark. Sort of a reversal – the animals are free, the people : are fenced in. At least this was the case in 1983. This is the case in southern Africa also, but I believe it’s done to keep people from becoming dinner. In our (U.S.) parks, we don’t have to worry about a plethora of animals that would eat us given half a chance. It hurts the tourist industry when folks are eaten by lions, so they don’t let the tourists near the lions.
Response:
Robert There is an interesting article about National Parks in the Robert latest edition of Newsweek. It seems, because of severe Robert overcrowding in some parks, that the NPS is going to have to Robert restrict access. In addition, there are motions to increase Robert the number of National parks (Joshua Tree, Mohave Desert, Robert Death Valley, etc.) at the same time as funding is Robert decreasing. There are parks that are severely jeopardized Robert (such as Shenedoah, Everglades, Yellowstone, Yosemite, etc.) Robert from commercial or other outside factions. We were in Yosemite National Park during the July 4th weekend and the entire following week. Was the park crowded? the answer is yes if you were in Curry Village, in or around Yosemite Lodge, the Awahanee, the Merced right down wy the main beaches and bridges, lower Yosemite falls etc: Once you walk half a mile to a mile off the main roads you only find critters like rock climbers and hikers… it didn’t feel that crowded at all. Robert Likewise, if you have ideas, I suggest we, as internet Robert surfers and backcountry enthusiasts, submit these ideas to Robert the National Park Service, Sierra Club, National Park Robert Conservation Association, and others. If you post your Robert ideas, I’ll gather them and post a FAQ that we can inundate Robert these organizations with. Robert My ideas: Charge steep admission ($20-25 per car) to help Robert raise funds and to restrict "passerbyers." This would raise Robert funds for park maintenance and help restrict some traffic. I like the idea of charging per foot of length for vehicular access. I have a Golden Eagle pass which gets me in for free (one time $25 charge) I would easily pay $50 for this pass, at $25 it feels like a "steal" to me. Robert Have reservation systems for the busiest parks to limit Robert access. The targeted parks would be Yosemite, Yellowstone, Robert Grand Canyon, Smoky Mountains, etc. I dont want to hassle with a reservation system when I am sleeping outside of the park (usfs or blm campsite.. or just side ‘O the road) and I get up at 6am.. drive in, park climb for the day, then drive out around 9-10 pm) why do I need a reservation.. I put it to you that visiting Yosemite this was is very doable and it does not feel that crowded. Robert Limit backcountry usage in a system similar to Denali Robert National Park. The only change I would make is the ability Robert to reserve times in advance. There is nothing worse than Robert travelling many miles only to wait several days to get in. Again.. the backcountry in Yosemite is not that crowded, there already is a permit system in place.. reserving times in advance would be nice, but I don’t want to have to get a backcountry permit just so I can hike in to Half-Dome, climb it and hike back out. Robert Turn over some of the national parks (especially National Robert Historic Parks) to private, non-profit groups. It’s bad enough that the YCCS (or whatever the heck it’s called these days) has a hand in eveything in the park. At least the prices in these stores/lodges are somewhat reasonable. Entrance, camping fees would be way to much for the average ‘joe’ to afford.. in addition I think access would be restricted. Back the the US citizen argument… Robert Allocate certain areas of parks for specific recreational Robert purposes (such as equistrian, rock climbing, 4 wheeling, Robert etc.) in order to provide a national park experience for the Robert different factions. (However, with environmentalism and Robert protectionism in mind where appropriate.) hmm.. don’t see whats wrong with it right now, there are already enough restrictions, with climbers getting more and more every year. just my .02 -tim tim schneider <__, 602.863.5656 Phoenix, AZ " | ` | "They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton and they laughed at the Wright Brothers… but they also laughed at Bozo the Clown" –C. Sagan
Response:
I like the scale idea proposed even better. (Greg Titus) writes:
Based on foot size and weight. Where others excavate, I merely skid daintily.
The problem is the occasional problem Scout troop who individually will be fairly small and light, but runs around in all directions at once and is heavily armed with hatchets, shovels, etc. For them, we need: Nature Trail to Hell (in 3-D) — Al Yankovich Resident Cynic, Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers {uunet,mailrus,other gateways}!ames!eugene My 3rd favorite use of a flame thrower is "Fahrenheit 451." A Ref: Uncommon Sense, Alan Cromer, Oxford Univ. Press, 1993.
Response:
I like the idea of charging per foot of length for vehicular access. Ditto.
For access on foot, I think the charge should be by inverted feet of foot (foots?). I’m foot-augmented (size 13) and of slight build (170 lbs), so my lower pressure on a trail clearly reduces my impact. Where others excavate, I merely skid daintily. greg — Cray Research, Inc. Santa Fe, NM Opinions expressed herein (such as they are) are purely my own.
Response:
The problem is that there are more and more people visiting the parks than ever before. We are loving them to death. The solution is not to limit access but to create MORE PARKS, particularly near urban areas, and spread the demand across more sites.
That won’t help. A few parks take the vast majority of the abuse, and they are not particularly near major urban areas (except Yosemite). — Rick N6RCX EMT-A ATP MA Do Not try this yourself – it could get ugly…… Richard A. De Castro – As long as the Government pretends to protect me, I’ll pretend to feel safe – NOT!
Response:
The problem is that there are more and more people visiting the parks than ever before. We are loving them to death. The solution is not to limit access but to create MORE PARKS, particularly near urban areas, and spread the demand across more sites.
Perhaps. But if I want to see the Grand Canyon, going to Santa Monica Mountains NRA just doesn’t cut it. No matter how many places we choose to call national parks or national monuments, places like Yosemite, Yellowstone, and the Grand Canyon will always be flooded with visitors. So we really need to figure out how to manage the influx to the "Crown Jewels" of the national park system. That means either quotas, higher fees, reduced impact (trams rather than cars), or some combination of these things. More parks would be nice, but they wouldn’t solve the problem of overcrowding. Todd Kunioka
Response:
Once you walk half a mile to a mile off the main roads you only find critters like rock climbers and hikers… it didn’t feel that crowded at all.
Shhh! They might hear you. I like the idea of charging per foot of length for vehicular access.
Ditto. It’s bad enough that the YCCS (or whatever the heck it’s called these days) has a hand in eveything in the park.
YCS: Yosemite Consession Services (A Delaware North Company). At least the prices in these stores/lodges are somewhat reasonable.
I think body snatchers got to you, Tim. Resident Cynic, Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers {uunet,mailrus,other gateways}!ames!eugene My 3rd favorite use of a flame thrower is "Fahrenheit 451." A Ref: Uncommon Sense, Alan Cromer, Oxford Univ. Press, 1993.
Response:
The problem is that there are more and more people visiting the parks than ever before. We are loving them to death. The solution is not to limit access but to create MORE PARKS, particularly near urban areas, and spread the demand across more sites. — Tom Griffin, University of Washington – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -20 years of school and then they put ya on the day shift<<<<<
Response:
Other’s have been speculating and proposing ideas as to how to "fix" our National Parks (distribution has been limited — I hope — to the U.S. so we won’t bug people in Canada or Kenya with our discussion). I’d like to add my two cents worth into the discussion. When "fixing" our National Parks balance is what will be required: We must balance the support for serious backcountry enthusists with those of the motorized tourists. Motorized tourists make up the bulk of the voting public and will complain if they are kicked out of their parks (resulting in either being allowed back in, worse then ever, or the park closing). We must balance the preservation of nature and history with the recreation of the citizens and visitors. We must balance the responsibility and safety of the visitors. We must balance the need for a "neutral" authority over the parks (probably best provided by the government) and the need for government getting out of most of its unnecessary businesses. We must balance the need to fund the park with the need for the park to be accesible. We must balance the need to provide facilities with the ability of the Park Service to provide these, and seperately with the need to not overrun the reason the park was designated in the first place. National Parks, Monuments and Recreational Areas are some of our countries most valuable resources, but they are in danger of being lost. As the federal budget is reduced, and the pressure of environmental groups increases, the chance that the National Parks may close, or be closed to any visitors, is increasing. By working through the National Park Service, Congress and (preferably reasonable) conservation groups, we have a chance to find the compromise positions that will achieve balance in all the areas I listed above. Ronald B. Oakes
Response:
I like the idea of charging per foot of length for vehicular access… This move would also trim down the size of some of these monster vehicles. For instance, I was in Idaho 2 weeks ago and saw an RV that was bigger than a double-decker bus. I would have charged this people, say 13 million, to drive near a National Park. Smallish cars and certainly hiker/bikers have minimal impact on the roads and utilities…
Not a bad idea, but it might be easier and more effective to charge based on the weight of the vehicle rather than it’s length. The scales used to weigh trucks are well developed and used in thousands of "weighing stations" along the interstate highways (commercial trucks are required to stop and be weighed to make sure their vehicle weight matches the weight on their shipping manifest, i.e. the goods they are paying taxes on.) Putting such scales at the gates to a National Park might be easier than having a ranger get out of the gate booth with a tape measure to find out how long the vehicle way. Also, the wear to roads and, less directly, the utilities the visitors would need at a camp site is better measured by vehicle weight. …They could save money by centralizing water supplies and bathing facilties, and thereby allowing no hook-ups at most campsites. When the sun goes down, sit by the campfire and chat or go to bed. Then you won’t need electricty except for bathroom stuff which again will be centralized. You can then increase the number of tent campsites by reducing the number of RV spots available. To maintain a campground with no utility hook-ups and centralized wash/water is cheap.
This, however, isn’t going to fly politically. It would reduce access for RV owners and the more luxurious car campers. While that might not be a bad thing, those people vote and politicians will listen to them. More to the point, RV owners tend to be older; as the lobbying efforts of the AARP make clear, older and especially retired people are much more likely to be registered voters and/or politically active than the relatively young. When it comes to political influence, the RV owners and luxurious car camping families have more pull than backpackers. Limiting access to benefit backpackers isn’t going to happen. On the other hand, those same RV owners tend to have more money as well: So they probably aren’t going to strongly object to entrance or user fees. The bottom line, in my view, is that they just need to be allocating more cash. Taking a little slice of the defense budget has drawn fire in this forum already but there total NPS is budget, I am told, is only around a billion per. We therefore need .35% of the defense budget to double the NPS allocation.
That’s also not too viable politically. While it might sound cynical, politicians spend government money to buy friends and voters. They aren’t going to look at a $1 billion increase in park funding and dismiss it as trivial next to other government programs. If the money is available from cutting the defence budget, they are going to ask how that billion could best be spent to make the average voter handy. I think social programs, environmental regulations or enforcement, putting 100,000 extra cops on the streets or simply reducing the deficit are likely to soak up any defence cuts before increasing the Park Service sees a cent. Frank Crary CU Boulder
Response:
If you post your ideas, I’ll gather them and post a FAQ that we can inundate these organizations with. My orientation, however, is not to ban RVs, but to say "Hey, your vehicle does impose more costs on others, and on the roads, so you should pay more. Take your choice, $50 or come in a smaller vehicle.
I think I like this idea best of all. Maybe we can’t make people leave their RVs at home, but we can sure as heck charge them more for the privilege. Have reservation systems for the busiest parks to limit access. The targeted parks would be Yosemite, Yellowstone, Grand Canyon, Smoky Mountains, etc. This is not necessary if alternative systems of transportation, such as small buses are made available.
First off, we shouldn’t try and write a single prescription for all the parks. Yosemite, Shenandoah, and Yellowstone aren’t at all like, say, Great Basin, Canyonlands, and Glacier. For the former parks, I think we need both high car fees and a shuttle bus system. That way, if someone really wants to drive their battlecruiser into the park, they can, but at a cost of $50 or so for RVs, and $20 or so for a car. Alternatively, they can pay $4 or so each, ten dollars for a family, and ride the busses. The one cavaet is that we had better make darn sure the bus system is adequate before we spring the fees on the public. Do enough advance planning on the shuttle system, and the tourists won’t even miss their cars. Don’t do enough, and we may never get a second chance to try. In the less visited parks, it might not be feasible to implement a shuttle bus system. Deal with the RVs for now. Maybe later we’ll do something about them. Limit backcountry usage in a system similar to Denali National Park. The only change I would make is the ability to reserve times in advance. There is nothing worse than travelling many miles only to wait several days to get in.
I thought limiting backcountry usage was pretty common; that’s why you needed the Wilderness permit. Turn over some of the national parks (especially National Historic Parks) to private, non-profit groups.
The NPS would probably love to be able to get rid of some of the smaller sites. Contract those out. The big ones, like Gettysburg, that’s something else. Depends on the rules as to how that privates are to manage them.
Yes. Allocate certain areas of parks for specific recreational purposes (such as equistrian, rock climbing, 4 wheeling, etc.) in order to provide a national park experience for the different factions. (However, with environmentalism and protectionism in mind where appropriate.) That would cause a huge squabble.
No ORV or ATVs in the National Park System! That stuff can stay on the national forests or BLM (non-Wilderness areas, of course!) The others would have to be done on a case by case basis. Again, you don’t want to pick fights where you don’t have to, and there are probably a number of NPS areas where equines and rock climbers can coexist with the wilderness purists. My $.02. Todd Kunioka
Response:
I like the idea of charging per foot of length for vehicular access. I have a Golden Eagle pass which gets me in for free (one time $25 charge) I would easily pay $50 for this pass, at $25 it feels like a "steal" to me.
This move would also trim down the size of some of these monster vehicles. For instance, I was in Idaho 2 weeks ago and saw an RV that was bigger than a double-decker bus. I would have charged this people, say 13 million, to drive near a National Park. Smallish cars and certainly hiker/bikers have minimal impact on the roads and utilities. They could save money by centralizing water supplies and bathing facilties, and thereby allowing no hook-ups at most campsites. When the sun goes down, sit by the campfire and chat or go to bed. Then you won’t need electricty except for bathroom stuff which again will be centralized. You can then increase the number of tent campsites by reducing the number of RV spots available. To maintain a campground with no utility hook-ups and centralized wash/water is cheap. You can also generate more revenue by allowing more people in the tent spots at perhaps slightly higher prices. At $10, these sites are a steal anyway. Not only would running off the RV’s reduce crowding and traffic jams, they would reduce the large amount of foul emissions these things must be putting out. Add to that they are energy/fuel hogs and obstruction to the scenery. I dont want to hassle with a reservation system when I am sleeping outside of the park (usfs or blm campsite.. or just side ‘O the road) and I get up at 6am.. drive in, park climb for the day, then drive out around 9-10 pm) why do I need a reservation.. I put it to you that visiting Yosemite this was is very doable and it does not feel that crowded.
I think most of the climbing and backcountry hiking trails are pretty sparse in terms of population. I took the little 1 & 2 miles trails connecting the geyser basins at Yellowstone a while back and there was *no one* there. I estimated at one point tha 10-15% of the world’s population spent the 2nd week of July at Yellostone but once you left the boardwalk and went on the trail, there wasn’t a soul in sight. Therefore limiting permits, climbings, day hikes and such are somewhat pointless since that is not the real source of damage. The bottom line, in my view, is that they just need to be allocating more cash. Taking a little slice of the defense budget has drawn fire in this forum already but there total NPS is budget, I am told, is only around a billion per. We therefore need .35% of the defense budget to double the NPS allocation. D.
Response:
| | Like Cactus Ed said (or sort of), tear up all of the roads in the NPs, | build a big parking lot outside of the park boundaries, have the NPS | rent bicycles at the entry to the park, disallow motorized vehicles in the NPs, | make everyone experience the NPs the way the the parks should be experienced; | out of their air conditioned, noisy, polluting tin cans; either on foot, skis, | bikes, or hell, I wouldn’t even mind horses or mules. I thought the "big parking lot idea" was incorporated into the last major plan for Yosemite (after the Leopold Committee). But was never acted on due to a.) funding problems b.) inability to site enormous expanses of asphalt near the park c.) general bureacratic apathy with regard to implementing the plan… — "Support your right to arm bears." -Farley
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – To curb some of these problems, I propose several ideas. Likewise, if you have ideas, I suggest we, as internet surfers and backcountry enthusiasts, submit these ideas to the National Park Service, Sierra Club, National Park Conservation Association, and others. If you post your ideas, I’ll gather them and post a FAQ that we can inundate these organizations with. My ideas: Charge steep admission ($20-25 per car) to help raise funds and to restrict "passerbyers." This would raise funds for park maintenance and help restrict some traffic. I’m not sure why National Parks need so much money for general purposes. Sure, they need money for lots of "building" purposes, but could that money not be obtained by charging for access to buildings? And I object STRONGLY to simply sharging for access, per se (for US citizens, of course; $25 for foreigners would be fine.) We own the parks, we should not have to pay simply to visit them. I’d rather have them charge for parking at the big parking lots rather than admission.
Yes! Until long-term park plans go into effect that can eliminate private vehicles entirely, charging for parking makes eminent sense. But I disagree about charging for admission. It’s a user fee, that’s all. If I recally correctly, most Americans will never even *visit* a National Park, and yet Americans overwhelmingly think they should be protected. So general tax revenues go to the general cost of keeping the things there and protected, while specific users fees go to cover the cost of dealing with the visitors. Have reservation systems for the busiest parks to limit access. The targeted parks would be Yosemite, Yellowstone, Grand Canyon, Smoky Mountains, etc. Not acceptable, period. We, the people, own the parks .. we should be able to at least visit them unhindered.
Yes, we should be able to visit them unhindered. The only problem is that when 25,000 people are trying to visit the same area at the same time, you’ve got hindrance. A reservation system is coming and it’s absolutely necessary. Otherwise folks are just going to get more and more frustrated by the traffic jams the find in the parks and support for the parks will disappear. The parks have gotten *so* popular that there simply *must* be day-use limitations. Limit backcountry usage in a system similar to Denali National Park. Not acceptable. Same reasons.
Hey, wake up. It’s already here. You’ve *got* to have backcountry reservation systems to keep the backcountry from becoming front country. .Turn over some of the national parks (especially National Historic Parks) to private, non-profit groups.Not acceptable. Acceptably only so long as the NPS maintains strict standards and oversight of such groups. Witness the brouhaha going on in San Antonio right now over the Alamo. The time *has* come for a more balanced historical presentation about the Alamo, but the private, non-profit group responsible is fighting tooth and nail against any such change. Allocate certain areas of parks for specific recreational purposes (such as equistrian, rock climbing, 4 wheeling, etc.) in order to
provide a nationalpark experience for the different factions. This is not a bad idea. But parks should be generally open to general activities (i.e. hiking, single-day rock climbing, etc.). The restrictions should be only for the more damaging things (4 wheeling, biking, and to some lesser extent horses.) I don’t see why things like hang gliding should be absolutely prohibited. In general, the parks are over-regulated already. Most of the problems are only with too many people crowded into tiny areas near the parking lots. The solution to the Park Service’s money problem is easy: give them more money. There’s plenty of money in the treasury for them. Just take it out of welfare, farm supports, and (other) pork (note … goodly doses of money for a park should count as pork for the Congresscritters of that park’s district.) This is, basically, the final solution to the park’s money problems … "porkize" them.
Well, I’m not sure about all that, but one thing that should *definitely* change is that user fees and admission fees should go directly to the NPS budget not, as it is now, into the general coffers of the government. Doug McDonald
Michael McCoy 202-707-6539 "Be ashamed to die until you have won one victory for humanity." –Horace Mann "One must imagine Sisyphus happy."–Camus All statements, opinions, wisdom and drivel contained herein is purely personal and in no way shape or form reflect the views of any institution I’m aware of.
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – : And I object STRONGLY to simply sharging for access, per se (for : US citizens, of course; $25 for foreigners would be fine.) We own : the parks, we should not have to pay simply to visit them. I suppose we "own" them, but someone has to pay for their preservation (or should I say "minimize their exploitation?"). I don’t believe a citizen with absolutely no interest in NP’s should have to pay for them. Just as I’m pissed that I have to pay for the govt. subsidized Liberace Museum. I’m also pissed I have to pay for govt. subsidized NP tour guides (a.k.a. certain Rangers), RV hookups, NP roads,… Secondly, if backcountry users paid admission, presumably they would have a stronger voice in how the NP’s are run (I wouldn’t agree to fees without changes in the NPS). Third, foreign tourism helps our economy. I’d be careful with different usage fees. If your argument is "I’m poor, and can’t afford the admission," I sympathize with you. However, I’m afraid there are those who are poorer than you who can’t even afford transportation to a NP. Should we provide free transportation for them?
I must take issue with this position. National Parks are not commodties nor should they be considered as much. While this may sound extreme, the National Parks are about as close as America gets to "sacred ground". Damn right we should pay for them, even those that do not use them because they are paying for their children, their grandchildren and every generation after that. You cannot compare the NPS to the Liberace Museum (this exists?) because it is the land, no some artifice of man’s design. Once the Olympic Forests are gone, once the geyser beds in Yellostone are disturbed, Once the grizzly is extinct, there is no return. We must actively preserve these areas and the everyone should support the costs. We should do it because we know it is the right thing to do, and not make a decision based on whether or not there is money in it. D.
Response:
I see the real problem in Yosemite as the hordes of mindless motorized tourons and the damage they do–thousands of campfires, car exhaust, the million acts of mass stupidity, over-development within the park
Have any parks tried just banning all campfires? Serious woodsmoke problem in the big parks. The idea, of course, is to piss off the weiner roast crowd enough that they stay home but not so much that they write their senators. Or flame me on the net. Quit roastin’ my wiener! Eric Hirst
Response:
If you post your ideas, I’ll gather them and post a FAQ that we can inundate these organizations with. My ideas: Charge steep admission ($20-25 per car) to help raise funds and to restrict "passerbyers." This would raise funds for park maintenance and help restrict some traffic.
This will require that Congress change the law. Now, with a few exceptions, these fees go to the U.S. Treasury. I think the fees should be graduated as to how big a vehicle you bring. Bicycles may cost $1 or $2 for example. A passenger car or pickup truck $10. A thirty foot RV, $50. From my many experiences in Yellowstone, IMO the Park is not overcrowded. It is overcrowded with RVs, however. These delay traffic and cause much congestion. My orientation, however, is not to ban RVs, but to say "Hey, your vehicle does impose more costs on others, and on the roads, so you should pay more. Take your choice, $50 or come in a smaller vehicle. Have reservation systems for the busiest parks to limit access. The targeted parks would be Yosemite, Yellowstone, Grand Canyon, Smoky Mountains, etc.
This is not necessary if alternative systems of transportation, such as small buses are made available. Limit backcountry usage in a system similar to Denali National Park. The only change I would make is the ability to reserve times in advance. There is nothing worse than travelling many miles only to wait several days to get in. Turn over some of the national parks (especially National Historic Parks) to private, non-profit groups.
Depends on the rules as to how that privates are to manage them. Allocate certain areas of parks for specific recreational purposes (such as equistrian, rock climbing, 4 wheeling, etc.) in order to provide a national park experience for the different factions. (However, with environmentalism and protectionism in mind where appropriate.)
That would cause a huge squabble. — Ralph Maughan Pocatello, Idaho
Response:
As Ralph said, raising fees will not contribute directly to NP well being and will probably discourage them as a source of enjoyment for the impoverished masses ( say for instance, me ). $20-25/ a pop would not discourage the spoiled upper middle class from invading the parks and, while I hate to generalize, they often are the most expecting of creature comforts in national park areas. I would agree with idea of limiting RV hook-ups in NPs (or eliminating them) and would also agree with the higher fees. In terms of car entries, I would suggest a limit if day use of the roadways by an installation of a Denali-like transport system. Cars would park in designated areas outside a park and board a bus that makes a loop around the major trailheads. This would limit the congestion and pollution brought on by cars that tend to form large traffic jams in NPs (i.e Yosemite Valley or Hayden Valley in Yellowstone). Or perhaps we could have a limit on day access entries just as we have a limit on backcountry entries. Once all the campgrounds were full, no or few further cars would be let in (unless you had a hotel reservation). I also like the idea of at least a partial-reservation system. Some parks are very remote and if you have only a limited window of access time, waiting for a couple of days can ruin a vacation. Admittedly, this has never happened to me as I am usually wilinging to consider other paths. I do however, think Yellostone is over crowded. D.
Response:
If you post your ideas, I’ll gather them and post a FAQ that we can inundate these organizations with.
Like Cactus Ed said (or sort of), tear up all of the roads in the NPs, build a big parking lot outside of the park boundaries, have the NPS rent bicycles at the entry to the park, disallow motorized vehicles in the NPs, make everyone experience the NPs the way the the parks should be experienced; out of their air conditioned, noisy, polluting tin cans; either on foot, skis, bikes, or hell, I wouldn’t even mind horses or mules.
Response:
There is an interesting article about National Parks in the latest edition of Newsweek. It seems, because of severe overcrowding in some parks, that the NPS is going to have to restrict access. In addition, there are motions to increase the number of National parks (Joshua Tree, Mohave Desert, Death Valley, etc.) at the same time as funding is decreasing. There are parks that are severely jeopardized (such as Shenedoah, Everglades, Yellowstone, Yosemite, etc.) from commercial or other outside factions. To curb some of these problems, I propose several ideas. Likewise, if you have ideas, I suggest we, as internet surfers and backcountry enthusiasts, submit these ideas to the National Park Service, Sierra Club, National Park Conservation Association, and others. If you post your ideas, I’ll gather them and post a FAQ that we can inundate these organizations with. My ideas: Charge steep admission ($20-25 per car) to help raise funds and to restrict "passerbyers." This would raise funds for park maintenance and help restrict some traffic. Have reservation systems for the busiest parks to limit access. The targeted parks would be Yosemite, Yellowstone, Grand Canyon, Smoky Mountains, etc. Limit backcountry usage in a system similar to Denali National Park. The only change I would make is the ability to reserve times in advance. There is nothing worse than travelling many miles only to wait several days to get in. Turn over some of the national parks (especially National Historic Parks) to private, non-profit groups. Allocate certain areas of parks for specific recreational purposes (such as equistrian, rock climbing, 4 wheeling, etc.) in order to provide a national park experience for the different factions. (However, with environmentalism and protectionism in mind where appropriate.)
Response:
To curb some of these problems, I propose several ideas. Likewise, if you have ideas, I suggest we, as internet surfers and backcountry enthusiasts, submit these ideas to the National Park Service, Sierra Club, National Park Conservation Association, and others. If you post your ideas, I’ll gather them and post a FAQ that we can inundate these organizations with. My ideas: Charge steep admission ($20-25 per car) to help raise funds and to restrict "passerbyers." This would raise funds for park maintenance and help restrict some traffic.
I’m not sure why National Parks need so much money for general purposes. Sure, they need money for lots of "building" purposes, but could that money not be obtained by charging for access to buildings? And I object STRONGLY to simply sharging for access, per se (for US citizens, of course; $25 for foreigners would be fine.) We own the parks, we should not have to pay simply to visit them. I’d rather have them charge for parking at the big parking lots rather than admission. Have reservation systems for the busiest parks to limit access. The targeted parks would be Yosemite, Yellowstone, Grand Canyon, Smoky Mountains, etc.
Not acceptable, period. We, the people, own the parks .. we should be able to at least visit them unhindered. Limit backcountry usage in a system similar to Denali National Park.
Not acceptable. Same reasons. Turn over some of the national parks (especially National Historic Parks) to private, non-profit groups.
Not acceptable. Allocate certain areas of parks for specific recreational purposes (such as equistrian, rock climbing, 4 wheeling, etc.) in order to provide a national park experience for the different factions.
This is not a bad idea. But parks should be generally open to general activities (i.e. hiking, single-day rock climbing, etc.). The restrictions should be only for the more damaging things (4 wheeling, biking, and to some lesser extent horses.) I don’t see why things like hang gliding should be absolutely prohibited. In general, the parks are over-regulated already. Most of the problems are only with too many people crowded into tiny areas near the parking lots. The solution to the Park Service’s money problem is easy: give them more money. There’s plenty of money in the treasury for them. Just take it out of welfare, farm supports, and (other) pork (note … goodly doses of money for a park should count as pork for the Congresscritters of that park’s district.) This is, basically, the final solution to the park’s money problems … "porkize" them. Doug McDonald
Response:
: And I object STRONGLY to simply sharging for access, per se (for : US citizens, of course; $25 for foreigners would be fine.) We own : the parks, we should not have to pay simply to visit them. I suppose we "own" them, but someone has to pay for their preservation (or should I say "minimize their exploitation?"). I don’t believe a citizen with absolutely no interest in NP’s should have to pay for them. Just as I’m pissed that I have to pay for the govt. subsidized Liberace Museum. I’m also pissed I have to pay for govt. subsidized NP tour guides (a.k.a. certain Rangers), RV hookups, NP roads,… Secondly, if backcountry users paid admission, presumably they would have a stronger voice in how the NP’s are run (I wouldn’t agree to fees without changes in the NPS). Third, foreign tourism helps our economy. I’d be careful with different usage fees. If your argument is "I’m poor, and can’t afford the admission," I sympathize with you. However, I’m afraid there are those who are poorer than you who can’t even afford transportation to a NP. Should we provide free transportation for them? : The solution to the Park Service’s money problem is easy: give them : more money. There’s plenty of money in the treasury for them. : Just take it out of welfare, farm supports, and (other) pork (note … Great. Just don’t take it from NASA, University-funded aerospace research, and any other of MY special interests, OK?! :^/ — Aerospace Engineering Dept. University of Michigan
Response:
To curb some of these problems, I propose several ideas… Limit backcountry usage in a system similar to Denali National Park. The only change I would make is the ability to reserve times in advance. There is nothing worse than travelling many miles only to wait several days to get in.
Denali’s system sucks (for the reason you mention, not being able to reserve in advance). Grand Canyon NP is much better. They send you information ahead of time that gives you an idea of what the different sectors of the park are like (we had to just guess with Denali) and you can reserve in advance. — / The truth is not known except to the wise, | dod#0009 cliff swallow __<a href=ftp://ncardata.ucar.edu/catalogs/.html/me.htmlIlana Stern</a
Response:
I would agree with idea of limiting RV hook-ups in NPs (or eliminating them) and would also agree with the higher fees. In terms of car entries, I would suggest a limit if day use of the roadways by an installation of a Denali-like transport system. Cars would park in designated areas outside a park and board a bus that makes a loop around the major trailheads. This would limit the congestion and pollution brought on by cars that tend to form large traffic jams in NPs (i.e Yosemite Valley or Hayden Valley in Yellowstone). Or perhaps we could have a limit on day access entries just as we have a limit on backcountry entries. Once all the campgrounds were full, no or few further cars would be let in (unless you had a hotel reservation).
In the Kenyan National Parks, no driving is allowed after dark. This is strongly enforced, there is an exception given to folks who stay in the bandas (cottages) but go over to the Lodges for supper. In fact you couldn’t even walk around outside of the lodge area after dark. Sort of a reversal – the animals are free, the people are fenced in. At least this was the case in 1983. Sounds like a good idea for U.S. National Parks too. Not a major improvement, but it lets the animals have at least some break from the humans. As for those parks with major thoroughfares going through them, well, emergency vehicles yes, but for others, "you’ll have to go around". Yes, I am aware that` it’s a loooong way around Rocky Mtn Ntl Park (I live out in that neck of the woods), perhaps a 10 pm closure would be more workable in that case. — mkp (actually my first choice is Ed Abbey’s idea of total closure to vehicles, but the world is full of compromises)
Response:
I’m going to keep my remarks in the context of what I know about Yosemite (YMMV): | My ideas: | Charge steep admission ($20-25 per car) to help raise funds and to restrict | "passerbyers." This would raise funds for park maintenance and help restrict | some traffic. I’d support higher entrance fees for non-citizens. Maybe at the gate you could wave a xerox of last year’s tax form as proof for the lower citizen rate. 
Lobby your local sleazebal…oh..I mean, congressman for more park funding. | Have reservation systems for the busiest parks to limit access. The targeted | parks would be Yosemite, Yellowstone, Grand Canyon, Smoky Mountains, etc. This already exists in Yosemite as far as campsites and hotel rooms are concerned. Although I don’t know if you can reserve a tee-off time in Southern Yosemite yet… | Limit backcountry usage in a system similar to Denali National Park. The only | change I would make is the ability to reserve times in advance. There is | nothing worse than travelling many miles only to wait several days to get in. Again, a backcountry reservation system exists in Yosemite. You gotta plan ahead–snooze, you lose! | Turn over some of the national parks (especially National Historic Parks) to | private, non-profit groups. Oh Gawd, not the privatization arguement again! ;- | Allocate certain areas of parks for specific recreational purposes (such as | equistrian, rock climbing, 4 wheeling, etc.) in order to provide a national park | experience for the different factions. (However, with environmentalism and | protectionism in mind where appropriate.) This has already been done in places by the USFS and the state of California. I’m not sure divving up the National Parks to different user areas would win much support. Hikers, climbers and equestrians all pretty much get along (although they may grit their teeth while doing so). I don’t see *that* much conflict between backcountry users (yeah, people bitch about horses, mule trains, etc.). I see the real problem in Yosemite as the hordes of mindless motorized tourons and the damage they do–thousands of campfires, car exhaust, the million acts of mass stupidity, over-development within the park boundaries, trampling meadows and riparian habitats, general ignorance and disregard for the resources, etc…. Maybe our expectations need to be managed as well. National parks, especially the really famous, accessible ones like Yosemite, RMNP, J Tree, etc. will be crowded. If you want solitude, try a USFS Wilderness Area (and get off the trails). Or go to Alaska (but not Denali NP!). I view the national park system more like a resource like the way Europeans view the Alps (except maybe to keep our parks cleaner!). I’ll pause now…NEXT! — "Support your right to arm bears." -Farley
Response:
Filed under: Lobbying
Leave a Comment
XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
TrackBack URL | RSS feed for comments on this post.