National Parks Proposal

[Senator]

People who travel in Big Rigs have everything they need in the rig. No need to pollute campgrounds with amenities these folks already bring with them.

Some camp sites can only take a 25 or 30' rig. I have a 39' rig. I may want water, 50 amp power and sewer hookups. WiFi is mandatory in today's world, especially in the remote parks. I should be able to use the campground as much as someone does in a tent.

I need a lot larger driveway to get into the campground, more room to drive through the spots, and a lot more spots as they fill up sometimes years in advance.

If they have to raise the prices, so be it.

 

[Chuckanut]

But the idea of the parks is to make them accessible of most of the population, not necessarily keep them in the shape where only the most fit can access them [that's what wilderness areas are for]. And parks that are maintained so poorly that they start becoming inaccessible to most people is a defacto change of mission for the National Parks. That said, making the campgrounds profit centers is a questionable tactic, given how the poorly the current National Park concessionaires operate.

I agree that the parks need to be acessible to most of us. And that does require modern amenities as well as wilderness areas.

Years ago I had a lunch with a friend and his nephew. The nephew was the the Superintendent of a major National Park. . He pointed out that broad public support is needed to keep our National Parks. If only a hardy group of wilderness fans can make use of them, they will lose public (read that political) support. So the NPS makes certain that just about everybody can have a good experience in the National Parks. So far I think they have done an admirable job balancing all the factors they face.

Free the Hetch Hetchy!!!!!

Attached is a photo of the Hetch Hetchy Valley in Yosemite National Park before San Francisco dammed it for their water supply. IMHO, not all development in National Parks is a good thing. The nation lost a 2nd glorious Yosemite Valley that is sorely needed today.

 

[joeea]

They should charge rigs by the foot.

 

[Senator]

They should charge rigs by the foot.

It doesn't cost any more for a large rig, than a small one. Number of people is where the larger expenses may be.

My guess is that if it is privatized, a campground would be market rate, rather than only 25% of it.

A better plan is to have the parks generate the revenue required to support it.

 

[joeea]

It doesn't cost any more for a large rig, than a small one.

"Some camp sites can only take a 25 or 30' rig. I have a 39' rig."

So accommodating larger rigs takes work which costs actual money. And thus larger rigs should pay for that work.

 

[mpeirce]

But the idea of the parks is to make them accessible of most of the population, not necessarily keep them in the shape where only the most fit can access them [that's what wilderness areas are for]. And parks that are maintained so poorly that they start becoming inaccessible to most people is a defacto change of mission for the National Parks.

Some people don't seem to make a distinction between National Parks and other federal lands. Here's a good explainer:

https://www.doi.gov/blog/americas-public-lands-explained

I expect there will always be arguments between people who hate anything that reeks of "commercial" on public lands while others love "responsible commercial interests" developing infrastructure there.

I personally would love some serious upgrading of the lodges in many parks.

 

[joeea]

I expect there will always be arguments between people who hate anything that reeks of "commercial" on public lands while others love "responsible commercial interests" developing infrastructure there.

Yup.

Because "responsible" is in the eye of the beholder, it will always be a difficult issue.

Some think it's responsible to allow drilling, mining or commercial logging on parks and/or federal land. Some even think much of that land should just be sold.

Others think that this land is held in trust for the people and should remain undeveloped.

 

[RobbieB]

How about hunting permits?

I know some billionaire would pay a million or two to bag smokey the bear in yellowstone.

 

[Gumby]

How about hunting permits?

I know some billionaire would pay a million or two to bag smokey the bear in yellowstone.

I would pay to hunt the big RVs. And the tour buses.

 

[Mdlerth]

Only you can prevent -BLAM!-

How about hunting permits?

I know some billionaire would pay a million or two to bag smokey the bear in yellowstone.

There are National Forests in which hunting is allowed. Those are federal lands, and there are lots of them.

But not in National Parks. These have a totally different intended use.

 

[joeea]

There are National Forests in which hunting is allowed. Those are federal lands, and there are lots of them.

But not in National Parks. These have a totally different intended use.

For now.

 

[Walt34]

The two quoted posts are contradictory. Bigger rigs need more paved areas. That costs more money. So does upgrading 25 amp power to 50 amp power, as does running in potable water and dealing with sewage. Why do you think those upgrades are free?

Oh, and humanity somehow survived for millennia without WiFi. That has not changed.

Bolded sections by me.

It doesn't cost any more for a large rig, than a small one. Number of people is where the larger expenses may be.

My guess is that if it is privatized, a campground would be market rate, rather than only 25% of it.

A better plan is to have the parks generate the revenue required to support it.

Some camp sites can only take a 25 or 30' rig. I have a 39' rig. I may want water, 50 amp power and sewer hookups. WiFi is mandatory in today's world, especially in the remote parks. I should be able to use the campground as much as someone does in a tent.

I need a lot larger driveway to get into the campground, more room to drive through the spots, and a lot more spots as they fill up sometimes years in advance.

If they have to raise the prices, so be it.

 

[Teacher Terry]

If you want power you need to run your generator which is noisy and you can’t do it at night or in the early morning. We picked a site with power at YS and the GT. But our motor home is only 27 ft so easier to find a spot. We booked a year in advance. At 55 and 75/night they charge enough for a spot. We had to go when I wasn’t teaching because of the no internet.

 

[joeea]

Oh, and humanity somehow survived for millennia without WiFi. That has not changed.

Sure.

Similarly, humanity somehow survived for millennia without heat, indoor plumbing, clean water, houses, clothing, readily available food, and medicine.

That doesn't mean it was all fun...

 

[Walt34]

Sure.

Similarly, humanity somehow survived for millennia without heat, indoor plumbing, clean water, houses, clothing, readily available food, and medicine.

That doesn't mean it was all fun...

It can be. One of my most memorable childhood vacations was a huge family gathering in Allegheny State Park. Families stayed in one cabin. It did have electricity in the form of one bare light bulb hanging from the ceiling. There was no form of heat that I remember, but I do remember being chilled in the mornings. And certainly no A/C. Anything electric was powered by batteries. Water came from a hand-pumped well that served all the cabins. Same with the outhouse. Food was brought in (no stores) and was eaten either cold or cooked on a charcoal grill.

We all had a great time.

Now, the topic here is parks, and vacations, which are optional, not normal everyday living standards. A summer week in a state park is entirely different from year-round living, where yes indeed I want running water, etc., but that is not the topic of this thread.

 

[joeea]

It can be. One of my most memorable childhood vacations was a huge family gathering in Allegheny State Park. Families stayed in one cabin. It did have electricity in the form of one bare light bulb hanging from the ceiling. There was no form of heat that I remember, but I do remember being chilled in the mornings. And certainly no A/C. Anything electric was powered by batteries. Water came from a hand-pumped well that served all the cabins. Same with the outhouse. Food was brought in (no stores) and was eaten either cold or cooked on a charcoal grill.

We all had a great time.

How nice.

My mother's family had a similar "camp cabin". No screens for the windows. No running water aside from the well (and that water smelled). No heat. No television. Lots of bugs. Lots of leeches in the pond.

I remember having to bring a flashlight and a stick to the outhouse at night. The flashlight was to see whatever critters were waiting for me. The stick was to give me a fighting chance.

I'll pass.

 

[MuirWannabe]

I agree that the parks need to be acessible to most of us. And that does require modern amenities as well as wilderness areas.

Years ago I had a lunch with a friend and his nephew. The nephew was the the Superintendent of a major National Park. . He pointed out that broad public support is needed to keep our National Parks. If only a hardy group of wilderness fans can make use of them, they will lose public (read that political) support. So the NPS makes certain that just about everybody can have a good experience in the National Parks. So far I think they have done an admirable job balancing all the factors they face.

Free the Hetch Hetchy!!!!!

Attached is a photo of the Hetch Hetchy Valley in Yosemite National Park before San Francisco dammed it for their water supply. IMHO, not all development in National Parks is a good thing. The nation lost a 2nd glorious Yosemite Valley that is sorely needed today.

Yes, free Hetch Hetchy. Haha, while I agree and would support the same fight my namesake battled for, its not gonna happen.

 

[RobbieB]

I remember camping with an outhouse a short walk from the tent. You did your stuff quick and left fast.

Pumped water with a big green hand pump too. I thought in was cool then, but I was nine years old.

 

[Chuckanut]

What?!?!?! Not enough places to shop near the campgrounds!!!

My goodness! Who is forcing these poor folks to visit NP campgrounds rather than NYC. FWIW, the NPS offers many great historical sites in cities that are full of stores to shop at, fancy hotels to stay in and gourmet restaurants to eat in.

 

[Senator]

The two quoted posts are contradictory. Bigger rigs need more paved areas. That costs more money. So does upgrading 25 amp power to 50 amp power, as does running in potable water and dealing with sewage. Why do you think those upgrades are free?

Oh, and humanity somehow survived for millennia without WiFi. That has not changed.

Bolded sections by me.

You are 100% correct. To some extent, I was playing devil's advocate. People want an unspoiled vast parkland, that they have access to. But they do not want to pay for it. Maybe they can take a few dollars off of SS to pay? Or AFDC? Or take away a few dollars from the school budget?

Charging market rates for each park or pass would be great a start. Camping is ridiculously cheap in a national park. Or we have to put in quotas that limit the number of people through the gates, much like the Boundary Waters Canoe Area in MN.

Many of the facilities were constructed by the CCC in the 1930s. It would be nice if we could put people to work doing a similar thing, although today the CCC program would likely be illegal.

Commercialization would not be bad. Many park facilities are already managed by private firms and it seems to work. Logging in many areas, especially after a forest fire, would take dead trees and put use to them. Managing the budget wiser would also be good. When a fire happens in a National Park, they only use water, not fire retardant due to some rule. Water is not as effective and more forest burns. Timber sales would help.

 

[Chuckanut]

Commercialization would not be bad. Many park facilities are already managed by private firms and it seems to work. Logging in many areas, especially after a forest fire, would take dead trees and put use to them. Managing the budget wiser would also be good. When a fire happens in a National Park, they only use water, not fire retardant due to some rule. Water is not as effective and more forest burns. Timber sales would help.

Dead trees are part of the ecosystem. Remove them and things can change for the worse. They provide food, housing and nutrients for all sorts of critters. The fire problem we have today is a result of decades of over suppression that have allowed to much burnable material to accumulate on forest floors.

I was in Yellowstone about 10 years after the massive fires. It's amazing to see the forest come back. Meadows full of flowers, grass and young new trees filled the park. Old diseased trees were replace by young ones. The young ones thrive in the mineral rich soil that burnt and decaying old trees make possible. The animals experienced an increase in their food supply. Fire is part of the forest ecosystem. It's nature version of 'creative destruction'.

On the subject of improving the campgrounds I would add that the Canadians have done some things worth copying. IIRC, most campgrounds have a small general store where people can get basic camping supplies and food items. I remember taking the kids to one, where after a particularly cold, rainy night, we all got hot chocolate and donuts.

 

[SnowballCamper]

"The National Park Service is dedicated to conserving unimpaired the natural and cultural resources and values of the National Park System for the enjoyment, education, and inspiration of this and future generations." https://www.nps.gov/orgs/1955/our-mission-and-role.htm

Now that I'm retired, and have the time to visit the parks, I find that I enjoy camping in the national forests much more.

The price is about the same.

There is usually not cell service, and never wifi available.

The campsites are always larger in the national forest.

The hookup situation is about the same. There are no hookups. Potable water and a pit toilet is available. The national parks usually have flush toilets at campgrounds.

The only thing for sale in the national forest is firewood.

As far as camping goes, the forest service does a much better job. If the national parks convert their campgrounds to RV parks, I don't see how that would be "conserving unimpaired the natural and cultural resources..." It would make it easier for me to decide not to camp in the national parks.

The national parks are places to be inspired by natural and cultural resources. RV hookups, wifi, cell service, gift shops, etc. do not provide inspiration from natural and cultural resources that are unique to NPS lands.

EDIT And my snarky response: just like privatizing housing for the military has turned out to be great, so do it for the national parks too.

 

[Red Badger]

I remember camping with an outhouse a short walk from the tent. You did your stuff quick and left fast.

Pumped water with a big green hand pump too. I thought in was cool then, but I was nine years old.

Until I was about 10 YO, this wasn't camping - - - it was home. Outhouse and well water. Big family. We all survived.

Meanwhile, back on topic, Ken Burns did one of his series on the national parks. In a word, phenomenal.

 

[athena53]

Might as well just sell them off to Disney.

Yep. The Disney idea occurred to me, too. Shopping. Ziplines. "Flightseeing" tours. How about a giant Ferris wheel? No money in just letting people go for a hike. Our national parks will resemble cruise ports.

 

[joeea]

Commercialization would not be bad.

The term "commercialization" spans a wide range of possibilities, from a few signs to strip mines.

It might not be bad. But I wouldn't bet on it.