National Parks Proposal

[Gumby]

Hi neighbor.

In NC, we take a hybrid approach. All (~35) of our state parks are free (funded through state taxes) for admission, and are open every day but Christmas. There are a few "recreation areas" that charge a per car entrance fee for the upgraded amenities. It works well for us. We visit several parks each year with some perennial favorites. We do some limited volunteer support each year as well. A little skin in the game is important for us, but that's just us.

Our 35 state parks and forests here in CT are a mixed bag. Some are completely free, some charge for parking, some charge for camping, some for both and 3 of them charge a tour fee. Vehicles with CT license plates don't pay the parking fees, because we all pay a mandatory $10 "passport to the parks" fee when we renew our car registration.

 

[Chuckanut]

Keep in mind that government (local, state and federal) collaborated with business to dam Yosemite National Park and flood the Hetch Hetchy Valley for San Francisco's water supply. With today's crowding in Yosemite Valley a 2nd such valley would be a wonderful resource. Alas, it's under 300 feet of water. A proposal in the 1980's by the Regan administration to remove the dam went nowhere for a number of reasons, good and bad.

Public outrage was so great that a few years later Congress tightened up the laws concerning National Parks to ensure the parks were be preserved for the enjoyment of all. Nevertheless, it did happen and with the approval of Congress.

 

[SpinDoctorTX]

The first line in the article cited:

"A Trump administration advisory panel is recommending an ambitious plan to give private businesses greater access to national parks, according to a memorandum written by an advisory council for the Department of the Interior."

I'm strongly opposed to this. National parks do not need "greater business access". If people want to shop, they can go to their local mall. I hear they're not crowded. If they want WiFi and other amenities, they can do what people already do: stay in motels just outside the park boundaries.

The National Park Service has been starved for adequate funds for years. They do a remarkable job despite that. Entrance fees and some pass fees have gone dramatically up in the past two years. I'm glad that I was able to get a Senior lifetime pass for just $10 when I turned 62.

I just returned from a trip to the southwest and visited at least 9 federal facilities including 5 national parks. This was not my first time in the region, but I never cease to be amazed by the incredible landscapes and scenery in that region. I've been fortunate to have been able to travel a lot throughout the world, but the western USA has the most magnificent and diverse scenery and sights of any region I know.

+1 (and we are OH so grateful for DH's Golden Pass... Most of our vacations are to parks across the US). It doesn't take much planning to take in what you want (and take it with you when you go).

 

[timo2]

If I am camping, I don’t expect places to shop. And a separate matter, lots of us old folks have lifetime passes that won’t generate much profit for a concessionaire.

When I worked at yellowstone that one year, it was eye opening the expectations of the public. We did have several people stop by to ask us (we were on the side of the road working) where the nearest shopping mall was. The answer actually was in Bozeman MT. But we did ask ourselves " did those people see any shopping malls on the way into the park? did they think we had them hidden somewhere?"

 

[aaronc879]

Maybe if they raised the prices, it would cure some of the overcrowding and attendant strain on the infrastructure.

I think it should be the opposite. National Parks should have free admission to any legal resident. There should be a fee for anyone from another country who has a Passport(maybe $50/nt, $100/3 days, $200/wk). You shouldn't have to be financially we off to visit National Parks. Also, I feel that the parks should be left as close as possible to their natural state while still being safe for visitors.

 

[Chuckanut]

When I worked at yellowstone that one year, it was eye opening the expectations of the public. We did have several people stop by to ask us (we were on the side of the road working) where the nearest shopping mall was. The answer actually was in Bozeman MT. But we did ask ourselves " did those people see any shopping malls on the way into the park? did they think we had them hidden somewhere?"

Tell the truth! You kept the them secret so you could direct the gullible tourists to your cousin's general store.

 

[Canoeboy]

One of the great things about The United States of America is that over 100 years ago great leaders (political, Naturalists, Conservationists, media) had the collective foresight and will to establish our National Parks. They realized that these UNIQUE landscapes, ecosystems, cultural and historical sites needed to be PRESERVED for the benefit of generations to come. The goal with these parks is to provide public access, related experiences, and education while MINIMIZING IMPACT on the site.

We have been to over 90 parks in the National Park System. When camping there we only NEED a spot to park our camper, a picnic table, a fire ring, and access to a pit toilet. All of the 40+ NP campgrounds we have stayed at met those criteria. In addition, we WANT to have relative peace and quiet, especially during quiet hours - not always met. If you have wants/needs greater than listed above (which generate > minimal impact) please stay at a Campground outside of the park. Many National Forest and State Park campgrounds have bath houses, flush toilets, and electric hookups. Most of the big NP’s have private campgrounds just outside of the park entrance. Some rise to the level of “resort campgrounds” with food service, pools, mini-golf, ice cream, etc, etc, etc. Not my cup of tea, but I respect that others may want that level of chaos.

Sure, National Parks have many billions $$$ in deferred maintenance. Same is true of our roads, bridges, tunnels and other public infrastructure (actually trillions $$$). The solution for our National Parks is not to turn the keys over to Private for-profit entities. NO KOA’s in National Parks!!!!

 

[jimandthom]

We have frequent guests--more each year actually, that come for a few days mostly to rest and relax. The guests all come from SE MI and NW Ohio--heavily populated.

The state of MI has developed a series of "mini-parks" along the Lake Superior shore whee you can get out and walk often a few hundred yards on somewhat improved paths(mostly over wetlands for conservation purposes) that ultimately take you to Lake Superior.

After going to a couple of these, we finally head home, with our guests sitting everso quietly. You can tell the emotional connect that occurred in these guests, you can see wetness in their eyes, the breathing is slower yet rhythmic. The signs of stress are melting away.

People ----we need these moments of centering---- and what better place to get these moments but from the sources that if you let your imagination play can be very much like the beginning of time.

I am very concerned that someday, someone with $$ and influence will get the greenlight to put housing developments, malls etc in all these places.

Read a book by Also Leopold---Sand County Alamac(my favorite) and then visit closet national or even state park and find a secluded area to shut of the world. It can be life changing. Just reading his description of what he saw can become an emotional event. Read up on John Muir, Teddy R and others. We need these places to be primitve, so we can truly see how small we are.

Modern amenites may be needed, but should only go so far as the "welcome area--- the you are here X" Have a degree of improved paths that let you get a taste of things. The real truth of who we are occurs when civilization disappears behind you as you walk on into the magic.

 

[AaronGoodman]

While I would have liked a occasional Wifi in my recent trip thru YNP and GTNP (or even cell service), the idea of any noticeable upset to either is not something I'd want.

There are plenty of RV parks just outside most, if not all, National Parks that are privately owned and have all the amenities one could want. I do not want our Nation Parks to turn into a commercialized experience so that people who really don't want to be camping can be more comfortable. Our National Parks are not destination resorts. There are already destination resorts where it is commercially viable to support them. We need to demand that our National, and State, Parks are adequately funded.

 

[AaronGoodman]

Thank you.

 

[meierlde]

True.

Even in Yellowstone, a 1/2 mile walk down the trails away from Old Faithful will eliminate 80% of the visitors. A two mile hike down a trail will eliminate 95% of the visitors, IMHO. (Albeit, on a busy Summer day, there will still be enough people on the trail so nobody will feel alone.)

I know people from places like New York who drive up to a view point take a picture, and for them, that is a 'wilderness' experience. I know others who go on a four day backpack and if they see more than two people a day, their wilderness experience is ruined.

Taking Zion park as an example, the main valley section is severly overcrowded, but the

Kolob Canyons section that has its own exit off I-15 that gets few visitors.Or for a view from the top down there is lava point off a mostly paved 25 mile drive west of the valley.
On the main point, recall that for a long time park lodges were operated by nearby railroads in the west. (at least at the older Utah parks and Glacier park) for the railroads this was a way to generate passenger traffic (from 1900 up to about 1940 or so) For an example at old faithful the lodge and inn were always run by private operators. Since campgrounds have been upgraded from the old model old tent camping model to the modern rv model, requiring plumbing and electrical hook ups building a campground costs a lot more due to far more infrastructure. Perhaps a solution is to divide the campgrounds into two groups the one with distributed infrastructure that is run by a concession and those with just a central toilet infrastructure that are still run by the park service.

 

[Senator]

There are plenty of RV parks just outside most, if not all, National Parks that are privately owned and have all the amenities one could want. I do not want our Nation Parks to turn into a commercialized experience so that people who really don't want to be camping can be more comfortable. Our National Parks are not destination resorts. There are already destination resorts where it is commercially viable to support them. We need to demand that our National, and State, Parks are adequately funded.

Every National Park that I have been in has a donation box. Have you helped the parks by donating directly to them?

 

[AaronGoodman]

When I was working I would make pretty good donations to the National Park system every year. Yes. Have you?
And now, most of my life is spent volunteering in state and national parks.

 

[Senator]

When I was working I would make pretty good donations to the National Park system every year. Yes. Have you?
And now, most of my life is spent volunteering in state and national parks.

I visit them frequently. I have a NP Access pass, so I get in free the rest of my life. As a disabled Vet, I have already given the government a signed, blank check, to be filled out for any amount, up to and including my life. I have already given the government plenty, I should not have to give any more.

A private firm running the concessions would probably be more efficient. Much like many of the concessions and lodging is already done in most parks.

A program like the CCC would also help tremendously. People that cannot find, or refuses to find, work could be put into the program. Selling the naming rights would likely generate a lot of revenue.

A name like "Yellowstone National Park by Amazon" would probably generate millions a year, and not impact the park at all.

 

[KCGeezer]

Would Yogi and Boo-Boo have to wear logos?

 

[travelover]

Would Yogi and Boo-Boo have to wear logos?

Too late

 

[Chuckanut]

Would Yogi and Boo-Boo have to wear logos?

Probably. And look what happened to Jellystone NP. It's gone. No more.

 

[Chuckanut]

A name like "Yellowstone National Park by Amazon" would probably generate millions a year, and not impact the park at all.

NO! I don't want Yellowstone moved to the Brazilian jungle.

 

[Mdlerth]

Senator Claghorn, a division of Amalgamated Industries Inc

Selling the naming rights would likely generate a lot of revenue.

A name like "Yellowstone National Park by Amazon" would probably generate millions a year, and not impact the park at all.

I'd like to see this concept extended to politicians. Ordinary folk already believe they are bought and paid for; at least then we'd know by whom.

 

[braumeister]

I'd like to see this concept extended to politicians. Ordinary folk already believe they are bought and paid for; at least then we'd know by whom.

I think they should wear jackets with patches that show the logos of their corporate sponsors, like NASCAR drivers do. The size of the logo would be related to the percentage of their campaign financing from that source.

 

[MichaelB]

I think they should wear jackets with patches that show the logos of their corporate sponsors, like NASCAR drivers do. The size of the logo would be related to the percentage of their campaign financing from that source.

I like that. Very creative. Perhaps, for particularly large or long time donors, instead of patches, tattoos. A show of commitment.

 

[CardsFan]

And, just for the record, not all National Parks are in the [-]middle of nowhere[/-] beautiful wilderness. The Gateway Arch National Park is in downtown St. Louis.

Also, there is Dry Tortugas National Park, which we intend to visit next month (about a 70 mile boat ride from Key West). Without "commercial interests" it would not be accessible to 99.9% of the population.

 

[Red Badger]

And, just for the record, not all National Parks are in the [-]middle of nowhere[/-] beautiful wilderness. The Gateway Arch National Park is in downtown St. Louis.

Also, there is Dry Tortugas National Park, which we intend to visit next month (about a 70 mile boat ride from Key West). Without "commercial interests" it would not be accessible to 99.9% of the population.

FWIW, the Blue Ridge Parkway is part of the national park system. Seems fairly accessible and cell phone works along most of it. Also lined with hotels, BnB's, cabins, and resorts. Ruined I tell ya; just ruined!

DW and I will be motoring it most of the coming week. But not the weekend. Just no.

 

[Senator]

And, just for the record, not all National Parks are in the [-]middle of nowhere[/-] beautiful wilderness. The Gateway Arch National Park is in downtown St. Louis.

Also, there is Dry Tortugas National Park, which we intend to visit next month (about a 70 mile boat ride from Key West). Without "commercial interests" it would not be accessible to 99.9% of the population.

Hot Springs National Park is 100% commercialized and right in downtown. And free to 'enter'. You can get naked and have a same sex person scrub you down and give you an expensive bath in one of the many bath houses. That is what they do.

 

[DrRoy]

It makes sense. The Parks are in need of revenue. The campgrounds are outdated.

+1. The NP's need more funding for upkeep already and a number of new areas have been added without funding.

Most Americans probably want the unspoiled natural state of the Park. Until they have to get out of their car to view it...

DW and I definitely like to get a mile or 3 away from the roads.
May Lake in the Yosemite backcountry.
.