National Parks Proposal

[Canoeboy]

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

Yes directly when we visit. And significant contributions through taxes.

 

[Canoeboy]

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.

+1

 

[Canoeboy]

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.

Amen brother!

 

[Pellice]

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.

Absolutely! Why choke off the entrepreneurs outside of parks providing restaurants, campgrounds, lodging, liquor stores, shopping in favor of no-competition contracts (in many cases ultimately held by big corporations) for "concessions" inside the park. Our protected lands are exceedingly precious - for wildlife, for vegetation, for views. An example I can cite (though it's a state park) is Liberty State Park in NJ. It is not large, but it has some undeveloped areas that are just priceless for local wildlife and birds. There are CONSTANT efforts by developers to layer over these areas with marinas, golf courses, convention centers - as though NJ lacks any of these.

Let's support those small businessmen outside of parks. No, I don't like the clusters just outside the entrances - but I'd a heck of a lot rather have it outside than inside.

 

[KCGeezer]

Thinking of mom & pop stores, how many here have been to Wall Drug?

Oh, and thanks to everyone for such a civil discussion. I was worried it could have quickly veered off topic.

 

[braumeister]

Thinking of mom & pop stores, how many here have been to Wall Drug?

I've been there, some time in the 1970s. You pretty much have to when driving across the state, since there's a sign reminding you about every 50 feet!

But I think a better question would be how many have been there more than once?

 

[KCGeezer]

3 times. And good suggestion.

 

[indiajust]

Free is the most expensive thing you will ever pay for. Prices represent information about how people value the service being offered by the parks. Destroying prices destroys knowledge.

Rather than politically experiment with the "shoulds", a decentralized experimental approach has better odds of finding out what tomorrows park users will appreciate and be willing to pay for. Whether that is Wifi, shopping, or megaRV parking, auto friendly...

Park services are underfunded Because they are politically provided, not focused on users needs via prices. Rangers and parks get more money, and suffer less political intervention, when they gain market experience.

Actions have consequences. Keeping parks as political patronage is bad for users and parks. Change the system of funding and it will be easier for rangers to figure out what users want, since you will see what they are willing to pay for.

Decentralizing and localizing the decision process keeps this local, with the folks who know best. Not the political shoulds.

 

[Independent]

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

For me, that would dramatically impact the experience.

I'd much rather increase entrance fees. Yellowstone is $35 per vehicle per day, and $70 for an annual pass*. Compare that to what people spend traveling to the park.


*and $80 for a lifetime senior pass

 

[Chuckanut]

When did Wall Drugs become a National Park?

Seriously, I was there once. Looked around inside for a while. Then I asked a local for the quickest way out of town.

 

[Mdlerth]

Beware the slippery slope

Free is the most expensive thing you will ever pay for. Prices represent information about how people value the service being offered by the parks. Destroying prices destroys knowledge.

Absolutely accurate.

Rather than politically experiment with the "shoulds", a decentralized experimental approach has better odds of finding out what tomorrows park users will appreciate and be willing to pay for. Whether that is Wifi, shopping, or megaRV parking, auto friendly...

Ooh, here I both agree and disagree. It's not that you're inaccurate, but I fear the direction that this reasoning will inevitably take us.

Would there be customers arriving at the Park with their mega-RVs who also want the convenience of wifi and shopping? Undoubtedly. Would they be willing to pay for it? Yep; a guy who can drop 2M on a 45 foot Prevost behemoth isn't going to flinch at an entrance fee no matter how high. He will certainly be able to outbid me with my pup tent and canoe.

If all I want is to enjoy the bucolic environs, a simple woodsy trip surrounded by trees and clean air and the distant yodeling of owls and coyotes, it won't happen camping next to 3kW of klieg lights and subwoofers. When the Park caters to the highest bidder, I predict that's where it will go. The primitive campers will be shunted aside in favor of high-dollar motorhomes; low-budget hikers will be displaced by expensive ATVs roaring through the trails.

And I think that's a problem, not only for me and my pet preferences but for the greater population. Parks are a precious natural resource, but not one which lends itself to commercial uses. Once you "develop" a Park it won't ever be a nature preserve again. It'll be something else: a nature-themed amusement park.

Park services are underfunded Because they are politically provided, not focused on users needs via prices. Rangers and parks get more money, and suffer less political intervention, when they gain market experience.

Actions have consequences. Keeping parks as political patronage is bad for users and parks. Change the system of funding and it will be easier for rangers to figure out what users want, since you will see what they are willing to pay for.

Again, you aren't wrong but I sense danger. Once we decide that the managing principle of public parks should be responding to market models, it will inevitably escalate to maximizing returns, which quickly will morph into harvesting them. Before you can say "Admission $200 per person", there will be new proposals to invite "limited" timber sales, "limited" luxury hotels, "limited" casino gambling. Where will it stop? "Limited" adult entertainment? "Limited" strip mining?

And this is coming from a champion of free market capitalism, having spent a lifetime w*rking and investing in and benefiting from private industry. "What will generate the most revenue?" is an excellent mantra for that field, but I'm not convinced it's the wisest principle for park lands.

 

[Gumby]

When no one pays, you get a tragedy of the commons. People who pay to enjoy any resource are much more apt to conserve it.

 

[Chuckanut]

Keep in mind what the Superintendent told me:

The National Parks need political support to carry on their mission. If the nature zealots want such rigid restrictions that most of us can't enjoy the parks, the Parks will lose support. If the city folks want all the trappings of life in the big city, they ruin it for the rest of us and the Parks lose support.

Either way, the parks need political support. Right now they seem to be doing a descent job. I rarely find somebody who thinks the parks are not being managed well, all things considered. When I do it's either one of the extremes: people whose idea of enjoying the wilderness is spending a week alone in the woods with nothing but a sleeping bag, knife, wool long johns and good boots, OR people who want electricity, hot and cold water, phone coverage, wifi, sewage lines, etc at their campsites, and a big shopping area complete with gourmet restaurants, hair and nail salons, fashion boutiques, heated swimming pool (all year) and at least a 9 hole golf course. Oh, add bars and coffee stands at every trail head.

Both of these groups would kill public support for the Parks, IMHO.

 

[timo2]

I liked this article from Inverse.
From the article: As parks face pressure to get with the times, how long will their hidden benefits last?
"In fact, national parks’ unique offerings have such a positive effect on mental health that they save trillions of dollars in healthcare costs — but for the US, those benefits may be in danger.

National parks like Yosemite and Grand Teton save healthcare systems around the world about $6 trillion dollars, according to a new paper. And that’s a “conservative” estimate, according to Ralf Buckley, chair of ecotourism research at Australia’s Griffith University.

The massive savings stem from a “de-stressing” effect that comes from spending prolonged time in nature, Buckley tells Inverse."

https://www.inverse.com/article/608...1-13&utm_medium=inverse&utm_source=newsletter