National Parks Proposal

athena53 said:
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.
Click to expand...

It's a small world after all...
 
Chuckanut said:
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.
Click to expand...


+1, I totally agree. The National Parks were established were established to preserve our country's special areas, in their natural state. I would oppose any effort to diminish that. If you want more amenities, take your rig to a private campground somewhere, as they cater to that crowd.
 
Chuckanut said:
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'. )
Click to expand...


Yep, you are absolutely right Chuckanut. Unnatural fire suppression ultimately leads to catastrophic fires, due to the tremendous (and unnatural) buildup of flammable fuels. And dead trees are absolutely part of a healthy ecosystem. Some dead tree removal is necessary in campground areas, where people camp, but otherwise they are best left alone in the National Parks.
 
SnowballCamper said:
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.
Click to expand...

I am sure there are a few purists that would want the natural state of the parks brought back. Remove the visitor centers, block off the roads and paved trails. Keep it natural, without any humans entering the environment to corrupt it.
 
A big reason I like to visit NPs with my 24' class C motorhome is that I prefer to have my own toilet. Most but not all campgrounds provide fresh water for fill-up, and a dump station. I don't need anything more than that.
 
Some of my favorite campgrounds are the ones with no nearby shopping, or WiFi. I could easily live a happy life without my phone, and often forget to have it with me, but the other folks in my group need their pacifiers if there is a lull in the conversation around the campfire.

Camping should be about getting back to nature, and enjoying each others actual "face time".
 
Red Badger said:
Until I was about 10 YO, this wasn't camping - - - it was home. Outhouse and well water. Big family. We all survived. :blush:.
Click to expand...
Wasn't us, but several neighbors had outhouses till the sewer system was installed & one family had a hand pump in kitchen from well to supply home's water.
 
Senator said:
I am sure there are a few purists that would want the natural state of the parks brought back. Remove the visitor centers, block off the roads and paved trails. Keep it natural, without any humans entering the environment to corrupt it.
Click to expand...

Yes, there are and I have met some of them. IMHO, they are foolish at best, and selfish at worst.

What they forget is what the superintendent told me. National Parks need political support to survive. If that support is very thin the parks may be open to all sorts of negative influences. Current policies garner a lot of public support.

Interestingly, the first white men who visited the Yellowstone area considered the problem of commercial development. After confirming the stories of hot water fountains shooting out of the ground, rocks that floated, rivers and pools of warm water in the midst of a snowy winter, massive canyons with massive waterfalls, they sat around the campfire discussing how to present their finding to Congress in a way that would promote public conservation, not private development. Congress was impressed enough to eventually send the Army to protect the area.
 
Last edited:
Speaking of Yellowstone NP, I recall my visit there a few years ago. At the Grand Teton NP which is contiguous with the above, in the visitor center auditorium we attended a lecture about John Colter, the first white man who entered the region later known as Yellowstone NP.

John Colter was a member of the Lewis and Clark expedition, and after reaching the Pacific Ocean, on the return trip he split with the main group and explored new territories alone. He traveled through the Yellowstone area in the middle of the 1807 winter alone. He contacted several Indian tribes in his journey. His harrowing encounter with the Blackfeet Indians was the inspiration for the movie "The Naked Prey".

When we visited the NPs, we spent quite a bit of time at the visitor center and learned many things we would not discover on our own. And learning historical facts while right in the environment makes it much more enjoyable.
 
Senator said:
I am sure there are a few purists that would want the natural state of the parks brought back. Remove the visitor centers, block off the roads and paved trails. Keep it natural, without any humans entering the environment to corrupt it.
Click to expand...

I'm not that much of a purist. But it would be great if visitors had to park outside the park, and ride electric tour buses to the sights and trailheads.

BTW isn't it funny how we park in the driveway, and drive on the parkway?
 
SnowballCamper said:
I'm not that much of a purist. But it would be great if visitors had to park outside the park, and ride electric tour buses to the sights and trailheads.
Click to expand...
They aren't electric but that's exactly what the process is to visit Bandelier National Monument from Mid May to Mid October.
Bandelier access by shuttle only 9 am to 3 pm May 16 - October 16, 2019
Access to Bandelier National Monument and the Frijoles Canyon Visitor Center is by shuttle bus only, May 16-October 16, from 9am to 3pm 7 days a week. Shuttle pickup currently is only at the White Rock Visitor Center.
Click to expand...

https://www.nps.gov/band/index.htm
 
I think Zion has shuttle service and you cannot drive around. Glad I went before that happened.
 
SnowballCamper said:
I'm not that much of a purist. But it would be great if visitors had to park outside the park, and ride electric tour buses to the sights and trailheads.

BTW isn't it funny how we park in the driveway, and drive on the parkway?
Click to expand...


Visit Zion National Park starting in April or May. Your wish has been granted.
 
Sunset said:
Yes, we just bought one for DW (I'll get in "free" if she takes me).
Note that for a retired couple, only 1 need buy the pass.

I made the statistical calculation that DW would outlive me, so she got it !
Click to expand...

Good move.

Back before the price changed in 2017 and they were only $10, both DW and I got one. Like you point out, you really only need one but if you lose it you have to pay full price for a new one. I figured $10 was cheap replacement insurance.
 
Sunset said:
Note that for a retired couple, only 1 need buy the pass.
Click to expand...

The park people said that DW and I each needed our own pass in case one of us comes to a park without the other. They said that I can’t use her pass and vice versus. So we each bought one @ $10 each.
 
south carolina

I prefer South Carolina's decentralized approach to amenities and management.

While the staff remain government employees, and the land is government owned: the facility development, roads, and salaries are paid by park users.

Rather than use the parks as a political football, it is up to local park rangers, employees and managers to figure out what paying users want and are willing to pay for. As well as how to collect and manage the funds. They become stewards and custodians of the facility. Much like managing a non profit.

That means the park does not close during fiscal emergency of the moment, and decisions are made locally, not remotely.

This has worked very well in SC. I'd like to think it could be applied nationally as well, or at least on an individual facility basis.
 
Private companies will destroy the national parks. Their first concern is profit. First concern for national parks should be protection and enjoyment/appreciation by the people.



Private companies don't care about anything but their bottom line. The two just don't mix.
 
meleana said:
Private companies will destroy the national parks. Their first concern is profit. First concern for national parks should be protection and enjoyment/appreciation by the people.

Private companies don't care about anything but their bottom line. The two just don't mix.
Click to expand...

:facepalm:
 
meleana said:
Private companies will destroy the national parks. Their first concern is profit. First concern for national parks should be protection and enjoyment/appreciation by the people.

Private companies don't care about anything but their bottom line. The two just don't mix.
Click to expand...

Presumably the contracts would, in some manner, include performance standards for 'protection and enjoyment/appreciation by the people'
 
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.
 
indiajust said:
I prefer South Carolina's decentralized approach to amenities and management.

While the staff remain government employees, and the land is government owned: the facility development, roads, and salaries are paid by park users.

Rather than use the parks as a political football, it is up to local park rangers, employees and managers to figure out what paying users want and are willing to pay for. As well as how to collect and manage the funds. They become stewards and custodians of the facility. Much like managing a non profit.

That means the park does not close during fiscal emergency of the moment, and decisions are made locally, not remotely.

This has worked very well in SC. I'd like to think it could be applied nationally as well, or at least on an individual facility basis.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom