National Parks Proposal

K

KCGeezer

Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Joined
Jan 2, 2015
Messages
1,539
Knowing that many here enjoy our national parks, I thought this proposal may be of interest. I primarily use state and local parks but back in the day did a lot of camping in the nationals. I think this passage pretty well sums up the ideas that are being proposed.


“The memo opens by asserting that campgrounds are “excellent candidates for partner management under concessions and leases. ....... Crandall proceeds to argue that federally operated campgrounds suffer from “inadequate and outmoded visitor infrastructure.” As one example, he cites the lack of wireless internet service, as well as a dearth of places to shop.”


https://news.yahoo.com/campgrounds-...e-privatized-in-new-trump-plan-090019066.html
 
It makes sense. The Parks are in need of revenue. The campgrounds are outdated and a larger rig has difficulties.
 
It seems to me the question is do people want parks to remain close to their natural state or parks that add 21st century amenities? Do Americans strongly favor one of those over the other? I don't know what poll results would find.
 
Seems to me, this is about modernizing or improving the front country, highly visited, car camping areas of NP’s. Probably nothing wrong with that. The folks visiting in those areas will likely appreciate it.

For those still wanting the pure, untainted experience, the back country is still there relatively untouched. And those folks certainly appreciate that.
 
GrayHare said:
It seems to me the question is do people want parks to remain close to their natural state or parks that add 21st century amenities? Do Americans strongly favor one of those over the other? I don't know what poll results would find.
Click to expand...

Most Americans probably want the unspoiled natural state of the Park. Until they have to get out of their car to view it...
 
IMO, the proposal is a great idea. Many national parks could use a facilities upgrade. I wish the State of Illinois would have a similar proposal for their state parks. Many state parks here are in extreme neglect with some facilities closed.
 
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.
 
Might as well just sell them off to Disney.
 
Maybe if they raised the prices, it would cure some of the overcrowding and attendant strain on the infrastructure.
 
This isn't exactly a new idea, since concessionaires already operate campgrounds (as well as other commercial facilities such as hotels, restaurants, and gift shops) in a number of our national parks. Some get overly greedy though -- especially Delaware North, which copyrighted a number of Yosemite's landmark names, then sued the government for using them after they lost the contract.
 
Gumby said:
Maybe if they raised the prices, it would cure some of the overcrowding and attendant strain on the infrastructure.
Click to expand...


This idea has been explored before. But it’s often viewed as elitist, keeping the lower income folks from being able to visit.
 
Senator said:
It makes sense. The Parks are in need of revenue. The campgrounds are outdated and a larger rig has difficulties.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
The real issue is the National Parks are underfunded for maintenance. That's a decision our Congress has made. Simply putting in some stores and modern facilities will not generate much revenue to help the National Parks unless the parks are allowed to keep it.

Intentionally under-funding services the public likes and enjoys is an old tactic to get the public to approve tax increases and other questionable plans.

Messing with the National Parks is perhaps the only thing equal to messing with Social Security.
 
Last edited:
The local USFS is proposing day use & overnight fees for 19 trails in our area. $3-$5/person/night. I have not seen the proposed trails yet. We have had issues with overcrowding parking areas & congestion on the popular trails. There are another 60 trails with no fees

We have significant tourist trade here & that tends to overload some trails.
 
MuirWannabe said:
Seems to me, this is about modernizing or improving the front country, highly visited, car camping areas of NP’s. Probably nothing wrong with that. The folks visiting in those areas will likely appreciate it.

For those still wanting the pure, untainted experience, the back country is still there relatively untouched. And those folks certainly appreciate that.
Click to expand...

Great thoughts. It doesn't have to be all either or.
 
gerntz said:
Great thoughts. It doesn't have to be all either or.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
We stayed in the parks and it was no big deal doing without a phone or internet. We read books at night. The parks don’t need to be commercialized.
 
While I agree that many of the parks need additional funding I disagree with opening them to private operators. I remember the noticeable change leaving the commercial areas outside of Yellowstone (as an example) and entering the actual park. It’d be antithetical to have that commercialization within sight of Mt Rushmore IMO.
 
Chuckanut said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yes. When I was a younger person I was a seasonal land surveyor in Yellowstone. The back country is fairly vacant most of the year while the most speedy of the visitors zoom to Old Faithful, then zoom to the Tetons, then zoom off to who knows where.

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.
 
While I prefer the wilderness areas, I'd like to see that we fund the national parks to "maintain" the facilities and pay a fair wage for the employees. The parks have deteriorated under recent funding. It is a shame that we cannot fund them at some sustainable level, but an outside business can come in and make a profit. Opening up concessions to private entities basically says to me that we, as a nation, do not really value these parks. Let's keep the parks under govmnt management.

And yes to adding or improving WiFi in the existing park lodges, and concessions. There one can check their e-mails daily if so inclined. No to WiFi in the campgrounds IMO. Nobody want to be camping in the parks and have to listen to the people in the next space playing youtube videos. If this is what they need, then they can camp outside the parks.
 
I could care less if national parks have WiFi or even cell phone coverage. And I certainly don’t want private entities putting up cell towers in the parks. But some improvements to parking and roadways need to be made. And some shuttles for the parks that have crazy traffic like Yosemite. And I don’t think it would hurt to let private businesses take over concessions.
 
anethum said:
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.
Click to expand...

:confused:
 
anethum said:
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.
Click to expand...

I totally agree with the bolded section.

We just bought our lifetime park pass at the new price of $80 when visiting a NP in Hawaii :dance:

National Parks encourage people to travel - to visit other parts of the country and spend money in the USA. That alone should be incentive for Congress to properly fund the National Parks and keep them pristine.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom