PDA

View Full Version : Should they National and State parks be open to everyone?!?



nutlub
01-28-2007, 22:30
Yikes! This is the first I have heard of this!

Should they National and State parks be open to everyone, or should access be limited in the interest of protecting them?

National parks case may affect access (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070129/ap_on_re_us/yosemite_gridlock)

:eek:

rafe
01-28-2007, 22:34
Baxter is a state park with limited access. IMO, that's one of the things that keeps it special. Camping in National Parks is almost always limited-access.

Sly
01-28-2007, 22:41
Yosemite is built up enough already. They already have their own court house! If it's full, it's full. As it is in order to get into the backcountry you need a permit. I don't see any reason why they shouldn't limit autos if need be.

Tipi Walter
01-28-2007, 23:05
It ain't the people, it's their cars. Modern man must defile everything with the automobile and you'd think the Parks would set an example and be off limits but they can't even keep the ATV's and snowmobiles out, much less the regular car traffic. Look at the Smokies, worst air quality in the country, but do they shut the Cades Cove Loop? Nope. Little River Road? Nope. 441? Nope. But god help me if I backpack in with a dog or camp in an unregulated spot. And there's an ongoing battle to build yet another road thru the Park.

To paraphrase Edward Abbey, he said let's all have our outdoor fun but in a clockwise direction only. Appropriate and allowable enjoyment levels will be posted at each trailhead.

And by 2050, with 400,000,000 people in this country, the Smokies just might be a postage stamp forest surrounded by 10 Gatlinburgs and near constant tourist helicopter flights.

Lilred
01-28-2007, 23:14
I don't understand why they can't prohibit cars. Instead use large busses and haul people in and out.

rafe
01-28-2007, 23:15
It ain't the people, it's their cars.

Amen to that, Tipi.

SalParadise
01-28-2007, 23:16
not much point in having a national park at all if you go and limit the number of people who get to see it.

what would you have said after spending years dreaming about your Appalachian Trail hike, maybe even quit your job, then somebody at the trailhead told you they were already at the maximum allowable number of thru-hikers?

rafe
01-28-2007, 23:20
not much point in having a national park at all if you go and limit the number of people who get to see it.

As I understand it, there are waiting lists for trips down the Colorodo River. I don't think anyone gets turned away from the national parks as a day visitor. Right now, it's the backcountry access that's limited. I like the idea of leaving the cars outside, like at Zion NP.

Tipi Walter
01-28-2007, 23:36
not much point in having a national park at all if you go and limit the number of people who get to see it.

what would you have said after spending years dreaming about your Appalachian Trail hike, maybe even quit your job, then somebody at the trailhead told you they were already at the maximum allowable number of thru-hikers?

You don't limit the number of people who get to see it, you just close the roads. People can walk and by walking they will see. And some things are not meant to be seen without effort. Great swaths of land should remain inaccessible except for those with some gumption. And for the multiuse policy types, they could keep a small trolley thing to carry the handicapped, the rest of us can walk.

Imagine having a roadless Smokies? "Has anyone ever gone into the heart of the Park?"
"Well, one guy did, said he was going to stay out for 2 weeks. That was 7 years ago. Ain't seen him since."

SalParadise
01-28-2007, 23:47
And some things are not meant to be seen without effort.

like what, and why not?

rafe
01-28-2007, 23:55
like what, and why not?

De facto, some parts of the AT are already in this category, since you have to be fairly fit, well-equipped, and well-prepared to get to 'em. I'm thinking of (say) midway thru the 100-mile wilderness.

Yeti2006
01-28-2007, 23:57
To anyone who wants to read a great book dealing with this subject, by one of my favorite authors check out Edward Abbey's Desert Solitaire. The national parks system seems to be making accomidations for the excessively lazy tourists who dont care to venture out of the safety of their climate controlled vehicle to see the beauty of nature. So, they pave the trails, allow concessionaires to sell their goods, and claim that its neccessary to deal with the volume of visitors each year. Would their be so many visitors if the accommodations were not available? And outside of national parks, what about the huts and camping fees in the whites, that falls in the same discussion. Anyone else have any thoughts on the subject?

SalParadise
01-29-2007, 00:33
I'm speaking in general, but it does seem like there's a strong feeling by the hiker community to have national parks and other wilderness areas accessible only by hiking trail. the thought is a great injustice to other people who would rather drive or snomobile or atv...through the park. A park should have access to as many outdoor interests as possible.

rafe
01-29-2007, 00:36
Roads and motorized vehicles are really incompatible with wilderness.

fvital
01-29-2007, 10:14
To anyone who wants to read a great book dealing with this subject, by one of my favorite authors check out Edward Abbey's Desert Solitaire. The national parks system seems to be making accomidations for the excessively lazy tourists who dont care to venture out of the safety of their climate controlled vehicle to see the beauty of nature. So, they pave the trails, allow concessionaires to sell their goods, and claim that its neccessary to deal with the volume of visitors each year. Would their be so many visitors if the accommodations were not available? And outside of national parks, what about the huts and camping fees in the whites, that falls in the same discussion. Anyone else have any thoughts on the subject?


Would as many people allow their taxes to be used to maintain the parks if they didn't have the access they do? Everything comes with a price.

Tipi Walter
01-29-2007, 11:36
I'm speaking in general, but it does seem like there's a strong feeling by the hiker community to have national parks and other wilderness areas accessible only by hiking trail. the thought is a great injustice to other people who would rather drive or snomobile or atv...through the park. A park should have access to as many outdoor interests as possible.

At what cost? Noise pollution? Air pollution? Overuse? Development? Tourist heliports? Foul traffic glut? We've got all this everywhere else in America, should we then open up the Parks to it too? And I can't forget one more, the godawful chainsaw noise of snowmobiles in an otherwise snowy stillness. All of these besotted activities are available to us on the many millions of acres that are not part of the National Park System. If this love affair with the gasoline engine doesn't stop at a Park's gates, well, where then will it stop? Wilderness Areas? Let's hope they stay closed to it.

Limiting use is a great injustice? Well, the real injustice happened 150 years ago when the original caretakers of the land were removed, but that's another story. "Other people who would rather drive or snowmobile or ATV . . ." "Rather drive" are the key words here, they denote a sort of whimsical desire rather than a real need. Not directed at you SalParadise, but in my fetid opinion Urban Sprawl and the Interstate Highway System are the only Parks these people need, leave the miniscule rest for the hikers on foot and the wildlife.

BTW, do you think a designated Wilderness Area should also be open to ATVs and other motorized traffic like cars?

And finally, I would say the greatest outside interest in a Park would be to leave it as pristine and as undeveloped as possible, to leave something for the next generation and the one after that.

OntheRoad
01-29-2007, 11:47
Cars in national parks? I wish cars could be done away with period, but obviously that's not going to happen. I think it's rediculous that people are trying to build, build, build, in national parks. Building roads, resorts, court houses, etc. is absolute bull****. Most people go out into the woods to get AWAY from the modernized world that takes up enough space already. Now we have a bunch of lazy Americans who want to sit in there cars in the AC and be able to access the beautiful spots that you should have to put some effort in to get to.

I hope construction in national parks is not only halted, but gotten rid of. The last thing we need is another road going through pristine wilderness. But hey, Americans are not the most obese people on the planet for no reason.

GlazeDog
01-29-2007, 12:10
I know there is some different ways to interpret the Nat'l Park Act jargon. Is the emphasis on "wilderness" or is it on "for everyone". If your priorities were such that by age 65 with arthritis in your joints, etc. that by then you didn't get out and see things wild, then too bad. Should we pave it all just so these few can see it--chances are you could drive them to the tippy top of Trail Ridge Road in Rocky Mt. Mat'l Park and they wouldn't see it. I mean even eith eyes open and 20-20 vision and all that, they simply just wouldn't be able to see it. The import and soul of it would pass right through them, or over them, or whatever.
Maybe we should have a couple such paved parks for the old, infirm, out-of-shape types out of compassion--a noble gester and noble moral value. But let's keep some of these parks as they should be--WILD. WILDerness oriented.
Ed Abbey in one of his books--I don't think Desert Solitaire--states the concept of closing the roads to cars. And rent out bikes for low price--even free. The money saved on policing and repaving can be put into these bikes. And for the few others will bring infirm and old in by bus--maybe twice a day(morning and late afternoon). With an occassional sunset or sunrise tour as well. These buses could drop of camping gear for the bikers. But for the vast mojority of time silence---and by silence I think he means bird song, babbling brooks, wind in the grass, rustling pines overhead.
I'd like to see the word wild put back into wilderness.

GlazeDog

Tipi Walter
01-29-2007, 12:13
Cars in national parks? I wish cars could be done away with period, but obviously that's not going to happen. I think it's rediculous that people are trying to build, build, build, in national parks. Building roads, resorts, court houses, etc. is absolute bull****. Most people go out into the woods to get AWAY from the modernized world that takes up enough space already. Now we have a bunch of lazy Americans who want to sit in there cars in the AC and be able to access the beautiful spots that you should have to put some effort in to get to.

I hope construction in national parks is not only halted, but gotten rid of. The last thing we need is another road going through pristine wilderness. But hey, Americans are not the most obese people on the planet for no reason.

A breath of fresh air, OntheRoad. Amen to that.

Desert Lobster
01-29-2007, 12:16
"And by 2050, with 400,000,000 people in this country, the Smokies just might be a postage stamp forest surrounded by 10 Gatlinburgs and near constant tourist helicopter flights."


There will be 400 million people in the US eventually if you damn liberals(plus Bush) keep allowing those fertile Latinos to cross the border. Take the illegals out of the equation and the US population would stabilize(or even decline) in population!!!!!!!! Just look at Japan, Germany, Russia, etc. Declining pops with need for workers. Maybe the US should intervene and send them some Latinos receiving a transport fee for each to go towards border control and internal security to remove illegals from MY SOIL!

Lone Wolf
01-29-2007, 12:18
Go get em' lobster! Mow em' down!

moxie
01-29-2007, 12:46
"


There will be 400 million people in the US eventually if you damn liberals(plus Bush) keep allowing those fertile Latinos to cross the border. Take the illegals out of the equation and the US population would stabilize(or even decline) in population!!!!!!! Maybe the US should intervene and send them some Latinos receiving a transport fee for each to go towards border control and internal security to remove illegals from MY SOIL!
My family, (at least on my mothers side) have been here for 10,000 years. How long you Lobsters been here? Why don't you leave with the Latinos. Native America, for Native Americans---Send the Lobsters back to Europe.

Desert Lobster
01-29-2007, 13:09
What's your point? I see you didn't touch on the subject I raised. Typical liberal means of debate.

Lone Wolf
01-29-2007, 13:11
What's your point? I see you didn't touch on the subject I raised. Typical liberal means of debate.

trying throw the "native" card. at least they have casinos

Desert Lobster
01-29-2007, 13:12
Moxie, you're trying to get rid of a fellow Mainer???

Jimmers
01-29-2007, 13:12
Construction and development will never be halted in National Parks for two very simple reasons. There are a lot more tourists in cars than there will ever be hikers, and the fat slobs in those cars we seem to hate spend a hell of a lot more money than hikers. Which means the communities surrounding the parks will always be crying for more Federal dollars to go to their park to draw more tourists. Basic economics. The towns surrounding Yosemite get something like 60% of their revenue from tourists.

Which is actually a good thing. As long as a lot of money is at stake, the government and local businesses have a huge interest in seeing that the Parks aren't over developed and strike the balance between preservation and public use. (God, I sound like a Republican.:mad:) This does not, sadly, apply to National Forests.

I've been to Yosemite and been stuck in a traffic jam. Yes it's annoying, yes, it causes pollution and lessens the experience. This was also the only one I saw in 8 days there, and it was the 4th of July weekend, so it was my own stupid fault. But all you needed to do is hike 5 miles in any direction and you were ALONE with just your thoughts and nature. A park needs infrastructure to be accessible and usefull to the public. Otherwise why should the public have their tax dollars go to subsidizing our desire for pristine wilderness to hike in?

My two cents.:D

GlazeDog
01-29-2007, 13:13
I hope this conversation doesn't run astray!!

Some battles just can't be one. Focusing your energy and time on those that can might be better. But your point is well taken. And does add some humbling relevance to the conversation. We must realize that no one really owns this earth.

I don't believe the illegal immigrant situation is the problem with the Nat'l Parks. Something tells me that very few are making expensive trips about the USA to the parks. There is info by university-level professors that "lobsters" make up the vast majority of backcountry users. See WildeBeat's most recent podcast on Race in the Backcountry.

GlazeDog

rafe
01-29-2007, 13:15
Keep at it, Lobster. Bash those dirty immigrants. Show us how Republicans really feel about that "big tent." Then try to act surprised and upset when it's demonstrated to you that Republicans are now the party of Angry White Southern Males, with zero support from Jews, Blacks, Asians, Hispanics, etc.

Lone Wolf
01-29-2007, 13:18
Keep at it, Lobster. Bash those dirty immigrants. Show us how Republicans really feel about that "big tent." Then try to act surprised and upset when it's demonstrated to you that Republicans are now the party of Angry White Southern Males, with zero support from Jews, Blacks, Asians, Hispanics, etc.

your heart is bleeding there lib:)

rafe
01-29-2007, 13:25
your heart is bleeding there lib:)

Better than no heart at all, Wolf. Wouldn't trade places with ya, even with all those Exxon shares.

Lone Wolf
01-29-2007, 13:27
Better than no heart at all, Wolf. Wouldn't trade places with ya, even with all those Exxon shares.

you're still mad daddy didn't give ya none:D

Desert Lobster
01-29-2007, 13:27
Remove the illegals here!!!

Guest worker program!! I need somebody to make my bacon breakfast burritos. That's a joke, sort of!! I even do my own groundskeeping here in the Southern California desert.

Mandatory sterilization for all guest workers or if that won't go over with the liberals, do away with the rule whereby a person born on American soil automatically gains citizenship.

Lone Wolf
01-29-2007, 13:29
Better than no heart at all, Wolf.

oh, and my heart is bigger by accident than yours will ever be on purpose:)

Desert Lobster
01-29-2007, 13:33
By the way, when did I bash the immigrants? If you are not here legally, authorities should remove you. Doesn't matter how hard you work, what skin color you have, etc.???

Oh, I forgot, I must be racist because most of those who happen to be here illegally don't have the same color shell as me!

The Weasel
01-29-2007, 13:39
Perhaps I'm wrong: Does "mowing them down" mean killing any illegal immigrants, such as Latins, Chinese, or whatever? How will that help reduce crowding in national parks?

The Weasel

Jim Adams
01-29-2007, 13:40
Cars in national parks? I wish cars could be done away with period, but obviously that's not going to happen. I think it's rediculous that people are trying to build, build, build, in national parks. Building roads, resorts, court houses, etc. is absolute bull****. Most people go out into the woods to get AWAY from the modernized world that takes up enough space already. Now we have a bunch of lazy Americans who want to sit in there cars in the AC and be able to access the beautiful spots that you should have to put some effort in to get to.

I hope construction in national parks is not only halted, but gotten rid of. The last thing we need is another road going through pristine wilderness. But hey, Americans are not the most obese people on the planet for no reason.


"Most people go out into the woods to get AWAY from the moderized world..."

MOST people go into the woods in their car. That is why there are so many tax dollars spent around the parks as well as in them. As sad as this is, if you remove the car from the park you usually also remove the funding!:confused:

Gray Blazer
01-29-2007, 13:40
You are raising a good point that you would probably get in more trouble being a citizen and camping illegally in a NP than an illegal crossing the border. What's the answer? I don't know. (Terrapin, if republicans are the party of angry white southern males, you'd better not tell that to the many jews, blacks, aisians, hispanics, etc. who are members of the republican party. Would the democratic party include angry white southern males if they wantd to join? Can anyone spell tolerance? Whoops, I forgot. You can't play the race card if you're white. Are you white? What's wrong with being white?)

rafe
01-29-2007, 13:40
Perhaps I'm wrong: Does "mowing them down" mean killing any illegal immigrants, such as Latins, Chinese, or whatever?

Oh don't worry your head over that, Weasel. That's just LW being funny. Presumably he speaks this way because of his "big heart."

Lone Wolf
01-29-2007, 13:44
Oh don't worry your head over that, Weasel. That's just LW being funny.

do you work? you're on here 20 hours a day for a couple months. you need a break. you get too serious, your panties get all wadded up and such.:D

rafe
01-29-2007, 13:46
do you work?

Look who's askin? :rolleyes:

Lone Wolf
01-29-2007, 13:50
Yikes! This is the first I have heard of this!

Should they National and State parks be open to everyone, or should access be limited in the interest of protecting them?

National parks case may affect access (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070129/ap_on_re_us/yosemite_gridlock)

:eek:

back to the original question. yes they should be open to all american citizens and visitors with passports. closed to illegals.

rafe
01-29-2007, 13:55
back to the original question. yes they should be open to all american citizens and visitors with passports. closed to illegals.

The article cited by the OP says nothing at all about either immigrants or illegals. It was Lobster that swerved the thread in that direction in Msg. #20. There had been no mention of either immigration or illegals in the thread prior to Lobster's post.

Lone Wolf
01-29-2007, 13:57
The article cited by the OP says nothing at all about either immigrants or illegals. It was Lobster that swerved the thread in that direction in Msg. #20. There had been no mention of either immigration or illegals in the thread prior to Lobster's post.

oh. ok. TOM for President!
http://teamtancredo.com/index.php

The Weasel
01-29-2007, 13:58
National parks come in a few categories, both formally and in practice, and most aren't crowded. Even the ones that are crowded aren't crowded in most places.

"Classic" national parks are those like GSMNP, Yosemite, Yellowstone or Isle Royale, including the newer ones in Alaska other places: Intended to be essentially wild, they're not the same as the "urban" National Parks that are essentially for mass enjoyment; my favorite example of that is Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore. It's mainly a mostly-undeveloped beach area, and while that's nice, it's never been intended to be "wilderness." There are quite a few other parks like that. "Crowding" at them is part of the design, and there's no surprise there.

On a practical basis, "crowding" isn't a consistent problem at most national parks, either, despite the horror stories. Sometimes it's because they're not very accessible - Alaska, Isle Royale. Othertimes, they aren't well known as great places to get wild at - Mohave, or (I'm from Michigan, so forgive the focus) the Islands of Sleeping Bear National Seashore, or Pictured Rocks NP. Even in "peak" seasons, they're not crowded.

Where crowding happens is at the access points of the "signature" parks, and, to a lesser extend, throughout parks that have easy access to people who use RVs and large campsites. The Smokies, Yosemite, Yellowstone and Shenandoah come to mind. And yes, even back country sites are usually full (that happens at Isle Royale, too) since 'stealth' camping isn't allowed. But because of that, almost by definition the backcountry isn't "crowded", since the number of permits is limited.

While a lot of work is needed to minimize the environmental problems of high traffic at major access points (Yosemite Village, Old Faithful, others), I don't think it's the crisis that it's painted, at least on a national basis.

The Weasel

rafe
01-29-2007, 14:00
oh. ok. TOM for President!
http://teamtancredo.com/index.php

Please, please let him be the Republican presidential candidate in 2008. :D

The Weasel
01-29-2007, 14:02
Oh don't worry your head over that, Weasel. That's just LW being funny. Presumably he speaks this way because of his "big heart."

Oh, I forgot. It's OK to say things like that if you think they're funny. My apologies.

The Weasel

TJ aka Teej
01-29-2007, 14:14
Pave that one lane gravel road in Denali! Build more and bigger roads that get you right up onto McKinley! Put up grand hotels and Jellystone RV Campgrounds! Fast food galore! Airports! Ski resorts! Petting Zoos! Tee shirt shops! Lumberjack shows! More people is just what Denali needs!

jambalaya
01-29-2007, 14:19
I'm not sure where in the original article it says there's any new plan to undemocratically limit the number of visitors. Overnight visitors are already limited by the number of campsites and rooms available (who hasn't shown up to a state or national park just a little to late to get a site, and had to pitch in a private RV park? Just me?) Day visitors are apparently limited by number of parking spots. Seems logical. Seems like that's the way it's always been. Seems to me someone wants to pretend there's something distinctly undemocratic about NOT building giant hotels in what little is left of the magical Yosemite Valley. Bull****.

Anyone read John Muir's writings on Yosemite? I did, then I went there and saw.... a whole lot of cars. I think they really should prohibit cars. There are convenient shuttle buses that take you anywhere you want to go.

Jimmers
01-29-2007, 14:30
There isn't a plan. Yet. That's what the park service is being sued for. I'm not even sure what environmental group is suing, but I do know their main reason is to protect the Merced river, not so much Yosemite. They're afraid of what improving access to Yosemite would do to the river's ecosystem, which is also protected. I believe it's a Nat'l Wild & Scenic River.

I completely agree with you about using shuttle buses. The problem is Yosemite and other western parks are BIG. Buses only work for transport within the park, they don't get you there. There's just not much space outside the park to build a bus depot with parking at every entry portal. I wish every park could be like Zion, which has a wonderful bus system, but it's not going to happen any time soon.

Desert Lobster
01-29-2007, 16:18
Zion!!! Got to go back soon!!

The Weasel
01-29-2007, 16:46
I completely agree with you about using shuttle buses. The problem is Yosemite and other western parks are BIG. Buses only work for transport within the park, they don't get you there. There's just not much space outside the park to build a bus depot with parking at every entry portal. I wish every park could be like Zion, which has a wonderful bus system, but it's not going to happen any time soon.

Jimmers, I think you're not entirely correct. The big problem isn't crowding/traffic at ALL the portals, but at the main tourist attraction ones. Yosemite is a good example; I think there could be significant parking provided about 20 miles out, at least on the west, south entrances, taking major pressure off of Yosemite Village and some of the southern attractions. Just because they can't fix all of it, perfectly, doesn't mean steps like those wouldn't improve things signficantly.

Other parks are far more porous, with highways, and need other solutions, perhaps. But mass transit is one that, for the heavy-use parks, is critical, and capable of very, very quick implementation. Thus, if (for example) Yosemite simply stated that no private vehicles would be allowed into Yosemite Village/Valley, and that all entry would be by bus (hotels having special buses), at designated stops at the towns to the south and west, you'd see significant parking created privately in those towns, enhancing those areas economically (and most of them can use it). That's a win-win solution all the way around. At to Yosemite, that's a solution that could start being implemented in under a year, and fully implemented in under 5. And there could be exceptions for those with campsite reservations or reservations at hotels in such area, but day use would be far different, with most people gaining access to park attractions without the constant traffic jams and parking headaches.

The mindset just isn't there; it can be.

The Weasel

Alligator
01-29-2007, 16:54
...
National parks are administered under the dept of interior, wilderness under the USDA.

...That's not correct. Wildernesses are managed by a variety of departments/agencies.

See here (http://www.wilderness.net/index.cfm?fuse=NWPS).

Sly
01-29-2007, 16:57
National parks and wilderness are mutually exclusive.

National parks are administered under the dept of interior, wilderness under the USDA.

IMO, national parks are for built for the greatest number of people possible to enjoy. .

Opinion noted. Now read the mission...

"...to promote and regulate the use of the...national parks...which purpose is to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wild life therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations."

http://www.nps.gov/legacy/mission.html

Alligator
01-29-2007, 17:02
A large chunk (http://www.wilderness.net/index.cfm?fuse=NWPS&sec=stateView&state=ca&map=cacentral)of Yosemite does appear to be wilderness though.

There are about 704,624 acres of wilderness in Yosemite out of 761,320 total acres. That's about 92.5%. That was just a quick look. If those numbers are off, let me know.

SalParadise
01-29-2007, 17:06
oh help me if the only way i could see a national park is on some crowded tour bus packed with screaming kids.

Sly
01-29-2007, 17:11
oh help me if the only way i could see a national park is on some crowded tour bus packed with screaming kids.

Well, you could always put on your backpack. :rolleyes:

rafe
01-29-2007, 17:18
oh help me if the only way i could see a national park is on some crowded tour bus packed with screaming kids.

Easy. Get off the bus and walk.

fvital
01-29-2007, 17:39
Easy. Get off the bus and walk.
It would only be 50 or so miles to get in. Hey, it's wilderness for wilderness type people. How about you must show proof you walked from you're point of residence to the entrance gate? If pristine wilderness is such a concern, then permit no one. It's funny how everyone thinks they have the right to enjoy something as they see fit and without limits on their enjoyment (and how they want to enjoy it) but are quick to limit someone enjoyment if it's different.

and Terrapin, this is a general statement, not meant to be a personal attack.

Sly
01-29-2007, 17:47
It's funny how everyone thinks they have the right to enjoy something as they see fit and without limits on their enjoyment (and how they want to enjoy it) but are quick to limit someone enjoyment if it's different.


Funny huh? Have an example?

But do you honestly believe enjoyments levels shouldn't be limited in public places? No quiet hours, generators running 24/7. There has to be some limits...

SalParadise
01-29-2007, 18:06
Well, you could always put on your backpack.

my sister hates to backpack. guess she's stuck on the miserable tour bus and only being able to see nature through a window. too bad for her. And Mom is too old to backpack and gets carsick, but I'm sure she'll love the pictures we'll take of the park.

LIhikers
01-29-2007, 18:19
Having been to alaska's Denali National Park this past summer I can tell you that having a system of buses seemed to work very well. There are 2 kinds of buses, the tour bus where there's a "guide" onboard explaining things as you go and everyone takes the complete tour; then there's the shuttle buses where the driver explains things as you go depending on their knowledge and driving conditions. With the shuttle buses you can get off anyplace you like and then flag down a returning bus when you are ready to get back on. Lots of people get to see the wilderness and there's not much traffic. And those that want to get off and explore the wilderness can do that too. I'm sure that situation could work in any park with some moderation to accomodate local conditions.

rafe
01-29-2007, 18:25
my sister hates to backpack. guess she's stuck on the miserable tour bus and only being able to see nature through a window. too bad for her. And Mom is too old to backpack and gets carsick, but I'm sure she'll love the pictures we'll take of the park.

Who said it had to be backpacking? You can walk a hundred yards, a half a mile, or several... it's up to you. The point is to eliminate or minimize the number of vehicles (and the corresponding emissions) within the park. The net benefits to the park are almost immediate. You'd think that folks here on WB (of all people) would understand this.

The Weasel
01-29-2007, 20:00
Who said it had to be backpacking? You can walk a hundred yards, a half a mile, or several... it's up to you. The point is to eliminate or minimize the number of vehicles (and the corresponding emissions) within the park. The net benefits to the park are almost immediate. You'd think that folks here on WB (of all people) would understand this.

Some of us do. And the mass transit thing isn't "looking at nature through the window" any more than it is with a car. The bus stops at the same places cars do, and people get on and off. It's not a big deal, and in most cases, mom and sis are going to prefer it, especially since it means dad gets to look out the window at something other than a tailpipe immediately in front of him.

The Weasel

the_iceman
01-29-2007, 20:05
Free Hetch Hetchy and no one would care about Yosemite.

http://www.hetchhetchy.org/

Lone Wolf
01-29-2007, 20:07
how are the gals in these www.hoveround.com/ suppose to get to edge of the grand canyon like in the commercial?

the_iceman
01-29-2007, 20:08
http://www.hetchhetchy.org/artistic_visions/bierstadt_holyoke.html

http://www.sierraclub.org/ca/hetchhetchy/photo_gallery.asp

rafe
01-29-2007, 20:09
how are the gals in these www.hoveround.com/ (http://www.hoveround.com/) suppose to get to edge of the grand canyon like in the commercial?

They can get there right now, if they're so inclined.

SalParadise
01-29-2007, 20:14
You'd think that folks here on WB (of all people) would understand this.

People who support open access understand the situation just fine.

Jim Adams
01-29-2007, 20:48
If you totally do away with all vehicles in all National Parks and forested areas, YOU WILL STILL HAVE A WORLD WIDE POLLUTION PROBLEM!!!!!

The worlds pollution is not being caused by vehicles in forested areas. It is being caused GLOBALLY!

Protecting a park by denying access to vehicles will not stop the problem.
Getting heads out of the sand and educating people is the sollution.

geek

The Weasel
01-29-2007, 21:05
If you totally do away with all vehicles in all National Parks and forested areas, YOU WILL STILL HAVE A WORLD WIDE POLLUTION PROBLEM!!!!!

The worlds pollution is not being caused by vehicles in forested areas. It is being caused GLOBALLY!

Protecting a park by denying access to vehicles will not stop the problem.
Getting heads out of the sand and educating people is the sollution.

geek

Jim, first of all, keep in mind the concept, "Think globally, act locally." This is a start. Second, many of our parks are seriously damaged by the local pollution from vehicles (including air, snow and water- craft) that are used nearby; the Grand Canyon is the best example, as well as by the people themselves (which is why river access is very limited).

We're not going to get a magic wand to fix pollution globally; small steps add up.

The Weasel

Jim Adams
01-29-2007, 21:14
The Weasel,

Totally understand but although this would be a good start, my point was that there are just so many parks as opposed to small pockets of severe pollution producing areas which transport pollution by weather into these park areas.
Although these vehicles do emit pollution into the parks themselves, I would tend to think that alot also is transported into the park from outside.
geek

rafe
01-29-2007, 21:54
Protecting a park by denying access to vehicles will not stop the problem.

What problem, exactly? Its certainly had a measureable, positive impact at Zion NP. Will it make a dent in global warming? No.

fvital
01-29-2007, 22:00
Funny huh? Have an example? ...

Yes. Re-read some of the posts on this thread.


But do you honestly believe enjoyments levels shouldn't be limited in public places? No quiet hours, generators running 24/7. There has to be some limits...

In most areas, yes. But the RV crowd pays taxes that supports the parks and there should be an area for them. It's all a matter of compromise.

I don't want to be around the RV's and the generators. I want the quiet and seclusion. But I don't think others should be excluded from the whole park. there's plenty to go around.

The layout of Yosemite will always concentrate crowds in the valley.

And isn't this supposed to be a majority rules country? I think backpackers are in the minority. Let the others have their areas and we can have the rest.

Frosty
01-29-2007, 22:21
I'm speaking in general, but it does seem like there's a strong feeling by the hiker community to have national parks and other wilderness areas accessible only by hiking trail. the thought is a great injustice to other people who would rather drive or snomobile or atv....It's an injustice that people cannot drive throughl wilderness areas? If they drove and had roads and gas stations, etc, they wouldn't be wilderness areas, would they?

People can drive over about twenty kazillion miles of roads all over the country, and enjoy all the conveniences of a drive-through life-style. It is not necessary to add another few hundred miles at the cost of destroying wilderness areas so people can drive through and say, "Wow, I'll bet this was some wilderness before they built this road. Wanna stop at MDonalds before we hit the Backcountry Outlet Mall? Or would you rather catch a movie at the Hinterlands Multiplex?"

Jim Adams
01-29-2007, 22:24
It's an injustice that people cannot drive throughl wilderness areas? If they drove and had roads and gas stations, etc, they wouldn't be wilderness areas, would they?

People can drive over about twenty kazillion miles of roads all over the country, and enjoy all the conveniences of a drive-through life-style. It is not necessary to add another few hundred miles at the cost of destroying wilderness areas so people can drive through and say, "Wow, I'll bet this was some wilderness before they built this road. Wanna stop at MDonalds before we hit the Backcountry Outlet Mall? Or would you rather catch a movie at the Hinterlands Multiplex?"

:D OOOOH, AAAAAAH! Look at the Alpinglow on the side of that mall!

geek

Tipi Walter
01-29-2007, 22:53
Hot dangit but a stiff 60 degree windchill hit me in the face as I was leaving the Backcountry RV Camping Outlet and so momentarily disoriented I dangerously risked it all to walk over 100 feet to my vehicle now blurred and hard to see with my windseared and swollen eyes.

I knew by visiting this National Park(ing) Lot and Wilderless Area I could possibly face such a terrible situation and so I dug deep into my city heritage and credit card background and prevailed against Nature's meanest odds. Using what gear I had(OnStar and a cell phone)I immediately and quickly fell back to that primitive state where men are ruled by pure survival.

Suddenly a busload of Girl Scouts went by and their screaming and mocking shouts brought me out of my death struggle and I found myself standing next to my SUV thankful to be alive.

So yes, a visit to the great outdoors and to a National Park can be exciting, but for godsakes stay in your car!

SalParadise
01-29-2007, 23:04
It's an injustice that people cannot drive throughl wilderness areas? If they drove and had roads and gas stations, etc, they wouldn't be wilderness areas, would they?

People can drive over about twenty kazillion miles of roads all over the country, and enjoy all the conveniences of a drive-through life-style. It is not necessary to add another few hundred miles at the cost of destroying wilderness areas so people can drive through and say, "Wow, I'll bet this was some wilderness before they built this road. Wanna stop at MDonalds before we hit the Backcountry Outlet Mall? Or would you rather catch a movie at the Hinterlands Multiplex?"


i think part of the problem with preservation of wilderness is that many people don't get a chance to experience it and understand why it needs to be protected. if people couldn't just drive through a park in a day or weekend, people woulnd't just start forcing themselves to hike through it. Instead they just wouldn't go. you're not going to find much support for a national park system if extremely few people are ever seeing the land.

SalParadise
01-29-2007, 23:10
people complain about roads through parks, and i don't know that a trail is a whole lot different. we're cutting down trees to make the trail and building shelters in the middle of it all. then we pollute by leaving gear around and sometimes even polluting the streams with our garbage. we even scrounge up every piece of firewood for 100 yards around every shelter. Anyone support the elimination of the Appalachian Trail? couldn't a true wilderness experience be damaged just as much by having to interact with other hikers as much as it's interrupted by a passing car on a road?

rafe
01-29-2007, 23:16
... couldn't a true wilderness experience be damaged just as much by having to interact with other hikers as much as it's interrupted by a passing car on a road?

You want that kind of wilderness, go to Alaska. Have a boat-plane drop you off in the grizzly maze (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0427312/), with pickup scheduled, say, three months in the future. ;) I haven't seen a definition of wilderness that excluded humans.

SalParadise
01-29-2007, 23:19
People can drive over about twenty kazillion miles of roads all over the country, and enjoy all the conveniences of a drive-through life-style. It is not necessary to add another few hundred miles at the cost of destroying wilderness areas so people can drive through and say, "Wow, I'll bet this was some wilderness before they built this road. Wanna stop at MDonalds before we hit the Backcountry Outlet Mall? Or would you rather catch a movie at the Hinterlands Multiplex?"

you paint it as if anybody who's ever driven through a wilderness area doesn't enjoy the wilderness. personally, I seek out the scenic drives with nothing but curvy roads and trees and nobody else around, and I very much enjoy driving through the mountains, and i know i'm not alone in that. i'd be very upset if somebody took that away from me. though I like the road that doesn't mean I want the rest of the trees cut down, too.

Sly
01-29-2007, 23:19
i think part of the problem with preservation of wilderness is that many people don't get a chance to experience it and understand why it needs to be protected. if people couldn't just drive through a park in a day or weekend, people woulnd't just start forcing themselves to hike through it. Instead they just wouldn't go. you're not going to find much support for a national park system if extremely few people are ever seeing the land.

Have you ever been to a NP, driven through one? There's still plenty of access to the parks. Those privileges are still there Some such as Zion have free shuttle buses which lower the impact and allow for more visitors, not less. The article is about limiting new construction.

Socrates
01-29-2007, 23:42
Hmm, more cars in parks.. Let's think about this one.. Ok, how bout NO?! Have we not figured out yet that man is a virus to the environment of this planet? Me me me me me, want want want want, now now now now now... I'm certainly not proud of being a human and I'm lucky enough to recognize the flaws of our species.
Some of you who defend this consideration by saying that it's the "American right" to drive right to scenery are full of yourselves and follow an American constitution more so than you even know how to follow your own heart and that's a sad thing. You're the brainless sheep that, sooner or later, will be the ignorant downfall of our existence or other animals existence or both.
Hey I pay my taxes so I should be allowed to jump the fence to the White House and camp on the front lawn and run through the oval office with my pants off too right? "Well no no, that's different. That's a matter of national security." Ooooh well what about the security of the environment in the parks huh? You think air pollution, noise pollution, four wheelers, and snowmobiles belong in the quiet beautiful parks of plants and animals? NOOO NO, no more than I belong camped out in the front yard of the White House.
How many people complain that they don't get to ride in F-16s or take a tour of the Pentagon? Nobody, even though WE pay for it, there's a certain common sense understanding that some things, we just can't do. Well, if you're too lazy to hop out of your car, then TOUGH! If you care that little about the protection of the environment that you want to see so bad, then TOUGH! You don't belong there! We INHABIT this earth, we don't OWN it! And if you're too fat to make it, hey, I'M SORRY ABOUT YOUR LUCK! There's a million other places to visit and enjoy so GET OVER IT AND MOVE ON! You don't hear me crying because I can't climb the tallest mountain in the world. I'm not in the proper physical condition so OH WELL. There's PLENTY of other things to do with my life!
Where does it end folks? When are we going to grow some balls and draw the line that says "ENOUGH IS ENOUGH! YOU CAN'T HAVE EVERYTHING YOU Fing IDIOTS!"
Have you ever seen a parent give a toy to one of their kids and then the other starts crying "Awww I want want TOO!" This is no better... A bunch of grown babies CRYING! "ME ME ME! WANT WANT WANT!"
Sorry folks, I'm betting you're mostly good people, but I'm sick and tired of mother nature taking it up the butt AGAIN and AGAIN because so many men are disgustingly greedy and selfish. I like to watch debates on Fox News so this is pretty natural for me to speak my mind when something touches me.

Jim Adams
01-29-2007, 23:49
Socrates,
I like your rant here, it is very true and very good however it is really not much different that what everyone else here is saying. The difference isn't in saying, it is in doing and we (as a species)aren't. AND YES, I DO BITCH BECAUSE I CAN'T FLY IN AN F-16.

Sly
01-29-2007, 23:53
Let's just paved the AT. Then everyone can enjoy it. :rolleyes:

Tipi Walter
01-29-2007, 23:57
Socrates, great screed. If I were President I'd make sure you could camp at the White House. You could set up next to my Presidential Tipi. We could compare tent designs , wedges versus A-frames, etc.

moxie
01-30-2007, 00:00
One of my favorite National Park isn't a park, it's a National Monument. Organ Pipe Cactus on the Mexican border in Arizona. There you get both a National Park and illegals. The border is a barb wire fence less than three feet tall and thousands of illegals cross it every year and try to walk the 50 or so miles across the desert with a gallon of water in a milk bottle. These are the good guys. The dope runners are also crossing the desert and trying to get to the relative safety of a indian reservation where they will meet their contacts. At night the illegals will come into the campground restrooms in search of water. While backpacking on the desert I have found discarded clothes, food wrappers and clothing. Many die or are captured. These are not bad people that will be camping next to you at Bryce, Zion, or any other National Park next summer. They are people just looking for a better life as your grandparents did when they came here. The illegals are no threat to our national or State parks. They do not deserved to be mowed down. Given the chance in a generation or two their children may be drilling your teeth, representing you in court, or managing LW's Exxon stock for him. Unless you are a native American, and damn few pure bloods are left, you have no right to condem the illegals who are only trying to do what your grandpa and grandma did.

Socrates
01-30-2007, 00:01
Socrates,
I like your rant here, it is very true and very good however it is really not much different that what everyone else here is saying. The difference isn't in saying, it is in doing and we (as a species)aren't. AND YES, I DO BITCH BECAUSE I CAN'T FLY IN AN F-16.

Well thank you, I do feel better after a good rant. But I do think I saw some opinions that supported the idea and those are the ones I wanted to share with. I'm pretty edgy right now. I just got done watching about 8 videos on the Japanese harpooning whales and their loophole through illegal hunting. I'm pretty stinkin downright pissed right now. But I'm happy when I think about my thru hike this year! lol

SalParadise
01-30-2007, 00:02
virus...brainless sheep...full of ourselves...greedy...selfish.... glad you restrained yourself and didn't start the name-calling.

Appalachian Tater
01-30-2007, 00:05
What an.....interesting......thread.

SalParadise
01-30-2007, 00:06
One of my favorite National Park isn't a park, it's a National Monument. Organ Pipe Cactus on the Mexican border in Arizona. There you get both a National Park and illegals. The border is a barb wire fence less than three feet tall and thousands of illegals cross it every year and try to walk the 50 or so miles across the desert with a gallon of water in a milk bottle. These are the good guys.,,,,

if i remember right, that was just someone trolling a good thread to get people angry. to link illegal immigration with the development/overdevelopment of the national park system is quite the stretch.

Tipi Walter
01-30-2007, 00:07
One of my favorite National Park isn't a park, it's a National Monument. Organ Pipe Cactus on the Mexican border in Arizona. There you get both a National Park and illegals. The border is a barb wire fence less than three feet tall and thousands of illegals cross it every year and try to walk the 50 or so miles across the desert with a gallon of water in a milk bottle. These are the good guys. The dope runners are also crossing the desert and trying to get to the relative safety of a indian reservation where they will meet their contacts. At night the illegals will come into the campground restrooms in search of water. While backpacking on the desert I have found discarded clothes, food wrappers and clothing. Many die or are captured. These are not bad people that will be camping next to you at Bryce, Zion, or any other National Park next summer. They are people just looking for a better life as your grandparents did when they came here. The illegals are no threat to our national or State parks. They do not deserved to be mowed down. Given the chance in a generation or two their children may be drilling your teeth, representing you in court, or managing LW's Exxon stock for him. Unless you are a native American, and damn few pure bloods are left, you have no right to condem the illegals who are only trying to do what your grandpa and grandma did.

One simple question: Why can't they change where they live in Mexico and make it better there? Do they have no pride in or loyalty to their own country? Two questions, actually.

4eyedbuzzard
01-30-2007, 00:09
Let's just paved the AT. Then everyone can enjoy it. :rolleyes:

Great idea! We'll rename it Skyline Drive.:-? :( Nevermind

rafe
01-30-2007, 00:10
One simple question: Why can't they change where they live in Mexico and make it better there? Do they have no pride in or loyalty to their own country? Two questions, actually.

How successful have you been in molding the USA toward your own version of paradise/utopia? I mean, what you're asking is a tall order, for any citizen, of any country.

Appalachian Tater
01-30-2007, 00:15
One simple question: Why can't they change where they live in Mexico and make it better there? Do they have no pride in or loyalty to their own country? Two questions, actually.

Without getting sucked into this repugnant thread, people come here from Mexico and other countries for the same reason people move from Detroit to Montana, for instance: to get a job, make money, and provide food for their families. It's not like they're dying in the desert to come here because they love doing the crappy jobs for crappy pay and no benefits just to make their employers happy to have cheap, off-the-books labor.

Socrates
01-30-2007, 00:15
virus...brainless sheep...full of ourselves...greedy...selfish.... glad you restrained yourself and didn't start the name-calling.

HAHA Trust me, that WAS restrained. I didn't do any unnecessary name calling. I used words that describe the attitude of such people that ignorantly support the decline in quality and health of America's parks. For that, I can't apologize. If you believe in something with your heart, there's no need for apologies.

Jim Adams
01-30-2007, 00:16
Let's just paved the AT. Then everyone can enjoy it. :rolleyes:

Sly are you crazy!!!!! How can I ride my dirt bike on the asphalt?:rolleyes:
geek

SalParadise
01-30-2007, 00:55
HAHA Trust me, that WAS restrained. I didn't do any unnecessary name calling. I used words that describe the attitude of such people that ignorantly support the decline in quality and health of America's parks. For that, I can't apologize. If you believe in something with your heart, there's no need for apologies.

yeah, I was chuckling to myself because I could totally see you reading back over your post and deleting all the four-letter words.

but I will respectfully disagree that the side that supports sustainable development is ignorant. There is certainly an approach to development or increased development that not only maintains the overall health and numbers of the animals and shrubbery in the park, but also provides for maximum human interaction and enjoyment of nature.

Certainly there's compromises that must be made for either side. To development, it means that there is going to be a road and a parking lot cutting through the forest. However any side that wants to severly limit the numbers and types of people who could or should (you said "you don't belong there") visit and experience the natural landscape and animals that you're trying to protect, that's a tragedy. I also believe that if only a very few people get access to nature, then most people would ultimately not support any further development or increase of the national park system itself, and that would be the worst thing of all.

Teatime
01-30-2007, 08:17
I'm certainly not proud of being a human and I'm lucky enough to recognize the flaws of our species.
[/quote]
Really.....I'm quite happy being human. After all, I am created in the image and likeness of God. Christ took on human flesh, which gives the human person infinite dignity and worth. You are correct in saying we have many flaws, sins and faults. However, that isn't whole story. We have great capacity to love, nurture and create. Humans have created beautiful works of art, composed beautiful music and written inspiring and profound words. Wasn't it humans who actually came up with the idea for National Parks? Have you ever seen old pictures of the area now covered by Shenandoah National Par? It was logged over, eroding and in very bad shape. It was, and is humans who take care of national parks, humans who built and maintain the A.T., and humans, like so many mentioned in posts on WB, that help out fellow hikers in need. When you look for the worst in people, you will surely find it.

Teatime
01-30-2007, 08:18
Wow, I screwed that up, meant to enclose the quote. But hey, I work 3rd shift and I am REALLY tired right about now.

moxie
01-30-2007, 09:48
One simple question: Why can't they change where they live in Mexico and make it better there? Do they have no pride in or loyalty to their own country? Two questions, actually.
I would love to change our country, get rid of our brain damaged president, stop coal burning plants fron causing global warming, protect our wild and endangered places, clean up our lakes and harbors, protect the Applachian Trail, bring home our troops but other Americans want industry, oil drilling, cheap energy from coal, and would rather see their tax money used to conquer the middle east than clean up our enviroment. I'm sure there are those who want to preserve the states quo in central Ameerica so if you can't change it you leave for a better life as humans have been doing since we stood on our hind legs and walked out of the caves. When you reach the point of frustration and realize you can't change things you move on to a better place. The last election showed me there is still some hope for America.

Lone Wolf
01-30-2007, 09:49
I would love to change our country, get rid of our brain damaged president, stop coal burning plants fron causing global warming, protect our wild and endangered places, clean up our lakes and harbors, protect the Applachian Trail, bring home our troops but other Americans want industry, oil drilling, cheap energy from coal, and would rather see their tax money used to conquer the middle east than clean up our enviroment. I'm sure there are those who want to preserve the states quo in central Ameerica so if you can't change it you leave for a better life as humans have been doing since we stood on our hind legs and walked out of the caves. When you reach the point of frustration and realize you can't change things you move on to a better place. The last election showed me there is still some hope for America.

Then run for political office and change something.

moxie
01-30-2007, 10:15
Then run for political office and change something.
I wasn't on Whiteblaze all summer and fall because I was running for The Maine State Legislature. I knocked on thousands of doors, spent $13,000 but I lost to a well financed lobbiest for the timber industry. She spent $56,000, had a paid staff and a driver to take her around. I campained on a motor scooter while holding down a full time job. So don't say run for office because I did, I did wish to change things and I still will. I got a higher vote total than the winners in 59 other legislative districts but just not quite enough to beat her. Running for a State office is almost as much work as a thru hike but at least I gave it my all and didn't win. I will continue to work outside the legislature for what I believe in and if you work hard enough you don't have to be in office to improve the system.

The Weasel
01-30-2007, 11:04
Yes. Re-read some of the posts on this thread.



In most areas, yes. But the RV crowd pays taxes that supports the parks and there should be an area for them. It's all a matter of compromise.

I don't want to be around the RV's and the generators. I want the quiet and seclusion. But I don't think others should be excluded from the whole park. there's plenty to go around.

The layout of Yosemite will always concentrate crowds in the valley.

And isn't this supposed to be a majority rules country? I think backpackers are in the minority. Let the others have their areas and we can have the rest.

Well, those arguments just don't work: "We pay taxes too," and "majority rules." RV users don't pay taxes to any greater extent than other people; gas taxes are used for highways, and generally not for those in parks, and, even then, only for highways that are part of the Federal Highway Trust Fund, such as US Highways and Interstates. Sorry, that argument doesn't get RV users in.

Nor does the "majority rules" argument work: RV users are no more a "majority" of the United States than those who - by their use or by their preference - support stringent and even enhanced reductions in pollution in the parks.

Frankly, RV users already have plenty of areas to use. Our highway system is extraordinarily subsidized by taxpayers presently, with a dedicated tax base (fuel taxes) to a vast extent beyond that of our parks and recreation lands. They can go places backpackers can't - we can't even hitchhike on most of the roads that RV users can drive on.

I'm sorry. RVs have no greater entitlement to access to our parks than any other means, and probably could benefit the parks by staying elsewhere and taking a bus in.

The Weasel

The Weasel
01-30-2007, 11:09
I wasn't on Whiteblaze all summer and fall because I was running for The Maine State Legislature. I knocked on thousands of doors, spent $13,000 but I lost to a well financed lobbiest for the timber industry. She spent $56,000, had a paid staff and a driver to take her around. I campained on a motor scooter while holding down a full time job. So don't say run for office because I did, I did wish to change things and I still will. I got a higher vote total than the winners in 59 other legislative districts but just not quite enough to beat her. Running for a State office is almost as much work as a thru hike but at least I gave it my all and didn't win. I will continue to work outside the legislature for what I believe in and if you work hard enough you don't have to be in office to improve the system.

Moxie, as someone who has been in politics for a long time, I tell you this: You ran for office, and you changed something. "Not winning" in politics isn't the same as "losing." I'll go back as far as "the two Georges" - McGovern and Wallace - to tell you that being defeated doesn't mean that you haven't affected others, and given them voices that otherwise wouldn't be heard, that can affect not only your district, but more.

I hope you will try again. Our recent history is full of those who got beat and came back stronger than before to succeed; take a look at Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton, if you doubt.

I admire you. Thanks for what you did.

The Weasel

The Weasel
01-30-2007, 11:15
One of my favorite National Park isn't a park, it's a National Monument. Organ Pipe Cactus on the Mexican border in Arizona. There you get both a National Park and illegals. The border is a barb wire fence less than three feet tall and thousands of illegals cross it every year and try to walk the 50 or so miles across the desert with a gallon of water in a milk bottle. These are the good guys. The dope runners are also crossing the desert and trying to get to the relative safety of a indian reservation where they will meet their contacts. At night the illegals will come into the campground restrooms in search of water. While backpacking on the desert I have found discarded clothes, food wrappers and clothing. Many die or are captured. These are not bad people that will be camping next to you at Bryce, Zion, or any other National Park next summer. They are people just looking for a better life as your grandparents did when they came here. The illegals are no threat to our national or State parks. They do not deserved to be mowed down. Given the chance in a generation or two their children may be drilling your teeth, representing you in court, or managing LW's Exxon stock for him. Unless you are a native American, and damn few pure bloods are left, you have no right to condem the illegals who are only trying to do what your grandpa and grandma did.

Moxie: I resent the "mow them down" trashtalk here to, and see much that is good and hopeful for the US in the immigrants - legal and otherwise - that come to the USA over the border. But Organ Pipe - one of my favorite parks too (even with all the rattlers in the campground!) is a poor choice for your example of "no harm to the parks" since a big hunk of the park is "off limits" to everyone due to mass swarming over the border, and in that section an NPS Ranger was shot and killed only a few years ago. That it was almost certainly a smuggler, not an immigrant, still doesn't detract from the need for a way to stop illegal crossings that allow the wolves to be hidden in the herds of sheep.

The Weasel

fvital
01-30-2007, 12:34
Have you ever been to a NP, driven through one? There's still plenty of access to the parks. Those privileges are still there Some such as Zion have free shuttle buses which lower the impact and allow for more visitors, not less. The article is about limiting new construction.

And they have access to a portion and are happy. I don't think a paved road or limited paved roads to a limited portion of the park is wrong. I was responding to the posts that the roads should be removed and only those who can walk in have the right to enjoy it. Give the RV's their little portion and they'll be happy and we can have the rest.

fvital
01-30-2007, 12:37
.

Nor does the "majority rules" argument work: RV users are no more a "majority" of the United States than those who - by their use or by their preference - support stringent and even enhanced reductions in pollution in the parks.

Frankly, RV users already have plenty of areas to use. Our highway system is extraordinarily subsidized by taxpayers presently, with a dedicated tax base (fuel taxes) to a vast extent beyond that of our parks and recreation lands. They can go places backpackers can't - we can't even hitchhike on most of the roads that RV users can drive on.

I'm sorry. RVs have no greater entitlement to access to our parks than any other means, and probably could benefit the parks by staying elsewhere and taking a bus in.

The Weasel

So there are more backpackers in parks then RV's/snowmobiles/scenic drivers?

And hikers pay no more in taxes either and have no greater entitlement to access either.

But hikers rule and all others must bow before them I guess.

The Weasel
01-30-2007, 12:52
And they have access to a portion and are happy. I don't think a paved road or limited paved roads to a limited portion of the park is wrong. I was responding to the posts that the roads should be removed and only those who can walk in have the right to enjoy it. Give the RV's their little portion and they'll be happy and we can have the rest.

FV, the problem is that "their little portion" causes vastly more pollution than you might think. Here is a link to an excellent letter sent to the US EPA in 2001 on behalf of the Adirondack Mountain Club, which lays out the fact that RVs are not benign, and (along with off road vehicles) cause a disproportionate amount of pollution.

http://www.hikersforcleanair.org/testimony/recveh.html

I don't think anyone has suggested parks be limited to "only those who walk in," since mass transit can permit full access. I, personally, have a disagreement with those who want to visit parks on their own terms, not those of the parks, by bringing a full home-on-wheels and insisting on a place inside a park to set up a very large cottage while running generators. They are allowed though - under majority-approved rules - so I'll accept it even as I try to encourage both RV users and governments to limit their use. But, as both the NPS and others say, we can't "love the parks to death." And the largest causes of problems are those that are among the best places to start.

The Weasel
01-30-2007, 12:59
So there are more backpackers in parks then RV's/snowmobiles/scenic drivers?

And hikers pay no more in taxes either and have no greater entitlement to access either.

But hikers rule and all others must bow before them I guess.

Well, sort of depends on how you count it, if it matters: Hikers (anyone doing more than a stroll) and backpackers probably exceed "drive through" visitors and snowmobile users (almost totally excluded from lower-48 national parks) and RV users. Since for most parks (other than Zion), 'packers and hikers have to use a car to get to the trailhead, although I don't know any who'd mind being able to take a bus from outside.

My point on the taxes is that you suggested that since RV users pay a lot of taxes (they don't: they pay fuel taxes that are used for roads, not parks) they have some kind of entitlement. If you're talking about income taxes, well, I agree with the point made above: When I can camp on the White House lawn, I won't object to an RV on top of Half Dome.

Hikers don't "rule". But they cause the least damage to the environment and, as a group, tend to be the most sensitive to that problem in the parks. When RVs are silent, rather than sounding muffled generators through the night, and pollution free, rather than major in-park sources of particulate emissions, I'll withdraw my objections.

The Weasel

weary
01-30-2007, 13:22
The mission of the National Parks is:

"...to promote and regulate the use of the...national parks...which purpose is to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wild life therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations."

All Terrain vehicles violate this mission by tearing up the landscape and imposing massive damage.

Snowmobiles disturb wild life during the time of the year when they are most vulnerable.

Snowmobiles and ATVs do not leave the parks unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations, Thus except in special and restricted locations where the inherent damage can be avoided, they should be banned.

Weary

SalParadise
01-30-2007, 13:46
let me know of a species that has gone extinct because of snowmobile noise pollution and I'd withdraw any support of snowmobile use in national parks. Otherwise maybe we could also ban the driving of loud motorcycles and firetrucks on streets where newborns live. ban ban ban ban ban ban ban.

and it's not like snowmobiles and ATV's are allowed everywhere on the park, they have their dedicated trails just like hikers do. do the vehicles destroy that swath of land through the park? no doubt, but I also didn't see many plants or animals living on the oft-trod AT, either. Plus a snowmobile doesn't need shelters or leave trash or destroy patches of land to set up tents.

so this whole thing about 95% for hikers and 5% for everyone else, I suppose there's no particular bias in there at all? pretty convenient that huge parts of a park that would exclude everyone else would still allow hikers.

weary
01-30-2007, 14:10
let me know of a species that has gone extinct because of snowmobile noise pollution and I'd withdraw any support of snowmobile use in national parks. Otherwise maybe we could also ban the driving of loud motorcycles and firetrucks on streets where newborns live. ban ban ban ban ban ban ban.
.....so this whole thing about 95% for hikers and 5% for everyone else, I suppose there's no particular bias in there at all? pretty convenient that huge parts of a park that would exclude everyone else would still allow hikers.
The criteria is not extinction, but impairment. Except for the Appalachian Trail I know of no parks whose landscape is dedicated 95% to hikers and 5% for everyone else. The great majority of users in most parks are automobile tourists. Trails make up a very tiny percentage of parks overall. Only the Appalachian Trail is dedicated mostly to foot traffic by a special act of Congress.

I agree that snowmoble damage tends to be marginal in most parks. But the same is not true for ATV's. Great sections of Acadia National Park in Maine has been transformed into mud holes by illegal ATV users.

Hikers cause no similar damage on properly constructed and maintained trails. I haven't done a survey of all parks, but walking trails are generally pretty trash free. It is mostly shelters and trails within easy reach of motor vehicles that are trashed.

That certainly is true of my town's land trust trails. I rarely find trash except in places reachable by ATVs and snowmobiles.

Weary

The Weasel
01-30-2007, 14:16
The criteria is not extinction, but impairment. Except for the Appalachian Trail I know of no parks whose landscape is dedicated 95% to hikers and 5% for everyone else.

Weary

Weary - even the AT is not "95% for hikers." The AT is almost entirely made up of trails located on public lands, and while I have never figured out the percentage, I would estimate that well over 80% of it is sited in National Parks and Forests, State Parks and Forests, and other large public lands. Most of those lands allow mixed uses in some or all of the territory, as I know you know. You're being overly generous.

The Weasel

SalParadise
01-30-2007, 14:33
The criteria is not extinction, but impairment. Except for the Appalachian Trail I know of no parks whose landscape is dedicated 95% to hikers and 5% for everyone else. The great majority of users in most parks are automobile tourists. Trails make up a very tiny percentage of parks overall. Only the Appalachian Trail is dedicated mostly to foot traffic by a special act of Congress.

I agree that snowmoble damage tends to be marginal in most parks. But the same is not true for ATV's. Great sections of Acadia National Park in Maine has been transformed into mud holes by illegal ATV users.


of course the 95% number wasn't anything field-tested, just a reaction of some people (not necessarily you, Weasel) who do indeed want to substantially eliminate non-hiker forms of entry into our parks.

definitely ATV's rip up the land like no other. now personally, I'm not sold on any substantial increase in ATV access (though wouldn't support eliminating it alltogether), but you mention illegal ATV users, and if a park is having environmental problems to to illegal off-trail vehicle use, then the problem is not related to legal access or expansion, and the problem might be better mitigated with increased fines or stronger park support. only until the illegal off-trail use becomes pervasive and unmanageable, only then should people talk about banning one particular vehicle or another.

The Weasel
01-30-2007, 14:46
of course the 95% number wasn't anything field-tested, just a reaction of some people (not necessarily you, Weasel) who do indeed want to substantially eliminate non-hiker forms of entry into our parks.

definitely ATV's rip up the land like no other. now personally, I'm not sold on any substantial increase in ATV access (though wouldn't support eliminating it alltogether), but you mention illegal ATV users, and if a park is having environmental problems to to illegal off-trail vehicle use, then the problem is not related to legal access or expansion, and the problem might be better mitigated with increased fines or stronger park support. only until the illegal off-trail use becomes pervasive and unmanageable, only then should people talk about banning one particular vehicle or another.

Sal, I think you're unintentionally hijacking this thread. The main concept is that many of our parks are having major problems with mass access by motor vehicles, and that high on the problems caused is serious air pollution. RVs are a big part of that. Many parks are trying to reverse that problem.

Off-road motored vehicle usage is a major problem in most parks in the lower 48. Most do not allow snowmobiles under any circumstances, although Yellowstone has been a focus of allowing them. With legal usage, air pollution on legal trail areas in Yellowstone is incredibly high. ATVs simply have no business being in national parks, although I can understand (if not be happy with) hunter usage of them in national forests. Motorized trail cycles have no legitimate purpose in national parks, either. All three cause vast air pollution problems, among others. But that's not an "access" issue.

We need to limit access to many overused parks. That's the problem. The solution may be difficult for many to accept, but short of forbidding any access other than foot, mass transit is the only feasible solution.

The Weasel

weary
01-30-2007, 15:10
Weary - even the AT is not "95% for hikers." The AT is almost entirely made up of trails located on public lands, and while I have never figured out the percentage, I would estimate that well over 80% of it is sited in National Parks and Forests, State Parks and Forests, and other large public lands. Most of those lands allow mixed uses in some or all of the territory, as I know you know. You're being overly generous.
The Weasel
I believe that there is a designated trail corridor in places where the AT passes through National Parks and Forests. There is no designated trail corridor where the trail passes through state lands in Maine. I don't know about other states. My memory says that around 250,000 acres were acquired by the two federal agencies in response to the Congressional mandate to protect the trail, of which about 40,000 are in Maine. The trail is Maine's largest National Park.

Under the terms of the federal Legislation useage other than foot traffic is mostly prohibited, except where the trail coincides with public roads. Though the land purchases in some places allowed for private logging roads to continue to cross the trail.

Weary

The Weasel
01-30-2007, 16:37
I believe that there is a designated trail corridor in places where the AT passes through National Parks and Forests. There is no designated trail corridor where the trail passes through state lands in Maine. I don't know about other states. My memory says that around 250,000 acres were acquired by the two federal agencies in response to the Congressional mandate to protect the trail, of which about 40,000 are in Maine. The trail is Maine's largest National Park.

Under the terms of the federal Legislation useage other than foot traffic is mostly prohibited, except where the trail coincides with public roads. Though the land purchases in some places allowed for private logging roads to continue to cross the trail.

Weary

Weary: You're probably right. I'm trying to remember what the deisgnated corridor width is, which, when multiplied by the AT length, would be interesting to know (converted to acres). I'm guessing that the total area of the AT is no more than about 2,000 acres, which is a middling-small state park type size. Not all that big.

The Weasel

rickb
01-30-2007, 19:32
That's a very interesting question. I wonder how "big" the AT is too.

If it was just 250 feet either side of the Trail, the acreage would be well over 100,000. I think.

((5 ,280 feet per mile* 500 feet wide) / 43,560 square feet per acre ) * 2 ,170 = 131, 515 Acres

But I don't reall have a clue.

rickb
01-30-2007, 19:58
My math must be off (but I dont know where). According to the ATC:


"The corridor" is the way we refer to the greenway of publicly owned and easement land that surrounds the footpath. Its width varies, going down to as few as 100 feet in places, but averages about 1,000 feet (about 25 acres per mile). Not only is it a buffer zone for the Trail, it is a natural haven for a wealth of plant and animal species, some of which are rare, threatened, or even endangered. Monitors play an important role in the continued protection of the the corridor of land that sustains the Trail experience.

weary
01-30-2007, 21:19
That's a very interesting question. I wonder how "big" the AT is too.

If it was just 250 feet either side of the Trail, the acreage would be well over 100,000. I think.

((5 ,280 feet per mile* 500 feet wide) / 43,560 square feet per acre ) * 2 ,170 = 131, 515 Acres

But I don't reall have a clue.



Rick: I haven't done the math so recently that I remember the details. But I know in Maine the unprotected land purchased totalled between 35,000 and 40,000 acres. Dave Field who was instrUmentaL in deciding how much to buy, and why, claims the corridor is no less than 1,000 feet, i.e. 500 feet on both sides of the trail on portions of the trail not surrounded by public land.

I also vaguely remember from ATC and National Park Service conversations that the total purchased between Maine and Georgia was around 250,000 acres.

I also remember a discussion at which the ATC representative told the Baxter State Park officials that the Conservancy wouldn't agree to relocating the AT in the park. He was bluntly told that that wasn't his decision -- that the park decides where, and if, the trail continues toi exist in Baxter -- or words to that effect.

Weary

The Weasel
01-30-2007, 21:20
My math must be off (but I dont know where). According to the ATC:

Quote:
"The corridor" is the way we refer to the greenway of publicly owned and easement land that surrounds the footpath. Its width varies, going down to as few as 100 feet in places, but averages about 1,000 feet (about 25 acres per mile). Not only is it a buffer zone for the Trail, it is a natural haven for a wealth of plant and animal species, some of which are rare, threatened, or even endangered. Monitors play an important role in the continued protection of the the corridor of land that sustains the Trail experience.



If it's about 25 acres/mile, then it's roughly 50,000 acres. Sounds like a lot, but that's only about 800 square miles, or 25 miles square. Interesting. About 1/4 the size of Yellowstone?

The Weasel

weary
01-30-2007, 22:07
If it's about 25 acres/mile, then it's roughly 50,000 acres. Sounds like a lot, but that's only about 800 square miles, or 25 miles square. Interesting. About 1/4 the size of Yellowstone? The Weasel

I think it is far more than 50,000 acres. A mile (5,280 feet) times 1,000 feet is 5,280,000 square feet. Divided by an acre (43,200 square feet, which is close but I forget the precise figure) equals about 120 acres per mile.

Assuming they bought 1,000 miles that means the corridor is 120,000 acres. My memory keeps insisting that the park service and the Forest service bought a total of 250,000 acres. If so they either bought more miles or a wider corridor -- or both.

Weary

The Weasel
01-31-2007, 02:12
Be nice to know. Not sure how to find out. ATC must have the ability somehow. Maybe not.

The Weasel

rickb
01-31-2007, 07:45
You can Google, just about anything.....

www.nps.gov/appa/parkmgmt/upload/05Strategic%20Plan-2.doc


Today, with over 165,000 acres acquired by the NPS and the USFS as part of a permanent right-of-way and protected corridor, the Appalachian National Scenic Trail ranks both as a component of the national trails system and a unit of the national park system.

Now to get back to zillow.com :D

dperry
01-31-2007, 13:24
The most recent AT Journeys has an article by Bob Gray, the just-retired chief NPS ranger for the AT. He states that the size of the connecting corridor (i.e., the strips of land between existing parks and other public lands) purchased by the NPS exceeds 85,000 acres.

Again, this only includes the NPS-owned corridor, so it does not include the USFS purchases mentioned by Rick above, nor land in previously existing NPS areas.

He also states that the total boundary of the corridor (though not, obviously, the actual area) is considerably greater than Yellowstone's.