View Full Version : On closing parks to vehicular traffic
Tipi Walter
06-25-2009, 08:20
The best hiking i've found in Canada is on Crown Land (land owned by the people), and there are zero fee's... National or Provincial Parks on the other hand do have fee's but also provide services that attract people.... Another reason to avoid parks and stick to public lands... No amenities means no crowds and a whole giant forest all to yourself! :banana
Short and sweet. Crowds in Parks translates to cars and rolling traffic, take easy access away and interior park roadways and you cut out at least 50% of the overcrowding.
You can walk the AT for free though:sun.
This is the part that doesn't make sense to me. The "Fees Are Good" crowd never talk about charging a nightly fee to hike or backpack the Appalachian Trail. Why not?
In addition to helping support the park (as many here have pointed out), fees and passes are charged in some parks to regulate the number of visitors, in short to keep then from being loved to death. Remember, the U.S. is a country of 300+ million people and not everybody knows how to behave responsibly in the wild.
Regulating numbers would be easy by limiting car access and roads. This will eventually have to be done as the population skyrockets towards 450 million by 2050. Why do places like Yellowstone and the Smokies have car campgrounds for motor homes and RVs? Who's in charge? Haven't we had enough of wheeled traffic in all it's clever forms? Why can't people park in one huge designated lot outside the Park and walk in from there?
If it makes you feel any better, I've never seen any wilderness on the east cost of the USA. It's all been logged within the past 100 years, excepting for pockets too expensive to get logging machinery to.
The illusion of wilderness, in a way is a theme park, and the dollars collected are probably used up in litter pickup and unwarrented "rescue" missions of unprepared touristas going for a walk in the woods that ends up being a little more uncomfortable than they bargained for. I can't say I don't mind paying for it, but that's just the way it is. Many of the parking areas where fees are charged have overused trails which I avoid like the plague during the peak of tourist season.
Here again, too easy access by the rolling couch potatoes. Close the roads to these places and make what once was remote difficult again to reach. On foot. BTW, there's a 4000 acre wilderness valley in the Slickrock/Kilmer area of NC that has never been logged.
Short and sweet. Crowds in Parks translates to cars and rolling traffic, take easy access away and interior park roadways and you cut out at least 50% of the overcrowding.
I wholeheartedly agree Tipi, but do you truely think this will happen on a large enough scale to make a difference? I woud guess that the National Park Service, in its present form, is under pressure by some from within and many others involved in making a profit from industrial tourism(fast food, hotels, petroleum industry, automobile industry, road building contractors, politicians, lawers, gift shop owners, etc, etc.) to allow greater access by motorized vehicles. Seems to be the philosophy in some national parks, build more roads and they will come and with them comes their money. Let's build roads! Let's exploit the nation's natural resources and wilderness for profit. Very often the profiteers have strong political and economic allies or government officials themselves believe in economically developing - code word for exploiting the wilderness for profit - the national parks.
If one wants to look at some successful vehicular traffic solutions look at what Yosemite NP has done in the valley with their bus system, or the Grand Canyon NP bus system on the S. Rim, or the way Zion NP has drastically cut traffic congestion and pollution by instituting a bus system.
Here again, too easy access by the rolling couch potatoes. Close the roads to these places and make what once was remote difficult again to reach.
It's designed this way because this is what Americans have been brainwashed into believing is a viable lifestyle. If someone(???) can control your movements they can readily contol the information that is most readily availble to you. If they can control the flow of info to you they can contol your thoughts and beliefs. Welcome to the ring through the nose crowd here in America.
I like to paraphrase an article I read in Reader's Digest not long ago. In a study conducted across the U.S. in 1997 statistics showed that the avg. American in the study walked an avg. of 9.7 miles per week which included the miles walk while at work and at home. In 2007 a similar study was conducted that saw those numbers drop to less than 2 miles per week! If we are to believe these figures hold true across the U.S. Americans are walking 1/5 of what they were just a decade earlier!
We are turning into a couch potato society! with grave consequences!
Alligator
06-25-2009, 15:00
...
It's designed this way because this is what Americans have been brainwashed into believing is a viable lifestyle. If someone(???) can control your movements they can readily contol the information that is most readily availble to you. If they can control the flow of info to you they can contol your thoughts and beliefs. Welcome to the ring through the nose crowd here in America.
...So you are saying the government is controlling your thoughts with cars and/or mass transit. People can still choose to walk into the park:-?. There is still a choice. That's not control, there are options. How you personally choose to do it is your own responsibility.
And folks can't viably visit the parks by walking anyway. One gets in the car or takes a bus, plane or automobile to get there. People in New York are not going to walk or bike to Redwoods NP for instance.
flemdawg1
06-25-2009, 16:03
http://www.bluemousemonkey.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/wall-e-human-300x224.jpg
We are turning into a couch potato society! with grave consequences!
So whats wrong w/ couch potatoes? ;)
http://www.bluemousemonkey.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/wall-e-human-300x224.jpg
LIhikers
06-25-2009, 17:23
Sure glad I didn't have to walk to Denali...:eek:
Although we did several backcountry hikes while we were there. Oh, and the bus system there seemed to work well too.
The NPS has to serve a diverse population. Not every tax paying citizen is unable to "hike into" a park because they are "a couch potato". Some are disabled, some are seniors, some are just out of shape. Some of them may have time restraints.
When you look at the big picture, it's alot more complicated than just preventing traffic into the park. As it stands today, you can go to the busyest parks in the country, Yellowstone, Grand Canyon, Glacier etc. and see hoards of auto traffic and people, however there are numerous trails in all of these parks that will take you away from the traffic and hoards.
berninbush
06-25-2009, 17:59
I don't understand why it has to be an "all or nothing" scenario. Tipi seems to be saying that he wants ALL national parks to be closed to ALL vehicle traffic, so that everyone has to walk in to any "wilderness" area.
As others have pointed out, not everybody is capable of 15 mile hikes. Some have made poor choices in diet and exercise. (Have you ever made poor choices?) Some have jobs that don't allow them to be in top shape. Some have illnesses or injuries over which they have no control. Some people simply don't enjoy long hikes, but like short ones-- personal preference.
So why not have some wilderness areas that don't allow cars, and some that have restricted access, and some with less restricted access... to please the whole range of taxpayers who make forest care possible? Then you can charge higher fees for the least-restricted areas that need the most care, so you're not penalizing the people who have the least impact on nature. And just maybe, the contact with the natural world will inspire some people to get more in shape and explore deeper.
:-? Oh wait, isn't that pretty much what we've got?
[quote=Tipi Walter;8595
Regulating numbers would be easy by limiting car access and roads. This will eventually have to be done as the population skyrockets towards 450 million by 2050. Why do places like Yellowstone and the Smokies have car campgrounds for motor homes and RVs? Who's in charge? Haven't we had enough of wheeled traffic in all it's clever forms? Why can't people park in one huge designated lot outside the Park and walk in from there?
[/quote]
The numbers are already regulated and controlled. Places like Yellowstone and the Smokies have car and RV camping because it's a free country and everyone has a right to enjoy our National Parks. What are you going to tell a 70 year old couple that has worked and payed taxes all thier lives and decided to travel around the country and see the sites they never got to see because they were to busy working and paying taxes? They can't go to Yellowstone or the Smokies because the backpacker/hikers don't want to share?
So you are saying the government is controlling your thoughts with cars and/or mass transit. People can still choose to walk into the park:-?. There is still a choice. That's not control, there are options. How you personally choose to do it is your own responsibility.
And folks can't viably visit the parks by walking anyway. One gets in the car or takes a bus, plane or automobile to get there. People in New York are not going to walk or bike to Redwoods NP for instance.
Well put. I wanted to add something to that but.... you pretty much summed it up. Thanks.
Hikerhead
06-25-2009, 19:23
How do you get to the trail heads? I drive. If you walk to get to the trail heads then you might have a legitimate gripe. Close the roads and the first and loudest complainers will be the hikers.
I think you have to look at each park, trail, area on an individual basis. I think that is how they do it now. There certainly is a way to petition the NPS on closing off certain areas or roads or parking areas, or for making various changes inside a National Park. It has been done by bikers and snowmo's. No reason why you can't work to preserve a specific area or trail.
MintakaCat
06-25-2009, 20:50
I don't think Park Service will be able to ever close 441 throught the GSMNP. Not after the huge legal battle on the Road to Nowhere. I think the Feds are offering $53 Million to settle the issue.
Ox97GaMe
06-25-2009, 21:03
They wont be able to close 441 through the Smokies until they build a better way to get around the park. Currently, it is almost a 3 hr drive to get from one side of the park to the other if you drive around instead of through.
Nobody really wants to see a 4 lane highway constructed around the park, although that is currently what we have from Bryson City to Cosby. Maybe if they actually finish the Foothills parkway it would eleviate some of the traffic that is passing through the park. But, that isnt likely to happen any time soon either.
I loved that Zion NP was open to propane park shuttle buses, bikes, & feet
Tipi Walter
06-25-2009, 21:43
So you are saying the government is controlling your thoughts with cars and/or mass transit. People can still choose to walk into the park:-?. There is still a choice. That's not control, there are options. How you personally choose to do it is your own responsibility.
And folks can't viably visit the parks by walking anyway. One gets in the car or takes a bus, plane or automobile to get there. People in New York are not going to walk or bike to Redwoods NP for instance.
My point was a big parking lot outside the park and then entrance on foot from there, obviously not walking from New York to the Smokies. Leaving people to choose how to enter a Park is foolish, as a great percentage of people will take the easy way and go in by car. They may even decide to go in and land with a helicopter if they have enough money. And so we have designated wilderness areas which limits human choice in this matter. And here's the choice: On foot or horseback or not at all. In this day and age of over development, road building and sprawl, this seems the best solution to try to save what's left.
I don't understand why it has to be an "all or nothing" scenario. Tipi seems to be saying that he wants ALL national parks to be closed to ALL vehicle traffic, so that everyone has to walk in to any "wilderness" area.
As others have pointed out, not everybody is capable of 15 mile hikes. Some have made poor choices in diet and exercise. (Have you ever made poor choices?) Some have jobs that don't allow them to be in top shape. Some have illnesses or injuries over which they have no control. Some people simply don't enjoy long hikes, but like short ones-- personal preference.
So why not have some wilderness areas that don't allow cars, and some that have restricted access, and some with less restricted access... to please the whole range of taxpayers who make forest care possible? Then you can charge higher fees for the least-restricted areas that need the most care, so you're not penalizing the people who have the least impact on nature. And just maybe, the contact with the natural world will inspire some people to get more in shape and explore deeper.
:-? Oh wait, isn't that pretty much what we've got?
The "all or nothing" scenario comes into play when you survey the American landscape and see where it's headed. The wheel addicted have access to a huge percentage of land already, my thought is to save what's left and to do this by closing Park roads and designating more places as official Wilderness Areas. Even then, I see a future of postage stamp wilderness areas surrounded by tourist helicopter flyovers, Gatlinburgs, RV campgrounds, surrounding motorcycle "parkway racetracks", and all the rest.
The numbers are already regulated and controlled. Places like Yellowstone and the Smokies have car and RV camping because it's a free country and everyone has a right to enjoy our National Parks. What are you going to tell a 70 year old couple that has worked and payed taxes all thier lives and decided to travel around the country and see the sites they never got to see because they were to busy working and paying taxes? They can't go to Yellowstone or the Smokies because the backpacker/hikers don't want to share?
That 70 year old couple might live in a free country but they can't drive their behemoth RV into Cohutta or the Citico or the Slickrock or a hundred other wilderness areas. If everyone has the right to enjoy our National Parks, then why not in a helicopter? A hang glider? An off-road four wheeler? ATVs? With freedom comes abuse.
I don't understand why it has to be an "all or nothing" scenario. Tipi seems to be saying that he wants ALL national parks to be closed to ALL vehicle traffic, so that everyone has to walk in to any "wilderness" area.
Our current society is "all or nothing"... There is no option for opting out... It's all progress, continuous growth, always expanding, always consuming more and more... We already live "all or nothing" and seem to be motivated to consume "all" until there is "nothing"... This includes nature and wilderness...
Tipi's idea is indeed interesting and deserves some open minded consideration... Close the parks to all traffic and create a wilderness area oasis for those seeking an escape from modernity... I like it!
However, as Tipi suggested, likely in time as our society gobbles up more and more real estate most NP would eventually end up looking like Central Park with nothing but consumer wonderland surrounding it...
Hikerhead
06-25-2009, 22:20
Our current society is "all or nothing"... There is no option for opting out... It's all progress, continuous growth, always expanding, always consuming more and more... We already live "all or nothing" and seem to be motivated to consume "all" until there is "nothing"... This includes nature and wilderness...
Tipi's idea is indeed interesting and deserves some open minded consideration... Close the parks to all traffic and create a wilderness area oasis for those seeking an escape from modernity... I like it!
However, as Tipi suggested, likely in time as our society gobbles up more and more real estate most NP would eventually end up looking like Central Park with nothing but consumer wonderland surrounding it...
Like it or not, it's not going to happen. Hikers are a small percentage of the general population. These national parks were paid for by the people, for the people and most of them are not going to go too far into the woods,well maybe 20 yards down the trail to leave a little ball of tissue. Me, I'm thankful that we have our National Parks and that there's roads in them so that maybe we can take our older folks there to see a little bit of it. Another thought, if cars are not allowed, how are the maintainers going to get there to maintain the trails that we have? Just my 2 cents worth.
Of course it won't happen.... As I said, there's no opting out.... You gotta tow the line, right.... Sad that we've so easily given up everything that makes us human in exchange for the very "advances" that will eventually end us...
As an aside, you mention that the parks are paid for by the people for the people... So if our taxes provide these places for us, why then the user fee's?
Jayboflavin04
06-25-2009, 22:37
BRAVO Tipi!!!
Hikerhead
06-25-2009, 22:42
Of course it won't happen.... As I said, there's no opting out.... You gotta tow the line, right.... Sad that we've so easily given up everything that makes us human in exchange for the very "advances" that will eventually end us...
As an aside, you mention that the parks are paid for by the people for the people... So if our taxes provide these places for us, why then the user fee's?
I agree with your last statement 100%. I never have figured that one out.
[quote=Tipi Walter;8597
That 70 year old couple might live in a free country but they can't drive their behemoth RV into Cohutta or the Citico or the Slickrock or a hundred other wilderness areas. If everyone has the right to enjoy our National Parks, then why not in a helicopter? A hang glider? An off-road four wheeler? ATVs? With freedom comes abuse.[/quote]
Agreed, not everyone can expect to enjoy every part of every park in any way and every way that they want. It is the NPS or NF or BLM or Dept. of Interior to determine how to make portions and parts of our parks available to all the different groups of people mentioned. That is what is done now.
It seems to me that the answer to the increase in population and land use is not to restrict the land we have now to fewer people, but to increase the amount of land dedicated to preserving in a natural state. I do agree however that in some cases, such as the smokies, restricting vehicle access to specific areas of the park can be an important tool in preserving the environment.
Jayboflavin04
06-26-2009, 11:08
We cant even protect our national parks(treasures) from ourselves....pretty sad.
Alligator
06-26-2009, 11:09
My point was a big parking lot outside the park and then entrance on foot from there, obviously not walking from New York to the Smokies. Leaving people to choose how to enter a Park is foolish, as a great percentage of people will take the easy way and go in by car. They may even decide to go in and land with a helicopter if they have enough money. And so we have designated wilderness areas which limits human choice in this matter. And here's the choice: On foot or horseback or not at all. In this day and age of over development, road building and sprawl, this seems the best solution to try to save what's left.I was quoting Dogwood not you. Regarding access, other people have mentioned the mix of opportunities available to satisfy all parties. There are Wilderness Areas and there are Parks. If you switch all parks to wilderness areas, I suspect few people would switch to walking riding in. Public involvement would plummet and public support would plummet as well IMHO.
Families would have greater difficulty traveling. Kids wouldn't be exposed as much to the outdoors, because it's a bit harder to plan a family trip with an infant or a toddler. Not too bad with a front country site but back country, not so much. Seniors, an important voting bloc, would likely have lower visitation as well. Let's face it, bodies deteriorate. If few people use them, there'd be less concern over development of resources.
I personally don't mind providing better transportation alternatives to ease traffic congestion and pollution, but don't feel like limiting our NP's to foot and horse travel is a fair solution. I've visited a lot of NP's and there was plenty of back country recreation available in the big parks. For instance, there are hundreds of miles in the Smokies. The mix of land units has benefits, I really think we'd be shooting ourselves in the feet by such a stringent conversion.
We cant even protect our national parks(treasures) from ourselves....pretty sad.
Sorry, I just don't seem to be getting the point here. I'm understanding and agreeing with Alligator on topic. Just not agreeing that our parks are degenerating, or perhaps not knowledgeable about specific parks that are having this overcrowding problem.
Huge areas have been set aside as National Monuments by the last two presidents. Our parks and forest are increasing in size. I guess I think the Dept. of Interior is doing a good job.
Fiddleback
06-26-2009, 11:37
I go all over the map here...as posted elsewhere, environmental economics poses some of the most difficult questions.
First, I would support the concept of restricting traffic...even though my twice-yearly visits to Yellowstone are only for roadside wildlife watching. Still, to close the park to vehicles/roads to return it to what it was ignores history. There were roads into Yellowstone before it was a park. The call to return it to 'what it was' is merely a matter of drawing a line...what 'date' is chosen...to what point in history or pre-history is the park to be returned to? At it's beginning of a Park? Before the exploitation and over-hunting by white "men"? Before John Colter? Before the "Native" Americans? It's acceptable to argue for returning a conservation area to what it was as long as one realizes that one is merely drawing a line and choosing a snapshot in time that may, or may not, be a better line than the others. My line would involve large people movers, not private autos...
Second, user fees might be a good solution if they would cover the cost. As they exist, they can't. Taxes, in theory, represent the country's desire and will to pay for the parks, except they don't either. There is a deferred maintenance backlog in the parks that runs into the billions. And much (most?) of it is not roads. On top of that, many important programs, jobs, plans, etc., supporting the parks were cancelled/eliminated over the past several years...jobs that dealt with the 'science' of the parks; biology, geology, etc.. In other words, in my view, those things that made the parks the Parks. Nope, current taxation/budgeting isn't getting the job done either.
Eliminating roads and autos from the Parks would be hard for me...but I could deal. It bothers me to see the clover-leaf exchange in Yellowstone that exceeds those in my home area. It strikes me that it's similar to the 60's and 70's when the Park was the site of the world's largest open garbage dump. It just seems out of place.
Fees, taxes, grants and gifts...just like everything and everybody else, the Parks need more money. It's part of the environmental economics...the true cost, e.g., environmental cost of huge visitation and efforts to support that, aren't quantified while the 'price' charged to the visitors is kept artificially low stimulating even more visitation.
FB
berninbush
06-26-2009, 11:44
Agreeing with Alligator. Tipi, you seem to be advocating that every inch of land be EITHER open to urban sprawl development OR a designated wilderness area untouched by human hands, with nothing in between. I think the current range of land uses is a much healthier solution, and keeps a larger percentage of the population in touch with the natural world.
I recently vacationed in Townsend, TN, and drove 441 through the park several times. Yes, it's a much-traveled road. And it's a gorgeous drive that lets even casual tourists catch a glimpse of the beauty of the park. The fact that the road is there doesn't seem to be harming wildlife... i saw turkeys and deer feeding happily beside it. It's not like developers are rushing in to the park and building new roads and hamburger stands. The land is protected from new permanent human structures, while still allowing transient visits and peaceful coexistence of humans and wildlife. I just don't see the problem, or why you would want to further divorce the majority of the population from an understanding and appreciation of the beauty of the mountains.
flemdawg1
06-26-2009, 12:08
That 70 year old couple might live in a free country but they can't drive their behemoth RV into Cohutta or the Citico or the Slickrock or a hundred other wilderness areas. If everyone has the right to enjoy our National Parks, then why not in a helicopter? A hang glider? An off-road four wheeler? ATVs? With freedom comes abuse.
The small percentage of hikers, climbers and other outdoor enthusiast aren't in large enough numbers or politically powerful enough to protect the country's outdoor resources w/out getting the broader general public to support our hobby and causes. As you stated before, us hikers have Cohutta, Slickrock, Citico and hundreds of others to escape the crowds. If we restrict the NPs to the "elite" we will eventually lose them completely due to apathy then developement. We NEED the general public.
Jayboflavin04
06-26-2009, 12:08
Eliminating/limiting vehicle travel might eliminate the tax burdens and "back logs" fewer campsites/dumpsters/gift shops/and "roads"/ over loaded septic/sewage that need pumped and trucked away. All that cost money! Could be tax relief! If you pushed the tourism to the edge of these parks. It would mean buisness for the surrounding local economies. Let the local RV campground owner, mom n pop diner ect reap the rewards.
Jayboflavin04
06-26-2009, 12:22
I dont wanna get into an uproar over this. I just am trying to throw things out there. Setting aside public wilderness with minimal maintaince costs very little. I realize that all traffic is not going to be eliminated, but it takes radical ideas like Tipi to make a difference and the resulting comprimise could be beneficial.
I would sign a petition....Start it up Tipi!
Cannibal
06-26-2009, 12:32
My grandma (a lifetime outdoors person) will go beat a politician with her walker if he/she told her she could no longer drive, or ride, into a park.
All parks should be accessible to all people. Granted, I believe limitations should be placed in certain areas because I like true wilderness too. However, just because there is a road doesn't mean there needs to be hamburger stands and convenience stores. Providing those unable to hike, a way to go see what they grew-up loving, and tending to, is just as important as protecting the wilderness those people made sure we have to enjoy.
Amazing to me how a conversation on a hiking website gets so far out there! No, I'm not saying the government is controlling people's thoughts with cars and/or mass transit. However, I do believe that anyone, goverment included, can influence people by subjecting them to a bias set of information that will lead them to react/think/believe/speak in a predetermined way. Isn't that what advertisers do everyday! Yes, there are always choices that have to be made by each one of us, but that does not mean those options are as freely made as we might first believe. So, many times, these choices are made with someone else exhibiting some measure of control. I go into all of this because it seems to me that the cultural norms or believing how we should live here in America have been largely shaped by someone else rather than each individual without undue outside influence. These norms have Americans believing they have the right/need/entitlement to drive their motorized vehicles right up to the base of many of our national treasures. Often, this belief fails to take into account how it affects other's wilderness experiences and the wilderness itself. Of course equal access for the elderly, families, etc. will always be the battle cry for an excuse to build more roads and therefore create greater congestion in our national parks.
So you are saying the government is controlling your thoughts with cars and/or mass transit. People can still choose to walk into the park:-?. There is still a choice. That's not control, there are options. How you personally choose to do it is your own responsibility.
And folks can't viably visit the parks by walking anyway. One gets in the car or takes a bus, plane or automobile to get there. People in New York are not going to walk or bike to Redwoods NP for instance.
Tipi, have you ever read Edward Abbey's take on this? You'd love the commentary(along the lines of- get out of your metal shells and stretch those varicose veins etc. etc. etc.) Closed to all traffic except foot, bicycles and shuttles for elderly/handicapped. I'm with you and Cactus Ed.:cool:
skinewmexico
06-26-2009, 16:55
I think barring citizens / taxpayers from their own parks because they want to drive their small children and elderly thru is a great idea. Plus, that eliminates the chance of any children growing up to be hikers, and intruding on our personal hiking areas. And you guys act like millions of acres haven't been added to wilderness areas (that are substantially underutilized) the last few years, and millions of acres closed to motorized travel. Continuing the logic used here, the next step to help parks and wilderness is to eliminate all people except for a few elite backcountry users. Interesting.
humunuku
06-26-2009, 17:19
FYI, i remember reading somewhere that 411 thru the smokies will never have a fee for driving on it, let alone be closed to traffic. It has something to do with the town on the NC side (maybe bryson city) spent a significant amount of money on the original construction, so when it became a park, the gov. had to agree to keep the road open and free.
I think barring citizens / taxpayers from their own parks because they want to drive their small children and elderly thru is a great idea. Plus, that eliminates the chance of any children growing up to be hikers, and intruding on our personal hiking areas. And you guys act like millions of acres haven't been added to wilderness areas (that are substantially underutilized) the last few years, and millions of acres closed to motorized travel. Continuing the logic used here, the next step to help parks and wilderness is to eliminate all people except for a few elite backcountry users. Interesting.
See my previous comment. Parks are for PEOPLE, not their pollution mobiles. Besides, I don't think anyone here is opposed to exceptions being made for those that can't get around due to age or illness.
I personally don't mind providing better transportation alternatives to ease traffic congestion and pollution, but don't feel like limiting our NP's to foot and horse travel is a fair solution. I've visited a lot of NP's and there was plenty of back country recreation available in the big parks. For instance, there are hundreds of miles in the Smokies. The mix of land units has benefits, I really think we'd be shooting ourselves in the feet by such a stringent conversion. /Alligator
I agree with this statement Alligator and I also agree we should not allow our national parks to be accessed only by foot or stock, but it begs the question, "when will the trend towards building more roads for the convenience and comfort of those who seek driving up to their "wilderness" stop??? Of the millions that visit Grand Canyon's S. Rim every yr. only 2-4 % ever get below the rim! I ask, "is it likely that more than 4 % are healthy enough to hike below the rim?" I would definitely say, "yes." Not only do we alter what wilderness means but also the wilderness experience for all involved when we allow public roads to continually intrude deeper and deeper into the national parks, even allowing them to be built right up to the base of some of the most scenic sights in national parks. It seems many are so gung-ho on more roads because they don't walk, cycle, or ride stock, etc. We are a nation addicted to the motorized wheel! And, for the most part, I'll make the assumption that this is for the sake of convenience, comfort, and laziness. I'll make the assumption here, that the same people who are hellbent on paving over the national parks, and America, are also the same crowd who have a financial interest in it being that way.
You will never hear a politician say this, unless it's somehow in their best interest, and it may sound cruel, but there is no such thing as equal access. Some have greater access than others. I'm not saying there shouldn't be equal access for all, just that it's an illusion to think we all have the same opportunities.
Alligator
06-26-2009, 22:30
Where exactly is all this road-building within the parks occurring Dogwood? How many new roads were added? Can you quantify your argument some because I don't hear a lot about all these new roads, I hear more about maintenance backlogs. I have seen lots of congestion in the parks, no doubt, both cars and crowded front country conditions.
I agree people are lazy about walking in their daily life. Expecting them to overnight though in the backcountry or take multiple day walks to get to things is what I think is over the top (as the only way). Asking them to walk a mile or two I haven't got much issue with. The road doesn't need to be right on top of things everywhere. Variety is good and there's a lot of that.
Only 2-4% care to go below the rim. So what. That doesn't mean everyone didn't get what they wanted. I've been to the bottom, it's a mile deep, several miles in, and freakin' hot. I had fun but not everyone is going to want to go down. It's not exactly easy, there are deaths down there. If they had to walk to the rim, I don't know that more people would go in. They'd probably still just hike to the rim. Going in is way different. Lot's of folks are just happy seeing things, the walk doesn't exactly hold much thrill. Just because you make people walk, that doesn't mean they'll like it. You can't make people like exercise:D.
River Runner
06-27-2009, 23:41
I'm with Alligator on this issue. We need a balance of areas that are easily accessible for families, elderly, or people who may have limited time to get out and enjoy a beautiful view occasionally. We need wilderness areas for those who want to get away from the hustle and bustle for a few days or a week or two.
There is no reason we can't have both.
Doesn't the same logic used against motor assisted access apply to, lets say leki poles. Pointed poles used by hikers cause, or at least help to cause erosion and cause damage to trails.
Building roads doesn't just concern national parks or Grand Canyon NP in particular. It consistently involves building new roads annually into wilderness areas, national forests, national monuments, national recreation areas, and, yes, even national parks. When these roads are planned and built is it announced loudly and openly? Not very often. Simply stated, my position is that all these public roads, built with tax payer money, and all the motorized vehicles they attract are not necessary. Sure, roads are built that allow for search and rescue and fire fighting operations, inventorying our nation's resources, and access by those who would not/could not travel into the backcountry because they are elderly or handicapped, but there exists a large population of visitors into the wilderness that use their vehicles and road access simply because it's convenient and comfortable for them to do so. I know I'm bucking the cultural and national trend that makes my statements rather controversial but I'm not willing to allow our beautiful national treasures to be paved over for the sake of laziness, comfort, and convenience of all those who have to have their wilderness accessed by motorized vehicles..
Why do some of you guys continue to use the term wilderness as some kind of generic term. A wilderness area in the USA defines a specific area and by using the term wilderness, defines how it can be used. A National Park is not a wilderness area, nor is a National Forest. We are mixing eggplants with bananas. If there is a National Wilderness that has had roads built through it I for one would like to know the specific area. Which wilderness area is being opened to motorized traffic?