View Full Version : Close the roads to National Parks?
Tipi Walter
06-05-2013, 12:43
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/05/us/as-vandals-take-to-national-parks-some-point-to-social-media.html
Whiteblazers, it's not just the AT shelters that are being tagged. I just hiked from Rockfish Gap to Daleville, and was appalled at the scrawls and carvings on shelter roofs, sides, and signposts, especially in an area where the local clubs are obviously working hard to maintain the trails and shelter areas. The least we hikers can do is LEAVE NO TRACE as we pass through.
Sadly, the rat-box shelters are LEAVING A BIG TRACE just existing. Dismantling them is the first step in the right direction. Another thing---many national parks have easy rolling couch potato (vehicle) access which causes gas-huffers and the wheel addicted to get too close to whatever is "wild". The solution is simple---close the roads. Instead of kicking all humans out, kick out the cars. Make it difficult to reach these spots. They have to be earned.
BirdBrain
06-05-2013, 12:59
Sadly, the rat-box shelters are LEAVING A BIG TRACE just existing. Dismantling them is the first step in the right direction. Another thing---many national parks have easy rolling couch potato (vehicle) access which causes gas-huffers and the wheel addicted to get too close to whatever is "wild". The solution is simple---close the roads. Instead of kicking all humans out, kick out the cars. Make it difficult to reach these spots. They have to be earned.
Your solution is much more obtainable. Sadly, I doubt that will happen either.
Sadly, the rat-box shelters are LEAVING A BIG TRACE just existing. Dismantling them is the first step in the right direction. Another thing---many national parks have easy rolling couch potato (vehicle) access which causes gas-huffers and the wheel addicted to get too close to whatever is "wild". The solution is simple---close the roads. Instead of kicking all humans out, kick out the cars. Make it difficult to reach these spots. They have to be earned.
Exactly. And the rest of us should never just walk by when someone is defacing resources along the trail. They need to be called out on the spot. Itd be even better to tag them as well!
Sent from my Galaxy Note 2 using Tapatalk 2
Tipi Walter
06-05-2013, 17:25
I saw this on my last backpacking trip out in May and during Memorial Day weekend. The squeamish should turn away.
http://tipiwalter.smugmug.com/Backpacking2013-1/Tipi-Walter-Upper-Slickrock/i-qsWjR8J/0/L/TRIP%20145%20402-L.jpg
These are just a few of the "weekend loads" next to the South Fork Creek in the Citico wilderness. A couple more photos are needed to show the actual spread of the stool. Steamed, I wrote the following in my trip report---
"IDIOTS. I cross the South Fork and pull the detour which I clear with my loppers and then reach White Rock Camp which unbelievably is strewn with 6 piles of human turds and 12 pieces of stained toilet paper atop and around the defecations."
"Here's what happened---urine drinking non-rated no-rank pieces of s*** themselves came out for Memorial weekend and camped by the firepit in camp. They walked 30 feet behind camp next to the creek and shatted right on the ground without digging and left their tp alongside. They continued to do this as long as they stayed in camp---3 days in other words."
"So you have many turd piles from weekend colons strewn about with no thought to dig and bury. These are American patriots at their best---no count non-serving non-military non-hackers who would . . . . . . "(the rest is best left unsaid).
Blissful
06-05-2013, 17:31
Good posts, Tipi, thanks for sharing. Even the gross ones. I had to clean up a "dump" site by a campsite at the Blackrock hut a few weekends ago. It stinks... no pun intended.
hikerboy57
06-05-2013, 17:44
gets me even more nuts when you find these flowers blooming even though theres a privy at the site.if you dont want to use a privery, at least bury your waste.
tagging isnt going away, been happening since the anasazis.besides people like to see their names in print, even if they are the ones doing the printing.
tearing down the shelters would be a good start.
Sadly, the rat-box shelters are LEAVING A BIG TRACE just existing. Dismantling them is the first step in the right direction. Another thing---many national parks have easy rolling couch potato (vehicle) access which causes gas-huffers and the wheel addicted to get too close to whatever is "wild". The solution is simple---close the roads. Instead of kicking all humans out, kick out the cars. Make it difficult to reach these spots. They have to be earned.
I could not disagree more.
The roads in most of are National Parks barely scratch the surface of all they have to offer. For all the horror stories of massive crowds at them, barely a few miles in from the trailhead they fall away to a trickle. And then there are the National Forests and other public land around them that see fewer people still.
Enjoyment of nature and natural beauty is not something that needs to be paid for -- earned -- through physical effort. It may feel sweeter that way, but that's it.
As for the shelters leaving a big trace, hardly. They may represent something that you rail against, but almost zero ecological impact. And if you want to argue about their aesthetic impact, I will grant you there is some but it's limited, and easy enough to bypass al together.
Trillium
06-05-2013, 19:17
Another thing---many national parks have easy rolling couch potato (vehicle) access which causes gas-huffers and the wheel addicted to get too close to whatever is "wild". The solution is simple---close the roads. Instead of kicking all humans out, kick out the cars. Make it difficult to reach these spots. They have to be earned.All right; just stop with this. Wilderness types are not the only ones who should be able to access the beauty of our country in the National Parks that are supported by all taxpayers monies. So, what you seem to be advocating also is discrimination against the handicapped. That's not solving the problem at all. The problem is people who don't have respect for the environment; not people who just aren't in the kind of shape it would take to reach these spots. I don't know what the answer is but banning people who aren't physically able to access some of these spots or don't have the time to hike in is not the answer.
hikerboy57
06-05-2013, 19:36
I agree with Rick and Trillium. National Parks are for everybody -- not just those of us who can hike 20 miles a day. Or have the means and capacity to hike 100 plus miles a week.
Tipi would have only the fit and the few be able to see (to pick one example out of many) Old Faithful in Yellowstone. And that's not right.
i agree with them as well.
not only is the at not wilderness, but it was designed to give access to the trail for people who normally would never be able to get out there.
dont have much use for shelters though.you can still limit impact without them.and i do believe a shelterless trail would be a cleaner trail.
National Parks are for everybody. But that doesn't mean we need to put conveyor people movers throughout them for those that can't or dont want to access them under their own power. Let the road end at the ranger station that is located towards the front. Sometimes in our race to accommodate everyone, we lose the majesty that comes with not having to.
Sent from my Galaxy Note 2 using Tapatalk 2
Tipi Walter
06-05-2013, 20:11
I could not disagree more.
Enjoyment of nature and natural beauty is not something that needs to be paid for . . . . . through physical effort.
This has been the policy for the last hundred years and so we have the cog railway up to Mt Washington (along with the tourist road), and the easy access motor road up to the top of Grandfather Mt in NC and the easy access to Clingman's Dome and all the other thousands of car access to places best left alone.
Your comment is radical and has resulted in radical engineering to get every lard-butted rolling American to every last natural spot and once done the head honchos call it a "Nature Motor Loop" i.e. Cades Cove. What's left? Not much.
I agree with Rick and Trillium. National Parks are for everybody -- not just those of us who can hike 20 miles a day. Or have the means and capacity to hike 100 plus miles a week.
Tipi would have only the fit and the few be able to see (to pick one example out of many) Old Faithful in Yellowstone. And that's not right.
So okay, bring out the hordes. But expect trash, turd piles and spray paint. And to fulfill your fantasy of "multi-use access", well, we might as well build roads into every last acre of American land---just to let those who can't walk have access. Some people probably won't be happy until there's a scenic motor road to the summit of Mt Everest.
I like this quote---
---"Accustomed to centuries of doing what they wanted to the land, some Americans looked upon the idea of leaving a mere 2 or 3 percent of the nation untouched as heretical." QUOTE Peter Wild p. 34 from the chapter "Howard Zahniser: The Gentle, Genial Man Behind the Wilderness Act." From the book "A People's History of Wilderness", edited by Matt Jenkins, High Country News Books, 2004.
So okay, bring out the hordes. But expect trash, turd piles and spray paint. And to fulfill your fantasy of "multi-use access", well, we might as well build roads into every last acre of American land---just to let those who can't walk have access. Some people probably won't be happy until there's a scenic motor road to the summit of Mt Everest.
We are just about there with Everest. It is now fast becoming the highest land fill on earth. Every year it now sees 300 people summit, with only a small percentage of those actually having business being on the mountain. David Ingles, a man with prosthetics in place of legs, summited a few years ago. While I admired his spirit, he had to be carried down the mountain by the strongest sherpa in the north side.
Just because something is there doesnt mean we must accommodate everyone that wants to explore it.
Sent from my Galaxy Note 2 using Tapatalk 2
Tipi Walter
06-05-2013, 21:24
We are just about there with Everest. It is now fast becoming the highest land fill on earth. Every year it now sees 300 people summit, with only a small percentage of those actually having business being on the mountain. David Ingles, a man with prosthetics in place of legs, summited a few years ago. While I admired his spirit, he had to be carried down the mountain by the strongest sherpa in the north side.
Just because something is there doesnt mean we must accommodate everyone that wants to explore it.
Sent from my Galaxy Note 2 using Tapatalk 2
"Just because something is there doesnt mean we must accommodate everyone that wants to explore it." This about says it all.
Or I would change it to read: Just because something is there doesn't mean we must accommodate everyone that wants to drive to it. When I found out they can land a helicopter on top of Everest I figured the thrill is gone and the fun is over.
Emerson Bigills
06-05-2013, 21:50
Selfishly, my wish would be like Tipi that we close the roads, but as other have stated the parks are for eveyone's enjoyment, not just those that have a level of fitness and passion to make their own way to the best views and special places. What has been done to summits at Clingman's and Mt. Mitchell is a real tragedy. Have said that I believe there should be parks with road access, I feel any violation of "leave no trace" is unacceptable. Some of the examples given are just inexcusable behavior.
I will admit that one of my pet peaves is returning back to a trail head and around two miles I know I am close because I can hear the loud exhaust from the Harley's. I have nothing against motorcycles or their riders, but I don't understand why the parks and forests don't implement some temporary muffler restraint on these vehicles to allow all of the visitors to enjoy the experience with all their senses. The noise pollution generated by those machines in our park settings is unacceptable in my mind.
Deer Hunter
06-05-2013, 21:53
Sadly, the rat-box shelters are LEAVING A BIG TRACE just existing. Dismantling them is the first step in the right direction. Another thing---many national parks have easy rolling couch potato (vehicle) access which causes gas-huffers and the wheel addicted to get too close to whatever is "wild". The solution is simple---close the roads. Instead of kicking all humans out, kick out the cars. Make it difficult to reach these spots. They have to be earned.
My dad's 82 years old. Quadruple bypass surgery a few years ago. There are a lot of places I have taken him that he wouldn't have been able to see without vehicle access. Yosemite, Denali, Kings Canyon, Sequoia, Death Valley, Glacier, Yelowstone, Everglades, etc.
Or I would change it to read: Just because something is there doesn't mean we must accommodate everyone that wants to drive to it.
We don't.
And if there is a case where new roads are being proposed in Parks along the A now, I would likely be against it.
But so long as they are there, why the animosity towards those who don't take full advantage of all that those parks have to offer?
Shelters are a unique and wonderful part of the AT. Lone Wolf must have been drooped on his head as a baby.
shelterbuilder
06-05-2013, 22:22
I'm gonna jump in and then right back out again. Shelters on the A.T.? I've been shelters chairman for a maintaining club for 27 years now, and every time that we have any vandalism occur at a shelter, I - briefly - entertain the idea about tearing down the shelters. But shelters are a resource management tool: they draw users into a small area, concentrating the environmental impact into THAT ONE AREA and allowing most of the rest of the environment the chance to "chug along unimpeded by human intervention". Of course, DISPERSED L-N-T CAMPING would be an ideal solution to the so-called "shelter problem", but I don't see a concerted effort BY ANYONE (including the Boy Scouts) to teach it and practice it. The next generation won't learn it unless they are exposed to it - heck, we are apparently raising the second generation of young'uns who don't know how to $h!t in the woods properly!!!! The roads that go into the open spaces aren't the problem - the real problem are the folks WITH THE OPEN SPACES BETWEEN THEIR EARS who don't know what they're doing, but who go out and try to do it anyway! (And, yes, we just had some MAJOR vandalism at one of our shelters - about 2 1/2 miles from the nearest road....)
HikerMom58
06-05-2013, 22:35
Wow, I can honestly say I agree with everything rickb stated. ( Except Lone Wolf being dropped on his head as a baby.):D A lot of peeps don't like shelters on the AT.
Shelters are a unique and wonderful part of the AT..... <<<< This...... I like. :) The shelters def. pose some problems. I think they are more helpful than harmful.
I also believe that we should have the best of both worlds... Wilderness places that can only be reached by foot should exist.
National Parks should be accessible to everyone in this country. Not everyone chose to enjoy our National Parks in a rollin couch potato vehicle. Those folks shouldn't be "punished" for their limited physical abilities even though some others may have, indeed, chosen that for themselves.
As I understand it, the reason Glacier National Park exists is because the movers and shakers of the Great Northern Railroad wanted it as a destination for customers of their railway. Phase two of getting support for the park was putting the monster engineering project, the Going to the Sun Road, through the middle of the park, so people who are less than alpine explorers can see it.
In other words, without the mechanized transportation, Glacier NP wouldn't exist as a park. To me, that would be a huge loss.
From a selfish perspective, without that road and the tourism it brings, I wouldn't have a job here, and would probably still be living in stinky old Charlotte.
Do I think the best way to see the park is to sit in slow moving traffic for most of a day? No. Is it easy to get away from the madding crowd? Yes. Leave your car and you leave most of the stink and noise behind.
I'm for finding a middle ground of shuttle buses and limited hours for vehicle access. The Going to the Sun Road is a fabulous bike route in the off season, like right now. (It will open for cars around June 18th this year.) On weekends there are no cars allowed on most of it and yet the plowing crews aren't working. It's the best bike path you'll ever find.
Cade's Cove is a traffic nightmare. I definitely think private cars should be excluded from it, in favor of bikes, shuttle buses, horse-drawn carriages, and pedicabs.
Tuckahoe
06-05-2013, 23:23
My dad's 82 year old. Quadruple bypass surgery a few years ago. There are a lot of places I have taken him that he wouldn't have been able to see without vehicle access. Yosemite, Denali, Kings Canyon, Sequoia, Death Valley, Glacier, Yelowstone, Everglades, etc.
The last time I visited the Smokies, I was one of those tourons who sat on his ass and drove all over the park. Drove the Cades Cove loop and saw my first black bears ever. Yup, from the comfort of a bench seat in a pick up... Ya see that was 2011 and a year after my dad's motorcycle accident that nearly killed him. He was still recovering and it was hard for him to get around. it was our vacation together to the Smokies and I was going to take him wherever he wanted to go. Even drove the Tail of the Dragon, and he bought himself the tshirt too.
MuddyWaters
06-05-2013, 23:33
Creating access to special places, destroys them.
What humans are best at, is destroying the earth. Thru ignorance, greed, carelessness, and just plain self-centered activities.
What will be left for your grandchildren, and their grandchildren?
rocketsocks
06-05-2013, 23:38
I'm gonna think on this topic as it deserves that. My first thoughts are that wild places are ever failing and one day there will be none. The infrastructure that is in place today...well it's there...but I don't think we need anymore...and I agree with Walter that earning or gaining a vista makes it just that much sweeter, there is no guarantees in life, and if you can't make it to these places, well that sucks...but we should protect our wild places and keep them wild, no more concessions for services, no roads, hotels. The needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few...Mother Nature being the many.
Edward Abbey had some things to say about this...dwindling wild places...particularly Desert Solitaire.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desert_Solitaire
johnnybgood
06-05-2013, 23:40
Having a visually impaired daughter(legally blind) who LOVES the outdoors and hiking, I usually drive to a location of a trail that is more accessible to her, therefore the trails in SNP and Smokies are best tailored for that. Do I find myself agitated by the congestion of tourons in the summer ...heck yes ! But like I said, my daughter loves nature and will, and has hiked many hikes with me.
Odd Man Out
06-06-2013, 00:35
The Ken Burns film series on the National Parks highlighted the fact that the NPS has the self contradictory mission to both preserve the parks AND provide them for enjoyment "...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." National Park Service Organic Act, 16 U.S.C.
I don't agree that limiting access is a good thing. Looking at the history of the parks in the Burns film, you see that early visitors were not looking for a natural experience but expected to be entertained, as seen in the Yosemite Firefall or the Yellowstone bear feedings or the Grand Canyon Lodge staff performances. Our understanding has evolved and I would like to think access has helped educate the public about appreciating nature on its own terms and not our terms.
However, access to the parks does not necessarily require more roads and fewer restrictions. I have observed that Americans unfortunately define "access" as how close you can drive your own personal vehicle and do whatever you want. Inevitably there is push back when parks propose replacing private cars with public transportation as they have at Zion and Grand Canyon. Of course transportation systems, rule enforcement, and education programs require money. There's no such thing as a free lunch.
War Veterans have earned the right to any road or place or whatever in the U.S., those with disabilities need the special access. They have protected our freedom so that we can have the trails/roads to those majestic places so lets not use a broad brush to paint everyone with. We owe the brave men and women who protect us so that we can see our family everyday, sleep peacefully at night and can take the weekend off.
mrcoffeect
06-06-2013, 08:08
while we are at it I think we should get rid of the ugly trails, and force those who can, to bushwack through the woods to get to theses places. If you can't use a map and compass, then the woods aren't for you.................... sounds pretty elitist does it not. just because someone doesn't like shelters or roads, doesn't mean that all people have to subscribe to that idea. I have never heard a car camper that doesn't hike say that we should remove all trails, because they scar the wilderness. this whole topic just sounds like "enjoy the wilderness my way or not at all"
https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/q71/s480x480/922971_473751599368874_80895339_n.jpg (https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=473751599368874&set=a.473751542702213.1073741869.100002021141852&type=1&relevant_count=1&ref=nf)
A high school buddy took this photo on 6/4 on the Cades Cove Loop. While I can't totally agree with all that Tipi said I do agree this type of traffic should be stopped.
coach lou
06-06-2013, 08:39
It has been my experience that 5 miles outside most "NPs', is country equally as beautiful as on the tarmac. I've been in one or 2 bear/elk/ wolf jambs, then we park and hike into the boonies and no one is there. I wonder how many of us would be here, were not for our first trip through a NP or stay in a shelter on some trail. Absolutely our wild lands are being loved to death, but what to do about it?
peakbagger
06-06-2013, 09:20
I have always been a fan of shuttle buses for access to the parks. It reduces the impact of vehicle traffic and the bus driver can reduce the temptation to harass wildlife. Unfortunately, many parks are divided by state highways so a shuttle concept will not work well
Mrs Baggins
06-06-2013, 09:41
I could not disagree more.
The roads in most of are National Parks barely scratch the surface of all they have to offer. For all the horror stories of massive crowds at them, barely a few miles in from the trailhead they fall away to a trickle. And then there are the National Forests and other public land around them that see fewer people still.
Enjoyment of nature and natural beauty is not something that needs to be paid for -- earned -- through physical effort. It may feel sweeter that way, but that's it.
As for the shelters leaving a big trace, hardly. They may represent something that you rail against, but almost zero ecological impact. And if you want to argue about their aesthetic impact, I will grant you there is some but it's limited, and easy enough to bypass al together.
I agree. The "as long as I can get there on foot, screw the rest of you" attitude is sickening. What about the elderly, handicapped, very young children, healthy adults who simply have about as much interest in hiking as you probably have sewing bridal gowns...their tax money pays for those parks and they do have the right to drive there.
If access to the National Parks is made impossible or very difficult for the majority of people who will never walk more than a mile or two from a trailhead, the political support for the system will be eroded dramatically. In most places, crowds seem to thin out a mile or two from a road. This has definitely been my experience in places like SNP and even Yosemite (although more like 4 miles from a road). Interestingly, I just finished a rim to rim trip to the Grand Canyon and encountered literally hundreds of people each day. That is probably due to the facilities and development within the Canyon. Not roads but human development nonetheless. Many people were there who clearly were not physically capable of being totally self sufficient. If Grand Canyon NP was being created today and the land was in pristine shape, there is no way that much of this development would be allowed. But the fact is that up to a reasonable point, taxpayers supporting the parks rightfully want some access and most people are not capable or inclined to go on self sufficient backpacking trips. I think that radical moves to limit access will boomerang with large cuts to the NPS budget and end up harming backcountry travelers the most.
Pedaling Fool
06-06-2013, 09:52
The solution is simple---close the roads.
Solutions to many problems are simple when you propose a solution to your liking. The problem with it, it is too simple; living in a society is difficult because you must compromise with many interests. Your solution is naive.
You talk a lot about the evils of cars. Do you drive a car?
The thing about roads, is that everyone complains about them, but everyone wants them to take them where the go. Even the greenies that live in "sustainable" communities would fight to keep their road access.
I don't consider myself one of the elitist hikers who wants to keep the parks to only the hikers. Everybody deserves the opportunity to visit a NP. Even if that means cars and motorcycles. .... If you don't want to drive to the top of Grandfather Mt, .. Don't. I ain't gonna stop you. Look around. Within 30 miles there are plenty you can walk to the top with no road access. ..... And about Cade's Cove, was that over Memorial weekend? I normally drive through there during the off season. Sometimes we don't even see another car. ..... I like going to the beach too. During the summer when the crowds are out I head to the OBXs. Some other family members go to Myrtle Beach. It's bumper to bumper traffic. I can't stand it. So I don't go during the summer. Who am I to say what beach they should go to. .... I guess what I'm trying to say is that if there is a road in a NP and your against it, don't go there. There are plenty of other beautiful places to go.
Access shouldn't be limited, it should be controlled. Likely the worst traffic congestion I've seen has been in Yosemite Valley in the summer. In areas such as this I believe Marta approach of shuttle buses etc should be in place. This controls the problem and allows access without the enormous human footprint.
In other areas such as SNP it is what it is. That is a very narrow strip of land and in some respect that is a "road park". If you want peace and solitude, find another place to hike. I hiked SNP last Memorial Day weekend and was never far from the sound of Harley's. but I knew that going in and wanted to finish that section. Will I hike that section again, unlikely because I enjoy being much further from civilization than that allows.
So while I would love to have huge expanses of the east set aside for wilderness experience that just isn't reality. If you want that go hike the Bob Marshall Wilderness in the off season. 88 miles, 4 people seen within a couple miles of the end and a few sets of human footprints. Wilderness exists, it might not be in your backyard.
Pedaling Fool
06-06-2013, 10:25
When it comes to keeping the wild wild it's not the roads that are the major culprit. It's agriculture. And it doesn't matter if it's modern farming or "natural" organic farming. Both destroy natural habitats. And you can't look at the size of individual farms, rather it's the total and the space between, i.e. habitat fragmentation.
memphistiger02
06-06-2013, 10:35
Why cant people respect land and property that they do not own. Would you go over your friends house and write on his walls, leave trash in his house, or not clean up your own crap?
StealthHikerBoy
06-06-2013, 10:37
Sadly, the rat-box shelters are LEAVING A BIG TRACE just existing. Dismantling them is the first step in the right direction. Another thing---many national parks have easy rolling couch potato (vehicle) access which causes gas-huffers and the wheel addicted to get too close to whatever is "wild". The solution is simple---close the roads. Instead of kicking all humans out, kick out the cars. Make it difficult to reach these spots. They have to be earned.
The shelter system is what creates the AT community and sets it apart. It results in people talking, interacting, helping each other out. I would say that if there were never any shelters on the AT, WhiteBlaze wouldn't exist, as it would just be a trail and not a community. I am not saying shelters are good or bad, but they are what has made the AT what it is.
Regarding the National Parks, they are public assets and everyone deserves to have access to them. There needs to be a balance between access and preservation. The shuttle systems and the back country permit systems in Zion and the Grand Canyon are good examples of ways to achieve this balance, in my view.
Hey ... ideally I'd like the Parks to be preserved so that just me and my friends can use them, but at the end of the day everyone deserves to see them.
Nutbrown
06-06-2013, 10:58
This argument shouldn't even be happening. It should not be about access, which I thing is needed. The argument, or what action should be taken, should be centered around the disregard of respect. Respect for the nature that you are going to see. Respect for those that help maintain the areas. Respect for your sisters and brothers that want a clean, beautiful, fulfilling experience.
Clean up after yourself, notice how loud you or your vehicle is, thank a volunteer (or volunteer yourself). Then the grumps (sorry Tipi) that want to go to extremes will find something constructive to do with their ire.
Slo-go'en
06-06-2013, 11:24
For better or worse, National Parks draw big crowds. However, they are easy to get away from if you walk a little ways into the woods. I once spent a whole summer wandering around Yellowstone. Once in the woods, I would rarely see another person.
Granted, it is a bit more difficult to avoid other people in our east coast parks as many more people live near-by and the parks are much smaller. But it isn't impossible. And there are still many other places to go which get little traffic. We are still blessed with large tracks of undeveloped land here in the USA and a multitude of trails which are available to the public. Maybe it's time to get off the AT and out of the NP's and explore some of the other lesser known and used trails and National Forests.
Tennessee Viking
06-06-2013, 11:52
I remember a number of years ago that there was a study that proposed the closing of the Smokies to vehicle traffic for 3 to 10 years just to start decreasing the smog pollution.
FarmerChef
06-06-2013, 12:26
This argument shouldn't even be happening. It should not be about access, which I thing is needed. The argument, or what action should be taken, should be centered around the disregard of respect. Respect for the nature that you are going to see. Respect for those that help maintain the areas. Respect for your sisters and brothers that want a clean, beautiful, fulfilling experience.
This.....
For better or worse, National Parks draw big crowds. However, they are easy to get away from if you walk a little ways into the woods. I once spent a whole summer wandering around Yellowstone. Once in the woods, I would rarely see another person.
And this.....
One of the things I took away from the Ken Burns series was that the National Park system attracts a large number of visitors and this, in turn, helps to enable better education of environmental stewardship. I remember when "environmentalists" or "greenies" were likened to "wackos" or "eco-terrorists." Today, I proudly consider myself an environmentalists, greenie, conservationist, whatever and I'm respected for it by virtually everyone I talk to. We recycle more now (plenty of room for improvement). We are conscious about pollution, even by our own hand (pouring nasty chemicals down the drain or recycling used oil and batteries).
To me, getting out to see Glacier when I was a kid and seeing Glacier today presents a stark contrast that is unmistakable. The glaciers are smaller, the haze is worse. I took my wife for our anniversary and it honestly pained me to see what a difference just 15 years had made. When I visited as a kid - it was in a car. As an adult, we got out of the car. But without that first visit, I wouldn't have the deep love of nature I have today and would not have the perspective I have to see the damage to the wild we have wrought. I believe the same can be said for other people. If we don't have a large portion of our society enjoying the parks and then seeing the impact of their enjoyment. Books, magazines and television alone cannot do this.
All that said, it absolutely kills me to find white flowers, graffiti, trash and other elements left behind by inconsiderate or uneducated hikers. But, to me, this is an education problem. Remember that LNT is only a couple decades old in general use. Not enough to get through a full generation yet. All my children will have grown up both backpacking and practicing LNT. To them, it will be normal. To very many today, it is not.
chiefiepoo
06-06-2013, 13:47
Cades Cove, mine and a lot of other peoples favorite place to visit in the Fall. Tiring of the traffic, of which I was a part, I have been walking the loop these past few years. Against the traffic. If you start early from the CC campground walking against traffic you encounter very little traffic for the first hour or so. As traffic builds, jump the fence over to the meadows on the inside of the loop road. Soon you'll be short cutting the loops in the road and be walking through woods and jumping over the small creeks. Walk over to the cemetery on the west end and contemplate how hard life was in the Cove. Lunch at the mill, no worrying about where to park. By the time you have finished lunch, traffic has come to a stand still and now it is time to jump into the Cove. Take your compass and shoot a bearing right down the center of the Cove. No trail, no cars, very little noise. Lots of thickets, downed trees, mud, and streams to cross. There is a surprising amount of elevation change to challenge a bushwhacking route and it is easy to turn a 2 hour drive into a 6 hour slog. You will however see more bears, deer, and assorted small animals then is possible on the Cove road. Access is important for all to enjoy the Cove in their own way. Just because the road is there, doesn't mean we all have to drive.
As I understand it, the reason Glacier National Park exists is because the movers and shakers of the Great Northern Railroad wanted it as a destination for customers of their railway. Phase two of getting support for the park was putting the monster engineering project, the Going to the Sun Road, through the middle of the park, so people who are less than alpine explorers can see it.
In other words, without the mechanized transportation, Glacier NP wouldn't exist as a park. To me, that would be a huge loss.
This logic doesn't add up to me. If the railway and the road hadn't been built, I guess you could say there wouldn't be a national park there, but more importantly there wouldn't be a railway or a road there. There would only be wilderness there. Isn't that what the goal is?
Don't get me wrong, I think that providing access to nature's wonders creates more environmental protectionists than keeping things locked up, but i'm certainly leaning toward the less infrastructure is better side of the debate.
Odd Man Out
06-06-2013, 14:34
While I do enjoy escaping the crowds at the National Parks by walking just a few miles off the highway, I also enjoy interacting with the people at the developed areas. The last time I was at the Grand Canyon (North Rim), I think just about everyone I talked to was from another country. I enjoy meeting people from all over the world. I feel a degree of pride sharing "my park" with the rest of the world and also try my best to be a good host. Of course people watching also has its degree of entertainment value, like commiserating with our waitress at the to the GC Lodge dining room after she had just spent 5 minutes with the woman at the next table as she explained the "correct way" to cook her eggs, or commiserating with the park ranger at the visitors center who had just spent 5 minutes trying to explain to two gentlemen exactly why it was they could not walk down to go swimming in the Colorado river that afternoon before dinner.
MDSection12
06-06-2013, 15:30
This logic doesn't add up to me. If the railway and the road hadn't been built, I guess you could say there wouldn't be a national park there, but more importantly there wouldn't be a railway or a road there. There would only be wilderness there. Isn't that what the goal is?
Don't get me wrong, I think that providing access to nature's wonders creates more environmental protectionists than keeping things locked up, but i'm certainly leaning toward the less infrastructure is better side of the debate.
Have you seen what happens to land that isn't designated as a National Park? :eek:
Saying there would be a wilderness there is pretty misleading. There would be a logging operation, apartment complex, or fancy corporate retreat there if it wasn't a park...
Have you seen what happens to land that isn't designated as a National Park? :eek:
Saying there would be a wilderness there is pretty misleading. There would be a logging operation, apartment complex, or fancy corporate retreat there if it wasn't a park...
None of that happens without roads.
I know the point you are trying to make. Not trying to be a tool.
perdidochas
06-06-2013, 16:21
Sadly, the rat-box shelters are LEAVING A BIG TRACE just existing. Dismantling them is the first step in the right direction. Another thing---many national parks have easy rolling couch potato (vehicle) access which causes gas-huffers and the wheel addicted to get too close to whatever is "wild". The solution is simple---close the roads. Instead of kicking all humans out, kick out the cars. Make it difficult to reach these spots. They have to be earned.
What an elitist attitude. That kind of thing will get all the National Parks shut down. Do you think that people will stand for the Parks being inaccessible to most people? Of course not, they will shut them down.
MDSection12
06-06-2013, 16:21
None of that happens without roads.
I know the point you are trying to make. Not trying to be a tool.
The point is it takes funds to protect land from far worse fates than 'National Park' and like it or not funding comes from public interest and public access. I wish there was another way, but there isn't.
It's kind of like an argument I've had with a buddy a few times; he disagrees with any captive animals on principle, I think that in some instances the detriment to an individual animal is outweighed by the education it can offer if done properly. The argument started when I told him I was going to the National Aquarium. He disagreed with the whole concept, and I can understand why, but I asserted that by getting people, young kids especially, interested in nature we stood to gain far more than the loss of a few specimens from a number of different species. He was most upset by the dolphin show for keeping dolphins captive, but had he seen the show he might have felt differently; it was entirely formatted to make conservation and protection of the species the focal point. (The dolphins were also rescues from various circumstances.)
The point is it takes funds to protect land from far worse fates than 'National Park' and like it or not funding comes from public interest and public access. I wish there was another way, but there isn't.
It's kind of like an argument I've had with a buddy a few times; he disagrees with any captive animals on principle, I think that in some instances the detriment to an individual animal is outweighed by the education it can offer if done properly. The argument started when I told him I was going to the National Aquarium. He disagreed with the whole concept, and I can understand why, but I asserted that by getting people, young kids especially, interested in nature we stood to gain far more than the loss of a few specimens from a number of different species. He was most upset by the dolphin show for keeping dolphins captive, but had he seen the show he might have felt differently; it was entirely formatted to make conservation and protection of the species the focal point. (The dolphins were also rescues from various circumstances.)
It doesn't take money to protect land. It just takes an act of Congress. I suppose you could argue that enforcement takes money but not creating the entity. Perhaps they could be called National Sanctuaries instead of National Parks. I'm not saying to get rid of the parks. I'm saying we could have both. Or would that be like having your Snickers bar and eating it too?
I agree with you on the animal thing for the most part. Like I said before, I believe that the parks do create environmental protectionists but I would rather have fewer roads than more. The same could be said for zoos and aquariums. Rescues are great but taking animals from their homes is different.
This logic doesn't add up to me. If the railway and the road hadn't been built, I guess you could say there wouldn't be a national park there, but more importantly there wouldn't be a railway or a road there. There would only be wilderness there. Isn't that what the goal is?
Don't get me wrong, I think that providing access to nature's wonders creates more environmental protectionists than keeping things locked up, but i'm certainly leaning toward the less infrastructure is better side of the debate.
To be more specific, if the land hadn't been locked up as a National Park, I think it would probably have been utilized for mining, for a defense installation, and/or leased out for agriculture and timbering. Even if it were a Wilderness, it would be open for hunting.
How much protection versus how much access is good? I'm in favor of enabling lots of people to share and enjoy, but eventually the pollution and noise destroy the very place people came to enjoy. The devil is in the details when looking for balance.
The shelter system is what creates the AT community and sets it apart. It results in people talking, interacting, helping each other out. I would say that if there were never any shelters on the AT, WhiteBlaze wouldn't exist, as it would just be a trail and not a community. I am not saying shelters are good or bad, but they are what has made the AT what it is.
I like this observation a great deal.
Trillium
06-08-2013, 20:02
Well, I think I found a place and a lifestyle that I think Tipi could be happy with. Watched 'Alone in the Wilderness' about Dick Proenneke's life of 32 yrs alone in the Alaskan wilderness.
Lone Wolf
06-08-2013, 20:11
Well, I think I found a place and a lifestyle that I think Tipi could be happy with. Watched 'Alone in the Wilderness' about Dick Proenneke's life of 32 yrs alone in the Alaskan wilderness.
he couldn't handle that
The solution is simple---close the roads. Instead of kicking all humans out, kick out the cars. Make it difficult to reach these spots. They have to be earned.
This is being done in some places...and its pissing a lot of folks off pretty good. Close the road to somebody's favorite fishing or camping spot that they've been going to for 30 years and you're going to start problems.
Once in the woods, I would rarely see another person.
This is true most anywhere...get a mile away from a road and you won't see hardly anyone. People are simply too lazy. They like those places on the Blue Ridge Parkway where they can just pull off in a turnaround and catch a good view. And frankly, I'm content to have a lot of those kinds of places because it keeps the yahoos out of the woods.
Silent Stroll
06-09-2013, 02:41
Sent from my Galaxy Note 2 using Tapatalk 2
Worst signature yet :-)
fiddlehead
06-09-2013, 03:46
This thread reminds me of a time on my 1st CDT hike when I was at Pocohontas spring in MT.
For those of you who haven't been there, there is a dirt road that goes to a parking area nearby.
So, I met this old guy there who was obsessed with Lewis and Clark's adventure so much so, that he was driving the route as much as he could and was fascinated with this spring because it was really their goal: To find where the Missouri river started.
He asked me how I got there as he was the only car.
When I said I walked from Mexico, you could tell he was too old for that and had a hard time imagining it.
Then, he asked me where I go from here.
I pointed up a cowtrail, through a gate, and into some pretty desolate country. (Exactly where I wanted to be and loved that whole trail.)
He could've never done what I was doing (he was probably in his 70's), but he found Lewis and Clark's famous Pocohontas spring right smack on the Continental Divide!
He was a happy man that day!
Cherokee Bill
06-09-2013, 07:27
Stopped trout fishing some of my favorite streams because of near-by roads and the growing number of empty beer-cans and dozens of "white flowers" (was like a mine-field)!
HCRiceBoy21
06-20-2013, 15:31
National Parks need the roads to protect them. I see everyone's point and believe / want most places to be wilderness, bet even wilderness costs money. A wilderness is only a wilderness if it is protected and protection costs money...from the gov. If government is going to spend money to protect something there has to be politicians that want to protect it and for politicians to want to protect something there has to be a "want" from a lot of constituents. To get constituents to want to protect something people have to see it and want to protect it thereby necessitating the need for some roads.
Bottom line if we want to keep our wild places wild and not developed by some commercial developing company people have to support it. And to get the most support requires roads ( not a lot, but some ) to be accessible. The best solution always involves a compromise and will fall somewhere in between the two or more extremes. So even though we may not agree with a lot of the extremists they do offer a strong "pull" and voices like Tipi will help keep a lot of our places wild where we can enjoy them and experience everything they have to offer.
MDSection12
06-20-2013, 15:54
Bottom line if we want to keep our wild places wild and not developed by some commercial developing company people have to support it. And to get the most support requires roads ( not a lot, but some ) to be accessible.
Your point is totally valid, but I'm gonna throw out a big 'what if' here; what if more people enjoyed backpacking into wild places... Then would the government be able to justify funding to preserve a natural area with little or no access? I know it's a long shot, but I do think the idea is gaining popularity as of late. Perhaps someday enough people will share the views expressed here to make our perspective worth pandering to. :)
HCRiceBoy21
06-21-2013, 00:20
Your point is totally valid, but I'm gonna throw out a big 'what if' here; what if more people enjoyed backpacking into wild places... Then would the government be able to justify funding to preserve a natural area with little or no access? I know it's a long shot, but I do think the idea is gaining popularity as of late. Perhaps someday enough people will share the views expressed here to make our perspective worth pandering to. :)
Then the world would be a wonderful place! I guess we could all dream...
But with ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) the areas would have to be accessible if anything is built. Just look at the privies in NY/NJ. They have a ramp and handicapped railings (the ones on the wall in handicapped stalls in public restrooms ) in them! I agree with ADA, but sometimes good things can go too far.
I think closing some of the road to national parks would be great. More of the parks should follow the model created for Zion... Park at the visitor center and get on the bus system for access to most of the popular sites. At the same time there is a huge back country area which is beautiful and not very populated, mostly accessed by miles of dirt road to trail heads. I think this would be a wonderful fix for Cades Cove and other popular areas within national parks.
The NPS MAY close some roads in NPs to tourons for various reasons including traffic congestion but they aren't going to close all road access in the parks... too lucrative and many profiteers would be opposed. You are also fighting a powerful allied sector, the Forestry Dept, who wants access as well as NPS who also wants road access.
Just because something is there doesnt mean we must accommodate everyone that wants to explore it. - RCBear
Well said.
And, for the poster that said closing roads would be discrimanating agiast the handicapped. PHOOEY. RIDICULOUS. NOT EVERY PLACE has handicapped access; are these places all discriminating too? Roads are meant for quick access even by those who are too damn lazy, obese, or want to get someplace convenioently even if it means destroying or negatively impacting the experience for others.
As far as human turd piles be careful where you sit or step atop Mt Whitney in late summer! Turds, TP, and turd doggy bags in abundance. I can only imagine what it's like at Base Camp or at some of the other places where Mt Everest summiters amass in numbers.
All right; just stop with this. Wilderness types are not the only ones who should be able to access the beauty of our country in the National Parks that are supported by all taxpayers monies. So, what you seem to be advocating also is discrimination against the handicapped. That's not solving the problem at all. The problem is people who don't have respect for the environment; not people who just aren't in the kind of shape it would take to reach these spots. I don't know what the answer is but banning people who aren't physically able to access some of these spots or don't have the time to hike in is not the answer.
I think closing some of the road to national parks would be great. More of the parks should follow the model created for Zion... Park at the visitor center and get on the bus system for access to most of the popular sites. At the same time there is a huge back country area which is beautiful and not very populated, mostly accessed by miles of dirt road to trail heads. I think this would be a wonderful fix for Cades Cove and other popular areas within national parks.
I suspect we're going to see more of this type of thing in the near future. Would help ease congestion in places like Yellowstone NP for sure plus this NP could use a bus/shuttle system for those trying to get around the park that don't have access to their own vehicles. The bus system in Zion NP is definietly an improvement from a congestion and pollution perspective than allowing all the cars and RVs to clog the roads and roadsides.
Odd Man Out
06-21-2013, 15:24
Just because something is there doesnt mean we must accommodate everyone that wants to explore it. - RCBear
Well said.
And, for the poster that said closing roads would be discrimanating agiast the handicapped. PHOOEY. RIDICULOUS. NOT EVERY PLACE has handicapped access; are these places all discriminating too? Roads are meant for quick access even by those who are too damn lazy, obese, or want to get someplace convenioently even if it means destroying or negatively impacting the experience for others.
Public transportation need not be discriminatory. As I recall, the wording in the ADA calls for "reasonable accommodation". Here is the Zion policy from the web page:
"Zion Canyon Transportation
From April through October access into Zion Canyon is by shuttle bus only. All shuttle buses are wheelchair accessible. Use of personal vehicles is restricted to those individuals requiring additional vehicle supported medical devices or when the shuttle bus cannot accommodate the individual due to weight or size restrictions. A special permit for personal vehicle use can be obtained from the visitor center or museum information desks by providing documentation of the medical condition."
Swordpen
06-22-2013, 01:25
Why cant people respect land and property that they do not own. Would you go over your friends house and write on his walls, leave trash in his house, or not clean up your own crap?
+1 (it's so simple, why not respect things?) Answer: because a lot of people are, yes, pigs.
I don't think they need to get rid of all roads but I do think they need to strike a better balance between access and wilderness. And I don't think it is all parks. I think the White Mountains do a good job. I really hate Skyline Drive. I was there last fall and I had to drive around forever looking for a parking space. The picnic areas were mobbed. There were kids playing football in the parking lot. I finally park my car and start hiking in the trails and I'm all alone. All these people were there to use the barbecues and the picnic tables in what amounts to an urban park. I mean don't they have parking lots to play football in where these kid come from? They can put this stuff anywhere. If their aim was to provide access and education about the wilderness they failed. The conveniences they provided have become the attraction.
And as for Cades Cove, my thought is they should get rid of that road and put in an old fashioned five mile an hour steam train. That would get rid of all the idling cars which would better for the environment. They could also charge a fee and make more money than they get sticking it the back packers.