Kill the Parks

I just picked up the September issue of Outside magazine and read what I thought was an incredible editorial. Written by Jason Daley, it is titled "Kill the Parks. Kill'Em all". In it he describes how we take beautiful places, like the Grand Canyon for ex., survey it, catalog all the wildlife, spend millions on research, only to eventually call it a "Park" and allow glorified tourists (obvious LNT offenders) and development pretty much destroy it. To clarify, his main topic was the extremely popular National Parks, not places such as State Parks and public land.

It sounds somewhat rude, if not snotty to say that "tourists" (as we all are at some point) cannot enjoy the outdoors as much as the outdoor inclined, but I will say that us, the people who would like to make a return visit, are the ones who make sure our impact is as small as possible. Definitely read the article, only a one page editorial. You don't even have to buy it, ha!

Preservation of these areas requires the will of the people and their tax dollars. While I would agree that it is possible to love something to death, it is also necessary to let people into these areas so that they can be inspired by what they see and experience. It is this experience that they take back with them to their everyday lives, and most will make the decision that NP's are worth protecting.
For those of us that have been enjoying these areas for a while, we realize that sometimes we must pack out more than our fair share of trash, or direct someone to the shelter who is leaning on a sign that reads: Hog Gap Shelter .8 miles.
I do understand the argument for overuse, I just hope that the NP system is maintaining a balanced approach. The GSMNP sees a lot of use.

I'm no expert on Park policy or regulations, but as an outdoorsman and backpacker, I totally agree with Daley's assessment. Allowing RVs and car-camping inside a quasi-wilderness National Park is to my mind just plain stupid. They call it "multiuse access" or some such drivel, but in reality it's just allowing an army of rolling couch potatoes to see something easy w/o expending the energy it took the oldtimers days to reach on foot. Close the roads!

The Smokies is a fine example. Here they have the worst air pollution in the country and yet they let millions of cars and RVs pass thru and spew, just to allow the rolling gawkers a few minutes of Nature Renewal. The solution is almost too simple to contemplate: Close all the roads inside the Park and only allow foot traffic. Let the Wheeled Tourists cavort in the sprawl of Gatlinburg with their own kind and leave the woods alone.

Many years ago, the Sierra Club ran very large backcountry backpacks, often over 100 people. These were started by John Muir and the other founders of the Club with the idea of showing people the beauty of the Sierra (and later elsewhere), thus inspiring the public to want to preserve the parks. These "High Trips" continued into the 1970s, along with Base Camps, High Light trips, and others. When I was in high school, some of my friends and I would look at the schedule of High Trips, then go on the route 2 or 3 days behind the trip and collect gear that had been left behind. Most of it we handed over to the rangers (NPS or USFS, depending on where we picked it up. Since it was rarely claimed, after a month or so, we would go through the piles and equip ourselves for the next year or so. The rangers often provided burros so we could bring more gear out (1 or 2 rangers would accompany us). Other huge impacts included washing and swimming in the lakes and streams, latrines that were dug for the group (along the trail, the rule was ladies to the right and gents to the left of the trail), and the obvious impact of 100 people plus the packers and the mules.

By the 1960s and 1970s, the Club realized that the impact was unacceptable and discontinued such trips. They still run trips, but limit the numbers of participants and of trips, spreading them around to more areas of the world to reduce the impact.

Recall also that the Club published (and still publishes) "coffee table" books with magnificent photos by Ansel Adams, Elliot Porter, Galen Rowell, and other outdoor photographers, with the purpose of showing the wonders of the world and hopefully inspiring people to preserve these places. It indeed does this, but it also inspires people to go in droves to the Galapagos.

So it is a Catch 22 - people need to understand the value of such places and to be inspired to preserve the Earth. Yet, at the same time, they are inspired to visit them. It is desirable for even the most handicapped and underprivileged to have the enjoyment of such places, yet facilities to accommodate them have a huge impact. It isn't just the individual "special places" that are included in National Parks, National Forests, officially designated Wilderness Areas, and the state and local equivalents. It is also that seeing and appreciating these places helps provide a perspective on the whole planet and the whole interactive web of life, the oceans, the atmosphere, and the rocks and dirt of the continents.

So there is a tradeoff - provide access and thus education (good idea!), which causes significant impacts (bad idea!).

I have been a Sierra Club member all my adult life, along with contributing time, personal energy, and a tiny amount of financial contribution to several conservation organizations. So I get to see up close and personal the tradeoff as it happens - chop down trees to make the paper to print the books and mailings to educate people, take them into the outdoors to show them in large gas-burning vehicles (planes, trains, boats, as well as cars), have a dinner with a slide show/movie/talk for education and consume fuel to cook the meal, water to clean up, trash that is generated, etc etc etc.

Unfortunately, there is no simple answer (well, yes, there is - wipe out 90 percent of the population through some means, but most people would consider that solution unacceptable). If there are people, there is an impact. Even the "noble primitive, living in harmony with Nature" has had major impacts. Here in the SFBay Area, for example, the Ohlone and other Native American peoples use to deliberately set fires to create and clear meadows, which would attract deer and other game, thus improving the hunting. Landfills have existed since humans began living in groups (anthropologists and archaeologists love poking through middens to study the leavings, thus learning about these early humans).

I share the frustration at the uncaring and the ignorant for despoiling "MY Wilderness", but I also realize that despite a lifetime traveling and living in the wild for sometimes a month or two at a time (some of it "living off the land"), I am still learning things about my personal impact (in other words, even as a card-carrying "elderly", I am still IGNORANT and careless, and do dumb things that have high impact - not the least of which is replacing my house). Sometimes, I am just as elitist (maybe more so) than MTB and Tipi have expressed above (see, I am holier than anybody else, even walking 10 cm above the water to avoid contaminating it with my dirty boots). But like trouthunter, I get reminded too often about my own impacts when I see the impacts of the Unwashed, grit my teeth, pick up some of their (and my) trash, and strive to educate others by example and trying to reduce my footprint.

It isn't "there but for the grace of God go I". It is "well, that's me, too, hopefully though on a smaller scale."

Just how I see it Tipi. Of course you need a certain amount of roads and parking for the real outdoors people to park their vehicles (hopefully a good distance from trailheads), but building these massive RV parks and visitor centers is, you're right, stupid. Not to mention people sitting behind the wheel of a 36' vehicle they have no prior training for.

It is certainly a Catch-22, but I for one am behind this idea. I do not see it as making it more difficult for the commoner to visit, it is simply the fact that staying outdoors requires a certain level of exertion, preparedness, and education. Even car camping brings you much closer to the outdoors than RVing in my opinion. Cars also take up less space and are typically much cleaner, so trade-offs are fine with cars IMO. We have had many topics on this site over the growing (pun intended) child population, but we forget that these children learn their habits from who, their parents. Start making people work a little harder for the gifts that the outdoors can bring you, then maybe a few more people will see what we see.

Hey Bill, you know how many times I was taken on "outdoor" field trips as a child in school? Try zero. You make a great point, how will people learn if they don't see it first hand? But maybe the problem is we need to reach people sooner. Instead making environmentally conscious people right out of the gate, not trying to teach old dogs new tricks.

Yosemite is a classic example of a park that has been overdeveloped in my opinion. It has been that way for a long time-my first trip there was back in the early 60's and I remember staying in our small trailer on the Valley floor in a crowded campground even back then. My last few trips there have been in winter, including over the Presidents' Day weekend, which is also crowded. However, once you get out of the Valley, at least around Badger Pass, you don't see a whole lot of people.

The conflict between access and preservation is an ongoing issue and there has even been talk of privatizing the parks which would lead, one would assume, to more development in them. I am totally against that idea; I don't consider parks to be profit-making ventures and while it would be nice if they could be self-sufficient, it isn't likely unless fees are raised to more than the average person could pay.

Unfortunately, some decision makers think that parks should offer every amenity you would find at a commercial theme park or mall. It is that kind of thinking that is the biggest threat to preserving what people go to see in the first place. Limits on attendance may seem "undemocratic" but seem necessary to me to limit the impact of visitors on the environment.

Maybe impact fees would be in order. The bigger your impact (size of vehicle/group) the higher the fee. (maybe they already do in some places)
Of course they probably look at the tourist dollars that way anyhow.
I have seen some pretty heavy use/abuse in the Smokies.
Also many of the tailwaters I fish in the winter are also used by rafting outfitters during the summer. It is not uncommon to find clothing, dead batteries, propane cylinders, ect. scattered about. Makes you want to choke someone!
I think that "we" have done a poor job teaching our kids that along with our freedoms comes responsibilities, we would be a lot better off if we would get back to doing this.
My parents taught me/made me, to clean up after myself, no excuses were allowed. I was leaving my campsites spotless long before I heard of LNT.

Tom D, I also agree about the development. To some people, property development is a game they play with no consideration to the impact it has. Money aside, to some people it is a huge game, they want the notoriety and the feeling of accomplishment, I have seen it firsthand.
It doesn't surprise me at all to see this in NP's

I agree tipi walter, some of these people need to stay in Gatlinburg where they can plug in their fridge & A.C.
Too many times have I fought fatigue and terrain to find a really cool place, only to hear the very distant hum of a generator, or someones radio.
But we all have to find some middle ground and get along, I guess. I do think it would be better to limit the amount of wheeled traffic.

trouthunter said, "My parents taught me/made me, to clean up after myself, no excuses were allowed. I was leaving my campsites spotless long before I heard of LNT."

Exactly! My Father was by no means a backpacker or hiker even, but he loved car camping and was a very responsible camper. He was an eagle scout mind you, but he raised children thatd believed in the same thing, leave only footprints.

I think our wild places should be open to all people, but people on foot. The American love obsession with the automobile flies in the face of land conservation and wilderness ethics, and yet our national treasures are partly parking lots to help maintain this addiction. BTW, I heard recently that an expert in road-kill, of all things, pointed out that around 200 bears per year on killed on the hiway going thru Yellowstone. Can this be true?

If we need to educate people on the value of wilderness, how about starting in the schools? All these problems won't and can't be properly addressed until we as a species decide and choose to limit our birthrates and lower the population. There's no need for a mass dieoff, just a slowly lowering birthrate over a century would fix most of the problems we face. Can our monetary system work in a steady state? Is capitalism only viable when expanding? How much is enough? Can we go from 330 million down to 100 million willingly and make it work? These are all questions that tie into the National Park system and saving what's left.

Tipi, What I don't understand are people who go to Yosemite and insist that they have available every amenity you'd find at home, including video rentals, etc. If that's what they want, why not drive to Mall of America and park in their parking lot for a week or go to West Edmonton Mall in Canada for real adventure? That way, the park would be left for the rest of us who actually want to see trees and scenery instead of spending our time shopping for souvenirs or eating.

Impact fees are a terrible idea. When most people pay fees, they feel they have the right to get the most for their money. I'd be afraid the damage would be worse if fees were explicitly collected for damages. How would I know whether I've created my $20.00 worth of damage yet? I'd better do just a little more - don't want to be cheated.

Blackbeard hits on a good point - charge and most people seem to expect more than their money's worth. They don't realize how much it costs to maintain infrastructure (like the road they drove in on - the state and federal fuel taxes don't get tapped for the roads in the parks themselves, even when the road has a state highway number). That's another aspect of the rescue business - if I get tired, the rangers owe me a helicopter ride back to at least my car. That's one of my worries about the proliferation of emergency beacons of various sorts, as well as cell phones and GPSRs - 911 is there for a rescue in 5 minutes.

Are there no fees then in NP's out west?
A little off topic, but I am tired of paying through the nose to fish out of state, while out of state rafters pay nothing and line the banks with all sorts of trash. I have never felt the need to get my money's worth in terms of damage to the area, but I guess some people aren't like us.
In all fairness some of the people fishing aren't much better, but at least it's not blue jeans and beer bottles!

The national parks have fees-in Yosemite, it is $20 per car for a week with other fees for bikes,buses, etc. What Blackbeard may be talking about are fees that are charged in some national forests for parking-what is called an Adventure Pass in the local national forests, plus fees for camping. State parks in CA also have fees for cars, but at some, if you walk in-no fee at all, like at Will Rogers State Park here in LA.

I don't mind paying fees if the money goes to the park. If it goes into a general fund and not spent on the park or forest, that is a different story.

I feel the same way about paying into general funds.
It costs me 12.00 a day to legally fish in Tenn. and 10.00 a day to fish in N.C.
I always buy the out of state permit like I am supposed to, but I highly doubt I would ever get caught if I didn't.
Only NP I visit is GSMNP, it does see too much use for my taste.

The costs to "maintain" these parks is already too high. I'm no expert, but I am sure I could cut thousands from each and every park in America. I agree with the article, so I would be very liberal with the cutting of programs and building ideas. I have a very low opinion of RVing camping close to backcountry areas. These people bring and leave trash, and often are the trash themselves (just speaking from experience).

There is not one government agency in America that runs as well as it should, money is hardly ever the problem here, just execution. I'm sure some will say I'm totally wrong, but I have been to many a park, and simply do not understand why it takes so much money to maintain them. It only does because its the government. I'm sure some numbers will be thrown my way, but I want to do less with less money, so it's not about maintaining what we already have (the amenities), thusly budgetary concerns should be proportionate.

You are correct about the inefficiency of government, no debate there.
Our local public schools are trying to raise money for electronic blackboards, they claim this will help the kids learn better! WHAT???
When you can't name the problems for political reasons, you through money at them.
But I digress.
I haven't been to a lot of NP's, I've been to a lot of State Parks, State Natural Areas, Pocket Wilderness Areas, WMA's and such And I haven't seen a lot of extravagance like I have read about or saw on TV.
One of my favorite spots is a well hidden Pocket Wilderness Area in Tenn. No signs near the road, just a trail head and gravel parking area. You will always find a collection of hiking staffs there if you don't have one. That's the kind of areas I like best! It's also the home of the Creek Indians, and contains arrow heads, pottery, and gold in the streams.
I'm headed there next week, was going to Natahala in NC, but I've changed my mind. I'll post some pics.

Just to clarify my post -

I am talking about what some people may feel they are allowed to do if they had to pay a fee; all hypothetical entitlements due to the fact they pay that particular fee. I am not talking about fees that are currently charged anywhere.

There is a genre of folk here in the US that feels they are allowed to "party" in one manner or another without concerns for others as along as they have paid their "dues". If they pay a fee, they own it for a while. They pay the price of a ticket, they are allowed to do what they feel is appropriate. Sort of like the drivers license - you have to pay for it, but it's still a privilege, not a right. Some just don't get it.

Quote:

All these problems won't and can't be properly addressed until we as a species decide and choose to limit our birthrates and lower the population. There's no need for a mass dieoff, just a slowly lowering birthrate over a century would fix most of the problems we face. Can our monetary system work in a steady state? Is capitalism only viable when expanding? How much is enough? Can we go from 330 million down to 100 million willingly and make it work?:

Who's gonna pay for our government's massive welfare bureaucracy and your social security benefits if all the young'ns are gone? Capitalism isn't the problem; socialism is.

Wow! Talk about a little thread drift! How many of you have been to all of the following parks: Yosemite, Lassen, Olympic, North Cascades, Yellowstone. I would submit to all of you that the "design" of the park has as much to do with the problems as "lazy RV'ers". (the quotes are all mine, please don't take offense) Olympic NP will probably never suffer from the problems Yosemite has because there are no roads completely traversing the park and there are no really developed campgrounds.

My solution would be simple, you can drive X many miles into the park but you can never drive all the way through because the roads are shut down to private vehicle traffic at X. People can ride, walk, run, rollerblade, ride horses, take a bus, etc. beyond point X. Imagine how nice Yosemite Valley would be if you had to ride a bicyle the last 5 miles to get there? I came up with this idea while sitting on the side of the road in Yosemite Valley watching the tourists pull over to catch a glimpse of Bridal Veil Falls for a minute or two before driving on the the next scenic pull out.

Here's another grand way to kill a Park: Allow helicopter tourist flights overhead, sort of like at Glacier and the Grand Canyon.

Isn't there an ADA requirement that the NPs have to allow certain types of access to the public?

Not sure of the specifics...

I've finally read the article and thought it was quite good.

For those who think those of us on foot are being exclusive or elitist, I think Tipi got it right when he said "I think our wild places should be open to all people, but people on foot."

We've run into this issue locally with ATV riders who think equal access means any kind of access.

Anyway, I enjoyed the article. Sometimes we'll explore areas adjoining bigger parks, rather than just the national park itself. Usually, the scenery is quite similar, the trails less crowded, and conditions more rustic--all because it's not a National Park.

tbastress asked about ADA requirements. ADA usually requires that anything open to the "public" must provide for access for the disabled. A friend of Barb's parents hiked most (or all) of the John Muir Trail on Kinney sticks. A friend of mine who lost his legs in an unfortunate accident on a hiking trip has climbed Denali and Kilimanjaro. When I go to lift-served ski areas, I get outskied all the time by "handicapped" skiers, including paraplegics, quadraplegics, and blind skiers. So "handicapped" and "disabled" doesn't necessarily mean can't do it at all, or even restricted from really tough to get to areas. A lot depends on the determination of the "disabled" person, and often, just a little bit of support and "accommodation" from others. And, in a very real sense, we are all "handicapped" and limited in our capabilities.

But. while "accommodation" is quite a reasonable requirement in principle, the interpretation sometimes gets a bit extreme. A few years back, the Sierra Club needed to upgrade and replace the latrine at the Peter Grubb Hut. The Forest Service required the new latrine to be ADA, which was interpreted to mean wheel-chair accessible. The hut is located in the Sierra, north of Interstate 80 and Donner Pass. It is 3.5 miles of hiking along the Pacific Crest Trail, passing through Castle Valley, over Castle Pass, then descending into Round Valley below Basin Peak. The hut is mostly used in winter as a ski hut (it has electric lights, powered from a battery that is kept charged by a solar panel). It is extremely unlikely that someone confined to a wheelchair will be going to the hut. Yet the USFS would not allow an exception. There was some clever designing to make the latrine accessible in the 5-10 foot deep snows of winter, when even the main door of the hut has to be dug out of the snow (the usual midwinter access is through a door in the second floor of the hut).

So yes, the parks and other wildlands should have some provision for those less physically capable, but some logic should be used. Making El Cap's Nose Route ADA would remove the challenge for the most skilled climbers (at least one paraplegic and one blind climber have done this route, by the way, and they did not need any elevators, escalators, or other officially approved ADA accommodations). Reasonable steps to allow the participation and appreciation by those of limited capability, yes. But "dumbing down" to make everything accessible and do-able for the most limited, no.

I think "dumbing down" is not because the management of a government agency cannot see what a reasonable solution is; it is the outcome of law suitaphobia from self important advocacy groups.

I heard that in Vermont the Green Mountain Club talks to the Snowmobile clubs who talk to the hunting clubs, etc. to give each group some space (and respect) in the outdoors.

I read that article as well. It is sadly true that most of the people who visit the parks do not follow Leave No Trace ethics, and "keep wildlife wild" procedures (don't feed/disturb the animals). Most of the people who go to the places like Grand Canyon, and Yosemite are not there for the purpose of truly enjoying, and respecting nature. The backpackers, bikers, and rock climbers, kayakers... (the ones who actually use the land) represent a single digit percentage of the people who visit parks. Of those few, are an even smaller group of people who actually leave no trace.

We should remove all of the restaurants, outhouses, gas stations, etc. The ranger stations, and visitor centers can be left alone. All of the roads to the park will end in parking lots (for cars, NOT for RV's/mobile homes). In order to get into the park, you will need to walk, bike, paddle, swim...(something that is muscle powered). All who wish to enjoy the preservations of land will need to adhere to LNT ethics. Users will also be asked for a non-mandatory donation. If you can afford to spend some money on the parks, then do. All users will also plan a time to do volunteer hours in the preserve closest to their home (not necessarily the one they are visiting); or if the one nearest to them has enough volunteers, they will be assigned to one that needs more.

As for preserving the preservation, environmental scientists, geo-engineers, and rangers; will monitor the preserve (not much needs to be done, nature can take care of itself). The park will have a building for food storage, with a road going to it, where trucks can unload. Next to the food building will be a medic lodge. A section of the food building will also contain spare auto parts, and camp gear, in case someone has a breakdown. Trash/recycling bins will be located outside the buildings. These buildings will vary in size and number proportionate to the size, and popularity of the preserves. The buildings will be located around the outside of the park. The buildings will be "off the grid", eliminating the need for electrical power lines.

That ought to keep out the riff-raff who are just there for the T-shirts, and so on...