SummitPost.org

Posted: **Sat Jan 12, 2013 4:26 pm**

It would be nice to have a few more facilities on the west side. The west side only has a day use parking lot, and no campground of any sorts, so its kind of a pain to drive up every day from the Salinas Valley area. Can't see much in the way of backpacking and backcountry camping in the new park, as there are almost no water sources; Bear Gulch (east side) would be the only year-round water source, so that would get overused even more than it is now. If I'm not mistaken, the legislation also expanded the park's boundries to include more area, and expanded the wilderness in teh north end.

East side campground is actually quite luxurious - pool, nice toilets, running water, showers, lots of sites with RV hook-ups (if that's your idea of 'outdoors'), so I can't see that changing. And its only a 45 min drive from Hollister along a pretty barren road.

Posted: **Sat Jan 12, 2013 4:40 pm**

phydeux wrote:It would be nice to have a few more facilities on the west side. The west side only has a day use parking lot, and no campground of any sorts, so its kind of a pain to drive up every day from the Salinas Valley area. Can't see much in the way of backpacking and backcountry camping in the new park, as there are almost no water sources; Bear Gulch (east side) would be the only year-round water source, so that would get overused even more than it is now. If I'm not mistaken, the legislation also expanded the park's boundries to include more area, and expanded the wilderness in teh north end.

If they are serious about this being a national park then a large new visitors center and a campground on the west side is absolutely necessary. If this was done to boost tourism then the NPS needs to have the facilities to support the projected increase...or to help boost it. If they are going to do this they need to do it right.

My favorite part of the Mercury New article:

MercuryNews.com wrote:Obama signed, HR3641, by Rep. Sam Farr, D-Salinas, does not increase the size of the park or its budget.

Posted: **Sat Jan 12, 2013 7:35 pm**

Why do we need to have a big shiny new visitor center? I'm sorry, but I generally hate these things. They attract people looking for NPS passport stamps, folks's who'd rather watch videos than go outside, and they sell tons of crap like stuffed animals and key chains and eskimo pies and DVDs of all the things you could see in the park if you actually WENT OUTSIDE FOR A WALK. I remember being in the Rainier Visitor Center at Paradise, a woman walked up to the ranger and asked, "What's there to do in this park?" I'm not kidding. They should just burn down all the Visitor Centers and redirect folks to a beefed up multi-media online experience so that don't have to drive anywhere to get the same thing.

The West Side of Pinnacles is awesome because it is so simple. Drive in, park, go for a hike or go climbing or go bird-watching, or ...

Although I do wish they didn't close the gate at night...

Posted: **Sat Jan 12, 2013 7:45 pm**

Bob Burd wrote:Why do we need to have a big shiny new visitor center? I'm sorry, but I generally hate these things. They attract people looking for NPS passport stamps, folks's who'd rather watch videos than go outside, and they sell tons of crap like stuffed animals and key chains and eskimo pies and DVDs of all the things you could see in the park if you actually WENT OUTSIDE FOR A WALK. I remember being in the Rainier Visitor Center at Paradise, a woman walked up to the ranger and asked, "What's there to do in this park?" I'm not kidding. They should just burn down all the Visitor Centers and redirect folks to a beefed up multi-media online experience so that don't have to drive anywhere to get the same thing.

The West Side of Pinnacles is awesome because it is so simple. Drive in, park, go for a hike or go climbing or go bird-watching, or ...

Although I do wish they didn't close the gate at night...

I agree completely. I am just making the point about how silly elevating Pinnacles to NP status is. It was fine as a monument.

Posted: **Sat Jan 12, 2013 8:20 pm**

I've added Pinnacles to the U.S. National Parks list here on SP. If anyone has a recommendation for a image to represent the park on the list page, please let me know. Image needs to be landscape (not portrait), without additional borders, etc. added by the owner (the thumbs are small enough without that useless material thrown in). I tried a search, but would you believe there are a lot of irrelevant hits on the word "pinnacle"? :-)

Also, if anyone knows where Pinnacle's High Point is (lat-long coord's), I'd appreciate that, as well. BTW: My Internet provider no longer provides webspace. So, for awhile now the links to the park high points on Google Earth have not worked. If anyone knows where I could park the .kmz files to get them working again, I'd appreciate a recommendation. And, LOL, while I have your attention, does anyone know why the table borders aren't working properly anymore? :-)

Posted: **Sat Jan 12, 2013 8:31 pm**

lcarreau wrote:
SeanReedy wrote:

So you want more than a minor alteration to the name?

YES ..... WE SHOULD CALL IN MORE GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES TO DISCUSS THIS ....

Hillary: "So, Mr. President, a congressman from Washington (state) removed the designation of Chalone Creek and South Chalone Peak as wilderness, before sending the bill your way?"

Barack: "Well, Mrs. Clinton, it was only slightly better than par for the course for this bunch during your recovery. After climbing the fiscal cliff, but stopping far short of tackling the Everest still facing us, we did change the name to Pinnacles National Park and additionally changed the name of the current Pinnacles wilderness area to honor the lega"cy of Mr. Hain. The size of Pinnacles wouldn't have changed under this National Park designation anyway and we'll work out the details of how to fund the improvements outlined in the GMP later. The short term prognosis is that we created a bit of work for sign makers and cartographers."

Links
Links

Hillary: "Barack, I don't have time for all these details. Just make sure things are running more smoothly by the time I take office."

Barack: "Hillary, I'll keep negotiating, but don't forget about Plan B."

Edit--speakers': names added

Posted: **Sat Jan 12, 2013 9:34 pm**

Bob Burd wrote:Why do we need to have a big shiny new visitor center? I'm sorry, but I generally hate these things. They attract people looking for NPS passport stamps, folks's who'd rather watch videos than go outside, and they sell tons of crap like stuffed animals and key chains and eskimo pies and DVDs of all the things you could see in the park if you actually WENT OUTSIDE FOR A WALK. I remember being in the Rainier Visitor Center at Paradise, a woman walked up to the ranger and asked, "What's there to do in this park?" I'm not kidding. They should just burn down all the Visitor Centers and redirect folks to a beefed up multi-media online experience so that don't have to drive anywhere to get the same thing.

The West Side of Pinnacles is awesome because it is so simple. Drive in, park, go for a hike or go climbing or go bird-watching, or ...

Although I do wish they didn't close the gate at night...

That represents my personal interests pretty well, but I often get the sense that the interests of many SP members tends to fall in the minority in most places, especially national parks. Thankfully it is usually easy to leave the fluffy features behind and get away from crowds. For now, the biggest factor for me tends to be dog restrictions; I like to get my dogs out exercising and having fun along with me, so I often avoid national and state parks.

Posted: **Sat Jan 12, 2013 10:31 pm**

Bob Burd wrote:...and they sell tons of crap like stuffed animals and key chains and eskimo pies and DVDs of all the things you could see in the park if you actually WENT OUTSIDE FOR A WALK.

'sigh...' My wife and son are addicted to the gift shops- whether in visitor centers or museums, zoos, you name it. I almost always wait outside- patiently waiting while they shop for trinkets and junk that are (as I like to point out to them) 'Made In China'. We have closets and shelves full of National (and other) Park hats, cups, rocks, refrigerator magnets, shot glasses, stuffed animals, shirts...

If we're in a park I usually insist that we go to the gift shop only at the end of a hike so I can bribe my video gamer son: "It's only 3 more miles. If you can make it without any more complaining, then we'll stop at the gift shop. Okay?" Maybe not great parenting, but I'd much rather be listening to the birds and the wind than those whiny, "How much longer?"s.

Sorry. A bit off topic, but I just had to vent.

Posted: **Sun Jan 13, 2013 12:21 am**

^^^Boyblue, that sort of scenario is one of many perspectives I was imagining when considering different types of visitors. A few times my wife and kids have talked me into buying some educational gift shop toys and books, as well as non-educational shirts and stuffed animals. Getting them as a direct bribe hasn't happened yet, but my children are still young.

Some of the visitor center models and displays at national parks are actually impressive, but I avoid them when not with family and generally can learn the same things on the internet or out in the parks. Different things appeal to different audiences.

Posted: **Sun Jan 13, 2013 1:20 am**

I think I understand your point, Sean. I guess my frustration is that I wish that the stuff one can see for free (on the trails) was as appealing as the stuff you can buy in the gift shops... to my family, that is.

I am happy to say that on one of our latest hikes my son (12 y.o.) bought a book(!!) about the native birds that inhabit our area (we're practically adjacent to the Don Edwards National Preserve). This is a good trend! Now, if I can only get my wife to give up her addiction to cups and refrigerator magnets. :wink:

I suppose that if the revenue from the sale of these trinkets allows the acquisition of more land for public use, then it's a good thing- isn't it?

Posted: **Sun Jan 13, 2013 1:31 am**

Clarify my post above - I'd like to see a simple campground on the west side (not as extensive as on the east side), but no visitor center (heck, put up a kiosk at the campground entrance and save $$$ and manpower). It was a real drag having to drive down to Soledad to overnight in a hotel/motel the one time I went in on that side.

Also - it wasn't clarified in a post above , but there's also a cave with bats on the west side, not just the one off the Bear Gulch trail on the east side. And the caves can be closed when the bats are in full breeding mode.

Posted: **Sun Jan 13, 2013 1:47 am**

SeanReedy wrote:
Hillary : "Barack, I don't have time for all these details. Just make sure things are running more smoothly by the time I take office."

Barack : "Hillary, I'll keep negotiating, but don't forget about Plan B ....."

Posted: **Sun Jan 13, 2013 2:29 am**

Bob Burd wrote: folks's who'd rather watch videos than go outside, and they sell tons of crap like stuffed animals and key chains and eskimo pies and DVDs of all the things you could see in the park if you actually WENT OUTSIDE FOR A WALK."

I've to strongly disagree to this point- some visitor centers are good and very informative (Ex: Lone Pine visitor center/Guadalupe Peaks National Park). You just cannot ask everybody to step out in the wild and appreciate/understand science and nature. Or, browse the web and gather information beforehand. NPS has an objective to make these areas more accessible and distill the science to folks who might otherwise find it hard to appreciate it. You just cannot expect everybody to own Nat Geo maps (or other related software) and look at/understand terrains etc.

Agree about eskimo pies and key chains ...

Bob, great fan of your work and I refer to your website a lot for my hikes/climbs. Thanks.

Posted: **Sun Jan 13, 2013 10:20 am**

I guess the idea of visitor centers is to make the parks attractive and enjoyable for all types of visitors, not just SP members.

Why should the design be specific to what people here like? Sure would be nice if the road into Yosemite valley were 4wd only... that might keep even some of the riffraff here out at times and I'd have the place more to myself.

Posted: **Sun Jan 13, 2013 4:27 pm**

Bob Burd wrote:Why do we need to have a big shiny new visitor center? I'm sorry, but I generally hate these things.

I enjoyed them very much when I was a kid. But that was back in the 1960s and 1970s, when they were sort of like museums, and didn't have gift shops (there was literally nothing to buy in the Visitors Centers in those days). Every time my family pulled into a new National Park (we generally camped), I'd make a beeline for the Visitors Center. I especially liked the big relief maps that were the centerpieces of the NPS Visitors Centers.

If there are any kids left who, like me, are inspired by the wonder, mystery and grandeur of the natural history behind whichever National Park you happen to be in, then Visitors Centers are certainly worthwhile.

SummitPost.org

Newest National Park?..Pinnacles

Re: Newest National Park?..Pinnacles

Re: Newest National Park?..Pinnacles

Re: Newest National Park?..Pinnacles

Re: Newest National Park?..Pinnacles

Re: Newest National Park?..Pinnacles

Re: Newest National Park?..Pinnacles

Re: Newest National Park?..Pinnacles

Re: Newest National Park?..Pinnacles

Re: Newest National Park?..Pinnacles

Re: Newest National Park?..Pinnacles

Re: Newest National Park?..Pinnacles

Re: Newest National Park?..Pinnacles

Re: Newest National Park?..Pinnacles

Re: Newest National Park?..Pinnacles

Re: Newest National Park?..Pinnacles