Favorite National Parks

Post general questions and discuss issues related to climbing.
User Avatar
James_W

 
Posts: 1473
Joined: Sat May 14, 2005 2:47 pm
Thanked: 1 time in 1 post

by James_W » Mon Jul 12, 2010 9:50 pm

Castlereagh wrote: Consider an SP'er driving up to Yosemite to spend a weekend in the backcountry and Joe Tourist driving there with his family to stay at the Lodge, play some golf, and enjoy all the comforts of home in a spectacular natural setting. Does the SP'er, the hiker, the climber really have more of a right or claim to the park than Joe Tourist, assuming neither party litters, vandalizes the park, exploits it, etc?


Head up to Glacier Lodge on big pine creek and tell me that setting is the same as going to valley, which one has a greater impact?

User Avatar
mrchad9

 
Posts: 4523
Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2009 12:01 am
Thanked: 1333 times in 907 posts

by mrchad9 » Mon Jul 12, 2010 10:02 pm

mconnell wrote:
mrchad9 wrote:If Mr. McConnell thinks they are the same on both mountains he is clearly misguided at best.


Since I am so misguided, please let me know how my experiences were different getting the two permits. I understand that there are differences, I just have yet to see why the NP system is any worse than the NF system.

My experience getting permits at Rainier was the same at Grand Teton, Rocky Mountain, Glacier, SeKi, Mesa Verde, and Yosemite as well as several national monuments. I did have a little more trouble getting a permit for the Grand Canyon, where I had to delay my start for a day to stay at the camp site I wanted. I have had much more trouble getting permits for NF wilderness areas than I have in national parks.

In general, I don't spend a lot of time in National Parks for a lot of the reasons discussed here, but they serve a purpose and do a fairly good job of it.

I am not talking about YOUR experience, don't take such a self-interested point of view. I am talking about the experiences of all climbers. You did a less popular route on Rainier- good for you- but there are many other climbers on routes that have to plan far in advance. They are subject to reservation fees, quotas, and limited flexibility if plans change (or the weather suggests they should go another day).

When I went hiking in the Tetons, I got the permit I wanted, but only because I applied FAR in advance. I met many who were very upset that when they arrived most of their prefences were not available. And justly upset too. Turns out the quotas were so low I saw zero or very few others in the areas they were after.

On Shasta you can climb ANY route, ANY time, NO quota. If Shasta was a national park it would change instantly. Avalanche Gulch would be difficult to get a permit, and the other routes would become much more crowded. You think Shasta and Rainier are the same. I realize you are misguided.
Last edited by mrchad9 on Mon Jul 12, 2010 10:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User Avatar
peladoboton

 
Posts: 2309
Joined: Mon Sep 04, 2006 4:40 pm
Thanked: 2460 times in 1511 posts

by peladoboton » Mon Jul 12, 2010 10:02 pm

dude, we enjoy a lot of backcountry protection because Jo Tourist plays nine and looks at the faces in his flip flops....i personally enjoy not having to hike as many miles to get into the good stuff because of the development of the parks, as with Teton Natl Park.

no avatar
mconnell

 
Posts: 7494
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2001 4:28 pm
Thanked: 338 times in 201 posts

by mconnell » Mon Jul 12, 2010 10:17 pm

mrchad9 wrote:I am not talking about YOUR experience


I was.

Edit: Interesting that you accuse me of taking a "self-interested" point of view, and then start talking about your personal experiences to prove how bad the system is.

User Avatar
mrchad9

 
Posts: 4523
Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2009 12:01 am
Thanked: 1333 times in 907 posts

by mrchad9 » Mon Jul 12, 2010 10:24 pm

mconnell wrote:
mrchad9 wrote:I am not talking about YOUR experience


I was.

And how was I to infer that from your original post?

mconnell wrote:
mrchad9 wrote:Just compare the process to get a climbing permit to spend time on Shasta, Hood, Baker, Jefferson, to the process on Mt Ranier, and you will see what I mean. Four of those are much more wild and free than the other.


On Shasta: Walk in, give them your money, walk out with a permit.
On Rainier: Walk in, give them your money, walk out with a permit.


The process is not the same, yet you were clearly trying to infer they were. Everyone here seems to realize this but you. Your climbing parnter knows the difference as well. You were incorrect. We have now learned that your error was either due to you only caring about your own experience, and not about others, or because your were misinformed about the entire process since you selected a less frequented route. So let's move on.

User Avatar
mrchad9

 
Posts: 4523
Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2009 12:01 am
Thanked: 1333 times in 907 posts

by mrchad9 » Mon Jul 12, 2010 10:33 pm

mconnell wrote:Edit: Interesting that you accuse me of taking a "self-interested" point of view, and then start talking about your personal experiences to prove how bad the system is.

Yet another ignorant and incorrect statement. Where did I talk about my personal experiences to prove how bad the system is? I got all the permits I wanted, my personal experiences, at least the ones I mentioned, were fine.

I mentioned the personal experiences of OTHERS that I met, and the issues they had. And I quoted the permit and reservation process from the Rainier website, which is a completely different process than Shasta. So considering this why do you find my accusation so interesting?

User Avatar
simonov

 
Posts: 1395
Joined: Thu Mar 23, 2006 3:07 pm
Thanked: 786 times in 451 posts

by simonov » Mon Jul 12, 2010 10:38 pm

mrchad9 wrote:I am not talking about YOUR experience, don't take such a self-interested point of view. I am talking about the experiences of all climbers. You did a less popular route on Rainier- good for you- but there are many other climbers on routes that have to plan far in advance. They are subject to reservation fees, quotas, and limited flexibility if plans change (or the weather suggests they should go another day).


So given Connel's experience and your experience, clearly the problem isn't the National Park itself, but that you chose a popular route.

. . . like all those people in the traffic jams and crowded parking lots.

User Avatar
HungarySagehen

 
Posts: 62
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2008 12:49 am
Thanked: 1 time in 1 post

by HungarySagehen » Mon Jul 12, 2010 10:45 pm

The only self-centered thing about this thread is that some people think their preferred use of a national park/national monument is the only appropriate one.

That being said I still think the idea of a swimming pool or golf course constructed in yosemite valley or glacier or anything of the like is a bit ridiculous.

User Avatar
mrchad9

 
Posts: 4523
Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2009 12:01 am
Thanked: 1333 times in 907 posts

by mrchad9 » Mon Jul 12, 2010 10:45 pm

redneck wrote:
mrchad9 wrote:I am not talking about YOUR experience, don't take such a self-interested point of view. I am talking about the experiences of all climbers. You did a less popular route on Rainier- good for you- but there are many other climbers on routes that have to plan far in advance. They are subject to reservation fees, quotas, and limited flexibility if plans change (or the weather suggests they should go another day).


So given Connel's experience and your experience, clearly the problem isn't the National Park itself, but that you chose a popular route.

. . . like all those people in the traffic jams and crowded parking lots.

Actually that is exactly what I am not saying. On Mount Shasta you can climb the most popular route all you want. No reservation needed, no quota, no issues. And if you don't like the crowds there are plenty of other routes. In a national park, a popular route is going to be more difficult to do (if you follow the rules) than in a non-park.

I'm not against national parks, they have their place, and even help draw people away from other areas. My original post this morning, before mconnell's poor attempt at a snarky response, was only to point out they are not always better than the alternative, and there are excellent ways to preserve without having national park status.

User Avatar
Lolli

 
Posts: 811
Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2010 7:56 pm
Thanked: 109 times in 68 posts

by Lolli » Mon Jul 12, 2010 10:49 pm

Great Barrier Reef
Abisko (Lapponia)
Yosemite

these comes to mind spontaneously

User Avatar
rhyang

 
Posts: 8960
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2004 8:55 pm
Thanked: 59 times in 38 posts

by rhyang » Mon Jul 12, 2010 10:58 pm

mrchad9 wrote:
redneck wrote:
mrchad9 wrote:I am not talking about YOUR experience, don't take such a self-interested point of view. I am talking about the experiences of all climbers. You did a less popular route on Rainier- good for you- but there are many other climbers on routes that have to plan far in advance. They are subject to reservation fees, quotas, and limited flexibility if plans change (or the weather suggests they should go another day).


So given Connel's experience and your experience, clearly the problem isn't the National Park itself, but that you chose a popular route.

. . . like all those people in the traffic jams and crowded parking lots.

Actually that is exactly what I am not saying. On Mount Shasta you can climb the most popular route all you want. No reservation needed, no quota, no issues. And if you don't like the crowds there are plenty of other routes. In a national park, a popular route is going to be more difficult to do (if you follow the rules) than in a non-park.

I'm not against national parks, they have their place, and even help draw people away from other areas. My original post this morning was only to point out they are not always better than the alternative, and there are excellent ways to preserve without having national park status.


Dude, don't be hatin' on mconnell :)

I guess my point (such as it was) is that there is no fine line here. They are both arms of the fed. But I did find watching America's Best Idea quite an insight into the difference between the USFS and the NPS. Consider the difference in philosophy of John Muir vs. Gifford Pinchot.

btw I used to live up in Portland and would regularly visit the Gifford Pinchot National Forest. Can you say "clearcut" ? I have also backpacked in USFS wilderness areas which were grazed, both legally and illegally. The NPS doesn't allow that kind of thing in national parks.

I dunno, I think it's just great that people get outside at all, what with Facebook and iPhones and Wii and what all else :lol:

User Avatar
jdzaharia

 
Posts: 396
Joined: Tue May 02, 2006 5:48 pm
Thanked: 61 times in 45 posts

by jdzaharia » Mon Jul 12, 2010 11:17 pm

Arthur, I don't think you ever spilled the beans. Do tell.

Maybe Pictured Rocks?
Last edited by jdzaharia on Mon Jul 12, 2010 11:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User Avatar
simonov

 
Posts: 1395
Joined: Thu Mar 23, 2006 3:07 pm
Thanked: 786 times in 451 posts

by simonov » Mon Jul 12, 2010 11:21 pm

mrchad9 wrote:
redneck wrote:So given Connel's experience and your experience, clearly the problem isn't the National Park itself, but that you chose a popular route.

. . . like all those people in the traffic jams and crowded parking lots.

Actually that is exactly what I am not saying. On Mount Shasta you can climb the most popular route all you want. No reservation needed, no quota, no issues.


And every trail in the San Gorgonio Wilderness (not a National Park) has a quota, because 20 million people live within two hours of the place.

Again, it has nothing to do with the agency in question, it's more about how popular a route is and how many people the regulators think can be accommodated. Connel gave you an example of how you can do a climb in Rainier NP with minimal hassle, simply by choosing a less popular route.

User Avatar
mrchad9

 
Posts: 4523
Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2009 12:01 am
Thanked: 1333 times in 907 posts

by mrchad9 » Mon Jul 12, 2010 11:23 pm

redneck wrote:
mrchad9 wrote:
redneck wrote:So given Connel's experience and your experience, clearly the problem isn't the National Park itself, but that you chose a popular route.

. . . like all those people in the traffic jams and crowded parking lots.

Actually that is exactly what I am not saying. On Mount Shasta you can climb the most popular route all you want. No reservation needed, no quota, no issues.


And every trail in the San Gorgonio Wilderness (not a National Park) has a quota, because 20 million people live within two hours of the place.

Again, it has nothing to do with the agency in question, it's more about how popular a route is and how many people the regulators think can be accommodated. Connel gave you an example of how you can do a climb in Rainier NP with minimal hassle, simply by choosing a less popular route.

That is not what he was doing and you know it.

User Avatar
Arthur Digbee

 
Posts: 2280
Joined: Sun Dec 17, 2006 2:03 pm
Thanked: 255 times in 173 posts

by Arthur Digbee » Mon Jul 12, 2010 11:34 pm

jdzaharia wrote:Arthur, I don't think you ever spilled the beans. Do tell.

Maybe Pictured Rocks?


That's a good guess, I suspect you could avoid people on the lakeshore trail during the week in off-season.

How about I reveal tomorrow, so if anyone else cares they can get a guess in.

I do want to add one bit to the debate about parks: Dow, you are the first person ever to accuse me of being a patriot. I might have weird motives for dumping on Parks Canada, but chest-thumping 'mericanism isn't one of them. :wink:

PreviousNext

Return to General

 


  • Related topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests