I don't think anyone here is saying that there should be swimming pools at national parks...
Where's the perspective?
by HungarySagehen » Sat Jul 10, 2010 10:06 pm
by Rob » Sat Jul 10, 2010 11:49 pm
by Aaron Johnson » Sun Jul 11, 2010 12:49 am
Mount Rushmore? The largest vandalism in recorded history?
The Chief is right, the National Park Service has ruined many national parks.
I don't know if any of you remember the controversy surrounding 1980 Yosemite General Management Plan? The plan was supposed to "restore" Yosemite to more of a natural park than an amusement park.
At the same time the NPS was declaring that it was going to reduce human impact and commercialism in the Valley, the NPS was doing the opposite.
Yosemite NPS closed "commercial" enterprises like gas stations - and turned them into video rental stores.
Yosemite NPS closed "unnecessary" roads but bull-dozed new parking lots in the trees.
Yosemite NPS prohibited certain "activites" in Yosemite, unless, of course, you purchased those activities through Curry Company.
Yosemite NPS closed a well-loved (and free) community gathering place with a large fireplace, and turned the space into a bar and gift shop.
The list goes on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on.............
I hate the fucking National Park Service for they have done to our national treasures.
...in general have made it way to conducive to folks who would not be there if it were truly more of a wilderness area. But I have observed friends go the opposite direction, become citified and yearn for more tourist service oriented parks. What the populace wants, the populace gets, democracy in work I imagine.
I agree - if you don't like them, by all means go elsewhere.
I stopped sneering so much at the old couples in the RVs or blah blah blah.
They're all welcome, imo.
...compared to 5 million acres (the continuous Banff-Jasper National Park system)
It no longer is the GE Pass rather the America the Beautiful – National Parks and Federal Recreational Lands Pass – Annual Pass - Cost $80.
Yes, others do, in fact, share your perspective. You just keep showing pics of crowds and development, as if that was the only thing going on in a Nat'l. park.
I for one, but am not alone, find these set-asided islands of natural features invaluable, and am very thankful for the foresight shown by some hard-working heroes, way back when, to fight developmental interests, such as the groups who wanted to mine Grand Canyon. I'd rather have a vistior's center on the south rim, and accompanying parking lot, along with a preserved Grand Canyon, than a canyon full of mines and slew runoff. Same goes for the giant Sequoias of the Sierra. They'd be gone by now if they hadn't been protected. All tradeoffs.
...a major ski area such as Mammoth. Talk about crowds and overpricing and paving and development!
The NPS has indeed become a business empire.
Ironically, MMS must follow ALL the USFS strict environmental guidelines for any improvements that they may do on the USFS leased land.
The NPS on the other hand, well, they follow their own set guidelines.
"Stop expanding the roads, buying new vehicles every year, upgrading your personal admin offices annually and fix the toilets and the general public facilities here in the Park."
Were Ron Kauk's words at a TM Environmental Planning Meeting held in TM two Spring's ago that I attended. This stemmed from a human waste sewage leak into the adjacent Tuolomne River after two 60 year old holding tanks burst in one of the TM CG's bathrooms spewing raw human sewage. This wasn't the first time this happened in the CG either.
My next climbing development area is actually going to be in Black Canyon of Gunnison National Park. I sure in the hell don't give a damn about what country or state it is in. But if cars were lined up for two hours to get in (my last experience traveling through Yosemite), then yes, you will not find me climbing there.
...the only thing it needs is a large neon sign.
Thank you John Muir
by simonov » Sun Jul 11, 2010 1:53 am
Aaron Johnson wrote:Right now, the FS is getting away with murder in the Pacific Northwest, California, and they're trying to start in Colorado, with mingling private business with national forest concerns. And I agree, this worst case scenario we see here with Yosemite could be coming to all of the national forest, and all of our public lands, if the current trend is allowed to continue, if the current tax and fee happy administration is allowed to continue unchecked.
Aaron Johnson wrote:The Pacific Northwest has been feed to death, and California is just as bad.
by builttospill » Sun Jul 11, 2010 2:35 am
redneck wrote:Aaron Johnson wrote:Right now, the FS is getting away with murder in the Pacific Northwest, California, and they're trying to start in Colorado, with mingling private business with national forest concerns. And I agree, this worst case scenario we see here with Yosemite could be coming to all of the national forest, and all of our public lands, if the current trend is allowed to continue, if the current tax and fee happy administration is allowed to continue unchecked.
Don't confuse National Parks with National Forests. It is the purpose of a National Forest to enable private exploitation of the land's resources. You can make the argument that private interests aren't paying enough for what they extract, but they are still using the National Forest as intended. National Forests also have to juggle extractive uses with their mandate to preserve lands for recreation (another private use, actually, when you think about it).Aaron Johnson wrote:The Pacific Northwest has been feed to death, and California is just as bad.
Again, take it up with Congress. The Forest Service is the redheaded stepchild of the Federal land management agencies, has always been. And the less income they receive from extractive exploitation, the more they will have to charge for recreational uses.
You can't have it both ways.
by simonov » Sun Jul 11, 2010 2:42 am
builttospill wrote:I think the problem comes when we see more oil and gas leases and extractive action, while additional fees are being imposed. I'm not sure what the reality is in terms of whether leases have become more common, but there is certainly a perception among people I know that they have, despite rising user fees. If we can't have it both ways (I agree, we can't), then USFS can't either.
by Chewy » Sun Jul 11, 2010 2:50 am
by dskoon » Sun Jul 11, 2010 3:05 am
Chewy wrote:Having spent time in all of the national parks in the western US, I'd have to say I love each and every one of them as they each have their own unique character.
The national park system is far from perfect, but I sure am glad we have it.
by eric-griz » Sun Jul 11, 2010 4:08 am
by lcarreau » Sun Jul 11, 2010 4:50 am
by Marmaduke » Sun Jul 11, 2010 6:12 am
dskoon wrote:Chewy wrote:Having spent time in all of the national parks in the western US, I'd have to say I love each and every one of them as they each have their own unique character.
The national park system is far from perfect, but I sure am glad we have it.
Yessiree!
by Mark Doiron » Sun Jul 11, 2010 11:07 am
Aaron Johnson wrote:Chief:It no longer is the GE Pass rather the America the Beautiful – National Parks and Federal Recreational Lands Pass – Annual Pass - Cost $80.
... Chief has a VERY good point. The FS wants to put the screws to owners of this pass now (seniors are big buyers of this pass). ...
by Mark Doiron » Sun Jul 11, 2010 11:24 am
dskoon wrote: ... Since it would all be competetive business for profit, on the outskirts of the park. I wonder what that would look like? ...
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests