Favorite National Parks

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

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

by HungarySagehen » Sat Jul 10, 2010 10:06 pm

I don't think anyone here is saying that there should be swimming pools at national parks...
Where's the perspective?

User Avatar
AlexeyD

 
Posts: 2081
Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2002 11:13 am
Thanked: 60 times in 48 posts

by AlexeyD » Sat Jul 10, 2010 11:07 pm

Denali and Wrangel-St. Elias for most spectacular scenery, and Gates of the Arctic for the most genuine sense of wilderness.

User Avatar
Rob

 
Posts: 1534
Joined: Wed Nov 19, 2003 12:17 am
Thanked: 43 times in 26 posts

by Rob » Sat Jul 10, 2010 11:49 pm

Yosemite is my favorite place, but I actually like people.

Of course, I know how to get away from 'em too. :wink:

I liked Ken Burns'... "America's Best Idea" series, about our national parks.

Thank you John Muir :D
Image

User Avatar
Aaron Johnson

 
Posts: 3647
Joined: Wed Jun 19, 2002 8:49 pm
Thanked: 62 times in 21 posts

by Aaron Johnson » Sun Jul 11, 2010 12:49 am

Sierra Ledge Rat:
Mount Rushmore? The largest vandalism in recorded history?

Hmm. That's one way to look at it. The Crazy Horse Memorial would then be considered that as well.

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.

Yeeesh. I had no idea this had happened at Yosemite. That's pretty bad. This is a good example of what happens when private interests and business are allowed to meddle with our public lands. 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.

The Pacific Northwest has been feed to death, and California is just as bad. Colorado has been zeroed in on as the next feeding ground. I'm surprised more resistance has not been offered against the fee scams in the afformentioned states. I get the impression (which I grant could be and hope is a misinformed view) that fees have been met with indifference and people just pay them because they think they have to.

In Colorado, such schemes have been met with resistance, and we also boast the first case of one fee site spawned during the FEE DEMO PROGRAM being removed due to misappropriation of funds (imagine THAT!). We have a civil lawsuit pending against the FS charging fees at Mount Evans, and access to the famous 14ers, The Crestones in the Sangre De Cristos Wilderness is now under attack. It starts innocent enough: "We want to help the environment of the delicate area," but it usually ends up: "Uh, we don't know where the money went." Such was the case at Yankee Boy Basin (the fee site that was shut down), and such is the case at fee sites across the country.

As for our national parks, I love our national parks. The concept is different from other public lands, though, and I don't mind how most of them are managed. In the case of Yosemite, as Sierra Ledge Rat illustrates, it's is a good concept gone horribly wrong, distorted by greedy private interests and it cannot be allowed to continue. I have my doubts such an abonimation would happen at other national parks, but we can't let our guard down. Yosemite was an early entry into the NPS, and has always been the testing ground for pilot programs and ideas. If this worst case scenario is such a forebearing symptom, it must be stopped immediately, and at Yosemite, people need to speak up LOUDLY and get the situation corrected fast and soon, before Yosemite becomes literally owned and run by private business. Some may say it's too late and the damage is done. If that's the case, then people need to speak up now to protect both the national forests and the NPS from carrying on this abomination further. The BLM too.

At my profile page are two Youtube linked videos about the fee situation. Check them out. There is also a link to a podcast to a supposed, so-called hearing on new fees in Oregon. It was a sham. A new video is in the works for SP's Mount Evans page.

I'm working with the WESTERN SLOPE NO FEE COALITION. This organization is a constant thorn in the side of the FS and I'm proud to be associated with them.

DOW WILLIAMS:
...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.

Ah, the benefit of a fresh perspective! This may indeed be the chief reason why Yosemite has been commercialized so shamefully, while others far removed from the populace would not see such development. Thanks Dow.

DMT:
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.

Agreed with this excerpt and your entire post as well. The NPS is challenged to make the most visited parks cater to the demand of the populace that frequents it. It makes sense as long as the heart and soul of the park has not been destroyed. I was at Yosemite when I was a kid, so I remember very little and I'm sure it has changed massively. Balance is essential, and it sounds like Yosemite has tipped off the deep end in areas where the tourists go but thankfully the back country remains unscathed (am I correct in this assumption?). Even so, such a tactic would not be needed and viewed quite negatively at places like Arches or Canyonlands by the type of visitor that frequents those parks. It's unfortunate, but perhaps Yosemite is destined to be the example of how NOT to run a national park. Is my impression way off course here?

DOW WILLIAMS:
...compared to 5 million acres (the continuous Banff-Jasper National Park system)

Ellen and I have got to get up there some day.

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). At various fee sites, they weren't going to honor it anymore. Lobbying from AARP and public outcry made them give up on the idea. I bring this up to point out that THE PEOPLE can MAKE A DIFFERENCE in the management of THEIR public lands, IF they CARE ENOUGH to SQUAWK LOUDLY when this kind of shit goes down. Indifference and apathy can result in the Yosemite worse case scenario happening EVERYWHERE.

dskoon:
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 should point out the photo of work being done on the Going to the Sun road is a result of extensive damage caused by mother nature. It's practically impossible to expand or improved the road. The Parks do receive maintenance, and the more used parks get more money (I hope). I understand how it may not always be apparent, but in the case of GTTS Road, it has gone to the right place. Sounds like Yosemite is a different animal altogether, though, and the distortions need to be addressed. Again, private interests crawling into bed with government run lands is a tenuous situation with the NPS, and a horribly bad idea with BLM and FS lands.

So I certainly get Chief's point about the negative side of the NPS. However, I'm also glad to see many folks on here trying to illustrate the positive aspects of the NPS.

dskoon:
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.

Well put. Again, to everyone, I highly recomend the PBS/Ken Burns DVD "The National Parks: America's Best Idea" (or something like that).

dskoon:
...a major ski area such as Mammoth. Talk about crowds and overpricing and paving and development!

There are good ski areas and bad ski areas, but lots are good examples of how bad things can get when private business gets cozy with the FS. We're on the verge of seeing this happen everywhere we go. Thanks for bringing this up.

Chief:
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.

All ski areas are supposed to do this. Even so, depending on their relationship with the current admin of the particular National Forest they're located in, some ski areas get away with too much. The FS wants to become the NPS, only much larger and massively distorted. Our public lands are one, huge, gargantuan amusement park to them and private business interests, who will invest little or nothing to crawl into bed with the FS and start making very easy money they are not entitled to, and it's a double tax on US.

The NPS is certainly a different animal, created under different circumstances and it must be dealt with differently. The FS and to a degree, the BLM, are much larger (in areas they manage) and the public needs to bring them under control, or the public will lose the use of their public lands to private interests, and then the whole country will be one huge park system, a gigantic cash cow for the FS and BLM and their incestuous business partners. This would be Chief's worst nightmare, and it's mine as well, but it's on our doorstep NOW.

For all of you reading ths post and this thread, a little bit of background: Chief and I have had extensive PM discussions about this subject and related matters. They are passions of ours, and we both know and respect each other's stance on these issues. He's probably surprised at my view of the NPS, but it's no secret to him how I feel about fees anywhere else.

Chief:
"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.

Man, sounds like Yosemite and maybe other heavily used parks are getting the shaft. That's too bad. I guess I'm lucky not to have seen this. My recent visits to Glacier, Lassen, Arches, Volcanoes saw nothing of the sort.

Dow Williams:
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.

Ever since it became a National Park, I was concerned about increased visitation and over use of the Black Canyon. Dow, I think you'll find it a fun and rewarding experience. The park did see increased visitation, but I've heard nothing negative about it. I would appreciate your impressions after your visit, though. When it was a national monument, it was great. I have not been there since it became a park, so I'd like to know if it got better or worse. This particular case would be a good example of the positives/or negatives of a place becoming a national park. (I haven't heard anything bad about the Sand Dunes either since it became a NP and preserve, either).

James W:
...the only thing it needs is a large neon sign.

Yeesh. That's too bad. This s what can and will happen if the FS and BLM have their way. Remember folks, SQUAWK LOUDLY if you care about your UNCOMMERCIALIZED public lands.

Rob:
Thank you John Muir

Yes indeed!

User Avatar
simonov

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

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.


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.

User Avatar
builttospill

 
Posts: 157
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 7:53 pm
Thanked: 5 times in 4 posts

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.


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.

User Avatar
simonov

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

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.


I don't have any numbers handy, but whatever is going on in the oil and gas world, we all know that timber harvesting in western National Forests has been scaled way back.

no avatar
Chewy

 
Posts: 23
Joined: Tue May 18, 2010 8:41 pm
Thanked: 16 times in 5 posts

by Chewy » Sun Jul 11, 2010 2:50 am

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 two that hold a special place in my heart are Kings Canyon and Glacier. I worked trail crew in Kings Canyon during the mid 80's. I had some of the best times of my life there. And I live just outside of Glacier NP and absolutely love the place.

The national park system is far from perfect, but I sure am glad we have it.

User Avatar
dskoon

 
Posts: 3122
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2008 2:06 am
Thanked: 136 times in 104 posts

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.


Yessiree!

User Avatar
eric-griz

 
Posts: 16
Joined: Tue Dec 19, 2006 4:41 pm
Thanked: 0 time in 0 post

by eric-griz » Sun Jul 11, 2010 4:08 am

If you do not enjoy the national parks stay out. It's that simple. No one is forcing you to mingle with the hoi polloi. There is a reason why they are so popular, because they include some of the most spectacular scenery in the United States (at least in most cases).

User Avatar
lcarreau

 
Posts: 4226
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 10:27 pm
Thanked: 1898 times in 1415 posts

by lcarreau » Sun Jul 11, 2010 4:50 am

You can't go telling folks to stay out! That would be like putting up 'NO TRESPASSING' signs,
and they would still find their way in.

There's really no answer; the damage has already been done.

Of course, the world will be coming to an end in 2012, so does it really matter ???


Hey, is anybody up for a cold brew ???


Image

User Avatar
Marmaduke

 
Posts: 1541
Joined: Tue Feb 02, 2010 1:08 am
Thanked: 729 times in 562 posts

by Marmaduke » Sun Jul 11, 2010 5:48 am

This has become 2 different threads. NP we like and Why the NP Service sucks.

User Avatar
Marmaduke

 
Posts: 1541
Joined: Tue Feb 02, 2010 1:08 am
Thanked: 729 times in 562 posts

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!


Cheers to that!

User Avatar
Mark Doiron

 
Posts: 640
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 11:05 am
Thanked: 24 times in 11 posts

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). ...

A small correction: Seniors can buy a different pass for $10 good for their life. Or, anyone who has a permanent disability (not 100%, but permanent--it can be quite minor) can get a free, lifetime Golden Access passport. I have one because of a ten percent VA disability after knee surgery.

User Avatar
Mark Doiron

 
Posts: 640
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 11:05 am
Thanked: 24 times in 11 posts

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? ...

Perhaps turning something like this ...

Image

into this ...

Image

PreviousNext

Return to General

 


  • Related topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests