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.

Dingus Milktoast wrote:But make no mistake, I am far more often found at Sonora Pass and other uncontrolled areas, (BLM in particular) than I am NPS.

DMT

in National Parks?
They don't have to be controlled.
Yosemite and similar parks which are close to such an awful lot of people are exeptions, as I see it. Or if they're very sensitive to having too many people on it. Gotska Sandön is such a place.

The Lapponia parks are not controlled - too much land. (I think you'd like that place. Make it over here and I'll show it to you.)
I bet Yellowstone isn't either.

Been in a few in the USA too. They're all special. Not very odd though, that's why they're national parks...

Carlsbad Caverns
Death Valley
Everglades
Grand Canyon
Great Smoky Mountains
Gulf Islands
Kings Canyon
Sequoia
Petrified Forest
Rocky Mountain
Sequoia
Yosemite

mrchad9 wrote:

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.

You're right. I was just saying that, in my experience, there is very little practical difference between the two systems. The popularity of the route has not had much to do with it, as we got a permit for the upper saddle on the Grand Teton the morning we walked in. If you think the FS plan is that much better, try getting a permit for Whitney on a moments notice.

mconnell wrote:I was just saying that, in my experience, there is very little practical difference between the two systems. The popularity of the route has not had much to do with it, as we got a permit for the upper saddle on the Grand Teton the morning we walked in. If you think the FS plan is that much better, try getting a permit for Whitney on a moments notice.

Your statements are full of shit mconnell. Not hating on you, just pointing out you don't know what you are talking about (as usual) and now you are trying to twist your original statement to fit something logical that someone else said.

I said the Shasta and Rainier processes were different. You said- see below- the Shasta and Rainer processes were the same. Even your climbing partner pointed out you were incorrect. I was not advocating the Whitney process, but if you think there wouldn't be more people trying to climb Shasta (making it more popular) if it were designated a national park you are living in an imaginary world of your own.

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.

Redneck pointed out (you didn't) that the popularity is a bigger consideration. Even if that were held to be true, it is the national park status on an area that makes it more popular than it would otherwise be. Ceteris paribus.

mrchad9 wrote:

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.

Which is exactly how it has worked almost every time I went to get a permit. You can continue the personal attacks or figure out that what you read on the internet might not always be the case.

I did not attack you- whether you deserve to be or not. If you construe what I've said as an attack, your original post, not my original, could also be construed as such. So you made the first blow.

mconnell wrote:is exactly how it has worked almost every time

And again- even the partner you climbed with tried to correct your error- you could have left it there. But you kept flailing. Not much else to say.

[quote="mrchad9"
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.[/quote]

Even if that were held to be true, it is the national park status on an area that makes it more popular than it would otherwise be. Ceteris paribus.[/quote]

So, seems as though you're positing that National Park status makes it more popular?
Hmm, don't really know how you can back that claim up. What do the numbers say?
Shasta is a pretty damn popular mountain, as is Whitney, as is Grand Teton and Rainier, along with many others, of course. But, two of those are in n. parks, and two aren't(unless one comes in on the backside of Whitney), and they're all very popular.
Seems to me much of the popularity has little to do with N.P. status or not; rather, they tend to be iconic mountains that people have been climbing for years, for the challenge alone. Do you really think some guy in Florida decides he wants to climb Rainier just because its in a National Park? Is Denali so popular just because it happens to be in a National Park? I for one, don't think so. In both cases, I'd say there are many climbers who never set foot in that park's visitors' center.

Oh, for crying out loud ...

Just get out there! And .. enjoy YOUR parks and beaches.

Yes dskoon, I'm saying popular as it is now, there would be a few more folks hanging around Mount Shasta if it were a national park. Didn't see any RVs up there last weekend, sure I would have if an 'America the Beautiful' pass was needed. Everyone wouldn't have been climbing, but more people would have been there.

If you really want to get analytical, you'd have to compare numbers of something like Death Valley the years before to the years after becoming a park, or Death Valley to Mojave National Preserve. There is just as much to see in the latter, but it doesn't have the NPS draw. Unfortunately I do not know where to get these numbers. If anyone does, I'd be happy to see them and be shown right or wrong.

Good post Larry.

mrchad9 wrote:Yes dskoon, I'm saying popular as it is now, there would be a few more folks hanging around Mount Shasta if it were a national park. Didn't see any RVs up there last weekend, sure I would have if an 'America the Beautiful' pass was needed. Everyone wouldn't have been climbing, but more people would have been there.

If you really want to get analytical, you'd have to compare numbers of something like Death Valley the years before to the years after becoming a park, or Death Valley to Mojave National Preserve. There is just as much to see in the latter, but it doesn't have the NPS draw. Unfortunately I do not know where to get these numbers. If anyone does, I'd be happy to see them and be shown right or wrong.

Good post Larry.

Ok, yeah, there might be more RVs, etc. But, you were specifically saying that Rainier is more popular, ie, a more popular climb, etc. than Shasta just because it is a national park. I find that hard to believe for the reasons I mentioned. But, if you're saying more tourists would visit Shasta, well, yeah, sure, but that's a different line than what you initially said.

dskoon wrote:Ok, yeah, there might be more RVs, etc. But, you were specifically saying that Rainier is more popular, ie, a more popular climb, etc. than Shasta just because it is a national park. I find that hard to believe for the reasons I mentioned. But, if you're saying more tourists would visit Shasta, well, yeah, sure, but that's a different line than what you initially said.

No no... I never said that. Nor intended that. Reread what I wrote if needed. I said ceteris paribus- all other things being equal. There are many factors to consider, such as population centers, state highpoint, etc... I said a particular location will be more popular as a national park than the SAME location were it not a national park.

In the original I listed several Cascade peaks, they all have similarities and differences to others, some are state highpoints, some huge peaks, some more difficult than others, various accessibility to population, but one stands apart in terms of the regulations/popularity. As far as I'm aware for all the others either permits are not needed or they are self-issue at trailheads.

mrchad9 wrote:

dskoon wrote:Ok, yeah, there might be more RVs, etc. But, you were specifically saying that Rainier is more popular, ie, a more popular climb, etc. than Shasta just because it is a national park. I find that hard to believe for the reasons I mentioned. But, if you're saying more tourists would visit Shasta, well, yeah, sure, but that's a different line than what you initially said.

No no... I never said that. Nor intended that. Reread what I wrote if needed. I said ceteris paribus- all other things being equal. There are many factors to consider, such as population centers, state highpoint, etc... I said a particular location will be more popular as a national park than the SAME location were it not a national park.

In the original I listed several Cascade peaks, they all have similarities and differences to others, some are state highpoints, some huge peaks, some more difficult than others, various accessibility to population, but one stands apart in terms of the regulations/popularity. As far as I'm aware for all the others either permits are not needed or they are self-issue at trailheads.

Ok, maybe I read to far into your rant. Yes, you did say "areas," would be more popular if made into a national park, not specifically mountains. My mistake. I still say Rainier and Shasta are both very popular climbs, along with Hood, due to some of the ease of particular routes, as well as their iconic status. Yeah, Rainier undoubtably has more RVs visiting it. And, I'm sure the park status does carry a bit more regulation as far as permits go. . . So. . .

dskoon wrote:Ok, maybe I read to far into your rant.

LOL...

See? This is what happens when I post in the morning and have not had a drink yet!

mrchad9 wrote:

dskoon wrote:Ok, maybe I read to far into your rant.

LOL...

See? This is what happens when I post in the morning and have not had a drink yet!

And, when you post in the evening and you have had a drink? Clearer?

See how much more agreeable I am?