5 ms·

Slightly off topic, but I feel like there are so many conflicting parties involved with the US national parks system. On one hand, we have groups of people who

Slightly off topic, but I feel like there are so many conflicting parties involved with the US national parks system. On one hand, we have groups of people who want to preserve the land as much as possible. But often these same people have no problems building new roads and swanky new amenities like hotels and restaurants in the middle of these parks. Yellowstone has some of the most wild and rugged terrain in the lower 48, yet some parts of it feel like DisneyWorld. Which is it? Do we actually care about having natural land we can all enjoy, or are we just trying to add a few extra billion in our national budget? It all just comes off like a huge grift and way to exploit the land. Then there are parks like Glacier, home to some of the most stunning natural beauty in the country, right next to Tribal Land with some of the most rampant poverty in the country. Suburban families cruise around in their brand new Subarus, while eating $30 bison burgers. They barely notice indigenous people, and the results of the land exploitation, on the way out.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
briantakita 4y ago
> It all just comes off like a huge grift and way to exploit the land. Bingo. It comes off that way because it is that way. With centralized power comes centralized corruption...This article is another outrage piece. At best we can expect some token gesture as a response but in the end, the powerful & well connected get their way by cynically fixing the errors of their ways with some new form of corruption. > They barely notice indigenous people, and the results of the land exploitation, on the way out. Our ancestors were indigenous and at some point we became assimilated subjects. I'll give it to the Native American & Hawaiian cultures in remembering their heritage. If the public outrage is notable enough, I'll wager that Booz Allen will have some sort of Native American committee so they can claim that they care about the land & people.
luckylion 4y ago
Do you preserve the land, completely removing humans from it, and only allow humans to marvel at it from satellites? How do you get the population to care for your lofty goals? Do you make it accessible to humans so they can enjoy nature? How do they get there if not via roads?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- quickthrower2 4y ago
  Tongue in cheek: Walk! But I get your point. Usually isn’t the road accessible parts just a tiny fraction of it all anyway?
  - blululu 4y ago
    Taking this comment seriously I would actually really support a more walking centered park system. You are correct that a lot of most parks are situated very far from roads, but in a lot of parks the best places are close to the roads. Personally really dislike having a traffic jam in a natural park, or people demanding yet more parking spaces in Yosemite valley. The shuttle bus services that exist in several national parks are generally really nice. They ease up the footprint and maintenance costs of roads and parking lots. They make it easy to do some of the more interesting through hikes. Obviously I am not saying that we should scrap all the roads but I do think that emphasizing walking would be a good idea.
intrepidhero 4y ago
How are most people going to enjoy (and therefore care about) this natural land without at least some roads, hotels and restaurants? Even in designated wilderness areas, somebody has to build roads and cut trail in order for anyone to enjoy it and scientists to study the effects of conservation. I think it's a tough balance and we need lands all across the spectrum of development.
- LeifCarrotson 4y ago
  Roads? You walk, ride an MTB, or (especially for park service moving construction materials for trail maintenance) use horses. Hotels? I hear they've developed this innovation known as a "tent". Thanks to space-age fabrics, you can be warm and dry with little more than a bag and some sticks. Restaurants? Food is fuel, not a social activity. It's not that hard to carry your calories on your back. In many parks, if there aren't too many roads, hotels, and restaurants upstream, you can get drinkable water straight from the stream, or run it through a filter. If you don't have to carry water in, most parties can pack in enough calories in to go for a week or more. You're not going to get octogenarians and the obese to the middle of Yellowstone or the peak of Denali, no, but that's OK.
  - intrepidhero 4y ago
    So the obese, elderly and disabled should have no access to the national park system whatsoever? Those people get a say in how tax dollars are spent too. I wasn't suggesting a cable car to the summit of Denali. Just consider that maybe a hotel in Yellowstone could have a purpose besides profiteering.
blululu 4y ago
If you are trying to root out corruption and waste in the Federal Government I would suggest looking beyond the Park Service. They are asked to do a lot (more each year) with a very small budget (that does not keep pace with inflation or the amount of places they need to run). The park service needs to cater to a wide variety of people who expect different things from their recreation. Personally I think that personal cars should be banned from all national parks. The roads are expensive to maintain, and a traffic jam to a giant parking lot ruins the park. Denali or Rocky Mountain National park have excellent shuttle services that really help thin the crowd. But some people really like to have their road trips, and having some handicap accessible sections is also important. The contradictions stem from the very nature of democratic compromise.
panzagl 4y ago
It's something the NPS has struggled with from the beginning- there is a book called "Engineering Eden" that goes into just how 'controlled' Yellowstone is and how the objectives have changed over the last century.
haswell 4y ago
I recently finished a road trip that took me through 7 national parks, and it was interesting seeing the large degree of variation in amenities in various parks, and how that changed the experience. By far, my favorite experiences were at parks that had minimal amenities, and far fewer people as a result. These places felt wild, and to me, that's how they should feel. The ones that were equipped with paved walking paths, shuttle systems (looking at you, Zion), and top tier camping amenities (Bryce) were absolutely mobbed with people, making them feel like theme parks. I'm all for ensuring parks are accessible for more people, and I'm sensitive to the fact that parks need routes that can be accessed via wheelchair, not everyone has physical strength for difficult unpaved paths, etc. But to your point, the experience at those "Disney-ified" locations felt very...counterintuitive. Combine this with the huge rise in vandalism, rule breaking, and general destruction in many parks, and I can't help but feel that a slightly higher barrier to entry is a good thing. If it's challenging (but achievable) to visit a location, I feel like there may more inherent respect by the folks who care enough to make sure they're prepared for the experience. Lowering the bar too far has been detrimental, IMO.
- HDThoreaun 4y ago
  We seem to have a very similar view on what makes our national parks great. I’ve been thinking about a little road trip to a few of them, would you mind sharing your favorites?
  - haswell 4y ago
    Canyonlands. This place is enormous, and the diversity of terrain is amazing. After visit Arches the day before and not loving it, I immediately fell in love with this place. Rocky Mountain. I went just as the first snow was rolling in, and think this is a great place off season. Gets busy with better weather though from what I understand. YMMV. Redwood. Not as wild, but great hikes in solitude and not crowded. Olympic. The sheer scale of this place is incredible, and again the diversity is amazing. I really wanted to go to Lassen Volcanic and North Cascades, which I believe will be similar, but weather and timing were not on my side.
  - bcbrown 4y ago
015a 4y ago
You see a scene like this [1] and you wouldn't be blamed for thinking that its just some normal highway in the western US. Its actually inside Yellowstone; zoom in on the sign and you'll see that its the exit ramp to Old Faithful. [1] https://www.google.com/maps/@44.4608402,-110.8437926,3a,75y,297.77h,75.39t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sucifw8y44sGcwdpG91NiSg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192 https://www.google.com/maps/@44.4608402,-110.8437926,3a,75y,...

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

briantakita 4y ago

> It all just comes off like a huge grift and way to exploit the land. Bingo. It comes off that way because it is that way. With centralized power comes centralized corruption...This article is another outrage piece. At best we can expect some token gesture as a response but in the end, the powerful & well connected get their way by cynically fixing the errors of their ways with some new form of corruption. > They barely notice indigenous people, and the results of the land exploitation, on the way out. Our ancestors were indigenous and at some point we became assimilated subjects. I'll give it to the Native American & Hawaiian cultures in remembering their heritage. If the public outrage is notable enough, I'll wager that Booz Allen will have some sort of Native American committee so they can claim that they care about the land & people.

luckylion 4y ago

Do you preserve the land, completely removing humans from it, and only allow humans to marvel at it from satellites? How do you get the population to care for your lofty goals? Do you make it accessible to humans so they can enjoy nature? How do they get there if not via roads?

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
quickthrower2 4y ago
Tongue in cheek: Walk! But I get your point. Usually isn’t the road accessible parts just a tiny fraction of it all anyway?
- blululu 4y ago
  Taking this comment seriously I would actually really support a more walking centered park system. You are correct that a lot of most parks are situated very far from roads, but in a lot of parks the best places are close to the roads. Personally really dislike having a traffic jam in a natural park, or people demanding yet more parking spaces in Yosemite valley. The shuttle bus services that exist in several national parks are generally really nice. They ease up the footprint and maintenance costs of roads and parking lots. They make it easy to do some of the more interesting through hikes. Obviously I am not saying that we should scrap all the roads but I do think that emphasizing walking would be a good idea.

intrepidhero 4y ago

How are most people going to enjoy (and therefore care about) this natural land without at least some roads, hotels and restaurants? Even in designated wilderness areas, somebody has to build roads and cut trail in order for anyone to enjoy it and scientists to study the effects of conservation. I think it's a tough balance and we need lands all across the spectrum of development.

LeifCarrotson 4y ago
Roads? You walk, ride an MTB, or (especially for park service moving construction materials for trail maintenance) use horses. Hotels? I hear they've developed this innovation known as a "tent". Thanks to space-age fabrics, you can be warm and dry with little more than a bag and some sticks. Restaurants? Food is fuel, not a social activity. It's not that hard to carry your calories on your back. In many parks, if there aren't too many roads, hotels, and restaurants upstream, you can get drinkable water straight from the stream, or run it through a filter. If you don't have to carry water in, most parties can pack in enough calories in to go for a week or more. You're not going to get octogenarians and the obese to the middle of Yellowstone or the peak of Denali, no, but that's OK.
- intrepidhero 4y ago
  So the obese, elderly and disabled should have no access to the national park system whatsoever? Those people get a say in how tax dollars are spent too. I wasn't suggesting a cable car to the summit of Denali. Just consider that maybe a hotel in Yellowstone could have a purpose besides profiteering.

blululu 4y ago

If you are trying to root out corruption and waste in the Federal Government I would suggest looking beyond the Park Service. They are asked to do a lot (more each year) with a very small budget (that does not keep pace with inflation or the amount of places they need to run). The park service needs to cater to a wide variety of people who expect different things from their recreation. Personally I think that personal cars should be banned from all national parks. The roads are expensive to maintain, and a traffic jam to a giant parking lot ruins the park. Denali or Rocky Mountain National park have excellent shuttle services that really help thin the crowd. But some people really like to have their road trips, and having some handicap accessible sections is also important. The contradictions stem from the very nature of democratic compromise.

panzagl 4y ago

It's something the NPS has struggled with from the beginning- there is a book called "Engineering Eden" that goes into just how 'controlled' Yellowstone is and how the objectives have changed over the last century.

haswell 4y ago

I recently finished a road trip that took me through 7 national parks, and it was interesting seeing the large degree of variation in amenities in various parks, and how that changed the experience. By far, my favorite experiences were at parks that had minimal amenities, and far fewer people as a result. These places felt wild, and to me, that's how they should feel. The ones that were equipped with paved walking paths, shuttle systems (looking at you, Zion), and top tier camping amenities (Bryce) were absolutely mobbed with people, making them feel like theme parks. I'm all for ensuring parks are accessible for more people, and I'm sensitive to the fact that parks need routes that can be accessed via wheelchair, not everyone has physical strength for difficult unpaved paths, etc. But to your point, the experience at those "Disney-ified" locations felt very...counterintuitive. Combine this with the huge rise in vandalism, rule breaking, and general destruction in many parks, and I can't help but feel that a slightly higher barrier to entry is a good thing. If it's challenging (but achievable) to visit a location, I feel like there may more inherent respect by the folks who care enough to make sure they're prepared for the experience. Lowering the bar too far has been detrimental, IMO.

HDThoreaun 4y ago
We seem to have a very similar view on what makes our national parks great. I’ve been thinking about a little road trip to a few of them, would you mind sharing your favorites?
- haswell 4y ago
  Canyonlands. This place is enormous, and the diversity of terrain is amazing. After visit Arches the day before and not loving it, I immediately fell in love with this place. Rocky Mountain. I went just as the first snow was rolling in, and think this is a great place off season. Gets busy with better weather though from what I understand. YMMV. Redwood. Not as wild, but great hikes in solitude and not crowded. Olympic. The sheer scale of this place is incredible, and again the diversity is amazing. I really wanted to go to Lassen Volcanic and North Cascades, which I believe will be similar, but weather and timing were not on my side.
- bcbrown 4y ago

015a 4y ago

You see a scene like this [1] and you wouldn't be blamed for thinking that its just some normal highway in the western US. Its actually inside Yellowstone; zoom in on the sign and you'll see that its the exit ramp to Old Faithful. [1] https://www.google.com/maps/@44.4608402,-110.8437926,3a,75y,297.77h,75.39t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sucifw8y44sGcwdpG91NiSg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192 https://www.google.com/maps/@44.4608402,-110.8437926,3a,75y,...