Close the roads to National Parks?

[FarmerChef]

This argument shouldn't even be happening. It should not be about access, which I thing is needed. The argument, or what action should be taken, should be centered around the disregard of respect. Respect for the nature that you are going to see. Respect for those that help maintain the areas. Respect for your sisters and brothers that want a clean, beautiful, fulfilling experience.

This.....

For better or worse, National Parks draw big crowds. However, they are easy to get away from if you walk a little ways into the woods. I once spent a whole summer wandering around Yellowstone. Once in the woods, I would rarely see another person.

And this.....

One of the things I took away from the Ken Burns series was that the National Park system attracts a large number of visitors and this, in turn, helps to enable better education of environmental stewardship. I remember when "environmentalists" or "greenies" were likened to "wackos" or "eco-terrorists." Today, I proudly consider myself an environmentalists, greenie, conservationist, whatever and I'm respected for it by virtually everyone I talk to. We recycle more now (plenty of room for improvement). We are conscious about pollution, even by our own hand (pouring nasty chemicals down the drain or recycling used oil and batteries).

To me, getting out to see Glacier when I was a kid and seeing Glacier today presents a stark contrast that is unmistakable. The glaciers are smaller, the haze is worse. I took my wife for our anniversary and it honestly pained me to see what a difference just 15 years had made. When I visited as a kid - it was in a car. As an adult, we got out of the car. But without that first visit, I wouldn't have the deep love of nature I have today and would not have the perspective I have to see the damage to the wild we have wrought. I believe the same can be said for other people. If we don't have a large portion of our society enjoying the parks and then seeing the impact of their enjoyment. Books, magazines and television alone cannot do this.

All that said, it absolutely kills me to find white flowers, graffiti, trash and other elements left behind by inconsiderate or uneducated hikers. But, to me, this is an education problem. Remember that LNT is only a couple decades old in general use. Not enough to get through a full generation yet. All my children will have grown up both backpacking and practicing LNT. To them, it will be normal. To very many today, it is not.

[chiefiepoo]

Cades Cove, mine and a lot of other peoples favorite place to visit in the Fall. Tiring of the traffic, of which I was a part, I have been walking the loop these past few years. Against the traffic. If you start early from the CC campground walking against traffic you encounter very little traffic for the first hour or so. As traffic builds, jump the fence over to the meadows on the inside of the loop road. Soon you'll be short cutting the loops in the road and be walking through woods and jumping over the small creeks. Walk over to the cemetery on the west end and contemplate how hard life was in the Cove. Lunch at the mill, no worrying about where to park. By the time you have finished lunch, traffic has come to a stand still and now it is time to jump into the Cove. Take your compass and shoot a bearing right down the center of the Cove. No trail, no cars, very little noise. Lots of thickets, downed trees, mud, and streams to cross. There is a surprising amount of elevation change to challenge a bushwhacking route and it is easy to turn a 2 hour drive into a 6 hour slog. You will however see more bears, deer, and assorted small animals then is possible on the Cove road. Access is important for all to enjoy the Cove in their own way. Just because the road is there, doesn't mean we all have to drive.

[Ktaadn]

As I understand it, the reason Glacier National Park exists is because the movers and shakers of the Great Northern Railroad wanted it as a destination for customers of their railway. Phase two of getting support for the park was putting the monster engineering project, the Going to the Sun Road, through the middle of the park, so people who are less than alpine explorers can see it.

In other words, without the mechanized transportation, Glacier NP wouldn't exist as a park. To me, that would be a huge loss.

This logic doesn't add up to me. If the railway and the road hadn't been built, I guess you could say there wouldn't be a national park there, but more importantly there wouldn't be a railway or a road there. There would only be wilderness there. Isn't that what the goal is?

Don't get me wrong, I think that providing access to nature's wonders creates more environmental protectionists than keeping things locked up, but i'm certainly leaning toward the less infrastructure is better side of the debate.

[Odd Man Out]

While I do enjoy escaping the crowds at the National Parks by walking just a few miles off the highway, I also enjoy interacting with the people at the developed areas. The last time I was at the Grand Canyon (North Rim), I think just about everyone I talked to was from another country. I enjoy meeting people from all over the world. I feel a degree of pride sharing "my park" with the rest of the world and also try my best to be a good host. Of course people watching also has its degree of entertainment value, like commiserating with our waitress at the to the GC Lodge dining room after she had just spent 5 minutes with the woman at the next table as she explained the "correct way" to cook her eggs, or commiserating with the park ranger at the visitors center who had just spent 5 minutes trying to explain to two gentlemen exactly why it was they could not walk down to go swimming in the Colorado river that afternoon before dinner.

[MDSection12]

This logic doesn't add up to me. If the railway and the road hadn't been built, I guess you could say there wouldn't be a national park there, but more importantly there wouldn't be a railway or a road there. There would only be wilderness there. Isn't that what the goal is?

Don't get me wrong, I think that providing access to nature's wonders creates more environmental protectionists than keeping things locked up, but i'm certainly leaning toward the less infrastructure is better side of the debate.

Have you seen what happens to land that isn't designated as a National Park?

Saying there would be a wilderness there is pretty misleading. There would be a logging operation, apartment complex, or fancy corporate retreat there if it wasn't a park...

[Ktaadn]

Have you seen what happens to land that isn't designated as a National Park?

Saying there would be a wilderness there is pretty misleading. There would be a logging operation, apartment complex, or fancy corporate retreat there if it wasn't a park...

None of that happens without roads.

I know the point you are trying to make. Not trying to be a tool.

[perdidochas]

Sadly, the rat-box shelters are LEAVING A BIG TRACE just existing. Dismantling them is the first step in the right direction. Another thing---many national parks have easy rolling couch potato (vehicle) access which causes gas-huffers and the wheel addicted to get too close to whatever is "wild". The solution is simple---close the roads. Instead of kicking all humans out, kick out the cars. Make it difficult to reach these spots. They have to be earned.

What an elitist attitude. That kind of thing will get all the National Parks shut down. Do you think that people will stand for the Parks being inaccessible to most people? Of course not, they will shut them down.

[MDSection12]

None of that happens without roads.

I know the point you are trying to make. Not trying to be a tool.

The point is it takes funds to protect land from far worse fates than 'National Park' and like it or not funding comes from public interest and public access. I wish there was another way, but there isn't.

It's kind of like an argument I've had with a buddy a few times; he disagrees with any captive animals on principle, I think that in some instances the detriment to an individual animal is outweighed by the education it can offer if done properly. The argument started when I told him I was going to the National Aquarium. He disagreed with the whole concept, and I can understand why, but I asserted that by getting people, young kids especially, interested in nature we stood to gain far more than the loss of a few specimens from a number of different species. He was most upset by the dolphin show for keeping dolphins captive, but had he seen the show he might have felt differently; it was entirely formatted to make conservation and protection of the species the focal point. (The dolphins were also rescues from various circumstances.)

[Ktaadn]

The point is it takes funds to protect land from far worse fates than 'National Park' and like it or not funding comes from public interest and public access. I wish there was another way, but there isn't.

It's kind of like an argument I've had with a buddy a few times; he disagrees with any captive animals on principle, I think that in some instances the detriment to an individual animal is outweighed by the education it can offer if done properly. The argument started when I told him I was going to the National Aquarium. He disagreed with the whole concept, and I can understand why, but I asserted that by getting people, young kids especially, interested in nature we stood to gain far more than the loss of a few specimens from a number of different species. He was most upset by the dolphin show for keeping dolphins captive, but had he seen the show he might have felt differently; it was entirely formatted to make conservation and protection of the species the focal point. (The dolphins were also rescues from various circumstances.)

It doesn't take money to protect land. It just takes an act of Congress. I suppose you could argue that enforcement takes money but not creating the entity. Perhaps they could be called National Sanctuaries instead of National Parks. I'm not saying to get rid of the parks. I'm saying we could have both. Or would that be like having your Snickers bar and eating it too?

I agree with you on the animal thing for the most part. Like I said before, I believe that the parks do create environmental protectionists but I would rather have fewer roads than more. The same could be said for zoos and aquariums. Rescues are great but taking animals from their homes is different.

[Marta]

This logic doesn't add up to me. If the railway and the road hadn't been built, I guess you could say there wouldn't be a national park there, but more importantly there wouldn't be a railway or a road there. There would only be wilderness there. Isn't that what the goal is?

Don't get me wrong, I think that providing access to nature's wonders creates more environmental protectionists than keeping things locked up, but i'm certainly leaning toward the less infrastructure is better side of the debate.

To be more specific, if the land hadn't been locked up as a National Park, I think it would probably have been utilized for mining, for a defense installation, and/or leased out for agriculture and timbering. Even if it were a Wilderness, it would be open for hunting.

How much protection versus how much access is good? I'm in favor of enabling lots of people to share and enjoy, but eventually the pollution and noise destroy the very place people came to enjoy. The devil is in the details when looking for balance.

[rickb]

The shelter system is what creates the AT community and sets it apart. It results in people talking, interacting, helping each other out. I would say that if there were never any shelters on the AT, WhiteBlaze wouldn't exist, as it would just be a trail and not a community. I am not saying shelters are good or bad, but they are what has made the AT what it is.

I like this observation a great deal.

[Trillium]

Well, I think I found a place and a lifestyle that I think Tipi could be happy with. Watched 'Alone in the Wilderness' about Dick Proenneke's life of 32 yrs alone in the Alaskan wilderness.

[Lone Wolf]

Well, I think I found a place and a lifestyle that I think Tipi could be happy with. Watched 'Alone in the Wilderness' about Dick Proenneke's life of 32 yrs alone in the Alaskan wilderness.

he couldn't handle that

[Bronk]

The solution is simple---close the roads. Instead of kicking all humans out, kick out the cars. Make it difficult to reach these spots. They have to be earned.

This is being done in some places...and its pissing a lot of folks off pretty good. Close the road to somebody's favorite fishing or camping spot that they've been going to for 30 years and you're going to start problems.

[Bronk]

Once in the woods, I would rarely see another person.

This is true most anywhere...get a mile away from a road and you won't see hardly anyone. People are simply too lazy. They like those places on the Blue Ridge Parkway where they can just pull off in a turnaround and catch a good view. And frankly, I'm content to have a lot of those kinds of places because it keeps the yahoos out of the woods.

[Silent Stroll]

Sent from my Galaxy Note 2 using Tapatalk 2

Worst signature yet :-)

[fiddlehead]

This thread reminds me of a time on my 1st CDT hike when I was at Pocohontas spring in MT.
For those of you who haven't been there, there is a dirt road that goes to a parking area nearby.
So, I met this old guy there who was obsessed with Lewis and Clark's adventure so much so, that he was driving the route as much as he could and was fascinated with this spring because it was really their goal: To find where the Missouri river started.

He asked me how I got there as he was the only car.
When I said I walked from Mexico, you could tell he was too old for that and had a hard time imagining it.
Then, he asked me where I go from here.
I pointed up a cowtrail, through a gate, and into some pretty desolate country. (Exactly where I wanted to be and loved that whole trail.)

He could've never done what I was doing (he was probably in his 70's), but he found Lewis and Clark's famous Pocohontas spring right smack on the Continental Divide!
He was a happy man that day!

[Cherokee Bill]

Stopped trout fishing some of my favorite streams because of near-by roads and the growing number of empty beer-cans and dozens of "white flowers" (was like a mine-field)!

[HCRiceBoy21]

National Parks need the roads to protect them. I see everyone's point and believe / want most places to be wilderness, bet even wilderness costs money. A wilderness is only a wilderness if it is protected and protection costs money...from the gov. If government is going to spend money to protect something there has to be politicians that want to protect it and for politicians to want to protect something there has to be a "want" from a lot of constituents. To get constituents to want to protect something people have to see it and want to protect it thereby necessitating the need for some roads.

Bottom line if we want to keep our wild places wild and not developed by some commercial developing company people have to support it. And to get the most support requires roads ( not a lot, but some ) to be accessible. The best solution always involves a compromise and will fall somewhere in between the two or more extremes. So even though we may not agree with a lot of the extremists they do offer a strong "pull" and voices like Tipi will help keep a lot of our places wild where we can enjoy them and experience everything they have to offer.

[MDSection12]

Bottom line if we want to keep our wild places wild and not developed by some commercial developing company people have to support it. And to get the most support requires roads ( not a lot, but some ) to be accessible.

Your point is totally valid, but I'm gonna throw out a big 'what if' here; what if more people enjoyed backpacking into wild places... Then would the government be able to justify funding to preserve a natural area with little or no access? I know it's a long shot, but I do think the idea is gaining popularity as of late. Perhaps someday enough people will share the views expressed here to make our perspective worth pandering to.