Close the roads to National Parks?

[Tipi Walter]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/05/us...ial-media.html

Whiteblazers, it's not just the AT shelters that are being tagged. I just hiked from Rockfish Gap to Daleville, and was appalled at the scrawls and carvings on shelter roofs, sides, and signposts, especially in an area where the local clubs are obviously working hard to maintain the trails and shelter areas. The least we hikers can do is LEAVE NO TRACE as we pass through.

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.

[BirdBrain]

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.

Your solution is much more obtainable. Sadly, I doubt that will happen either.

[RCBear]

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.

Exactly. And the rest of us should never just walk by when someone is defacing resources along the trail. They need to be called out on the spot. Itd be even better to tag them as well!

Sent from my Galaxy Note 2 using Tapatalk 2

[Tipi Walter]

I saw this on my last backpacking trip out in May and during Memorial Day weekend. The squeamish should turn away.

http://tipiwalter.smugmug.com/Backpa...45%20402-L.jpg
These are just a few of the "weekend loads" next to the South Fork Creek in the Citico wilderness. A couple more photos are needed to show the actual spread of the stool. Steamed, I wrote the following in my trip report---

"IDIOTS. I cross the South Fork and pull the detour which I clear with my loppers and then reach White Rock Camp which unbelievably is strewn with 6 piles of human turds and 12 pieces of stained toilet paper atop and around the defecations."

"Here's what happened---urine drinking non-rated no-rank pieces of s*** themselves came out for Memorial weekend and camped by the firepit in camp. They walked 30 feet behind camp next to the creek and shatted right on the ground without digging and left their tp alongside. They continued to do this as long as they stayed in camp---3 days in other words."

"So you have many turd piles from weekend colons strewn about with no thought to dig and bury. These are American patriots at their best---no count non-serving non-military non-hackers who would . . . . . . "(the rest is best left unsaid).

[Blissful]

Good posts, Tipi, thanks for sharing. Even the gross ones. I had to clean up a "dump" site by a campsite at the Blackrock hut a few weekends ago. It stinks... no pun intended.

[hikerboy57]

gets me even more nuts when you find these flowers blooming even though theres a privy at the site.if you dont want to use a privery, at least bury your waste.
tagging isnt going away, been happening since the anasazis.besides people like to see their names in print, even if they are the ones doing the printing.
tearing down the shelters would be a good start.

[rickb]

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.

I could not disagree more.

The roads in most of are National Parks barely scratch the surface of all they have to offer. For all the horror stories of massive crowds at them, barely a few miles in from the trailhead they fall away to a trickle. And then there are the National Forests and other public land around them that see fewer people still.

Enjoyment of nature and natural beauty is not something that needs to be paid for -- earned -- through physical effort. It may feel sweeter that way, but that's it.

As for the shelters leaving a big trace, hardly. They may represent something that you rail against, but almost zero ecological impact. And if you want to argue about their aesthetic impact, I will grant you there is some but it's limited, and easy enough to bypass al together.

[Trillium]

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.

All right; just stop with this. Wilderness types are not the only ones who should be able to access the beauty of our country in the National Parks that are supported by all taxpayers monies. So, what you seem to be advocating also is discrimination against the handicapped. That's not solving the problem at all. The problem is people who don't have respect for the environment; not people who just aren't in the kind of shape it would take to reach these spots. I don't know what the answer is but banning people who aren't physically able to access some of these spots or don't have the time to hike in is not the answer.

[hikerboy57]

I agree with Rick and Trillium. National Parks are for everybody -- not just those of us who can hike 20 miles a day. Or have the means and capacity to hike 100 plus miles a week.

Tipi would have only the fit and the few be able to see (to pick one example out of many) Old Faithful in Yellowstone. And that's not right.

i agree with them as well.
not only is the at not wilderness, but it was designed to give access to the trail for people who normally would never be able to get out there.
dont have much use for shelters though.you can still limit impact without them.and i do believe a shelterless trail would be a cleaner trail.

[RCBear]

National Parks are for everybody. But that doesn't mean we need to put conveyor people movers throughout them for those that can't or dont want to access them under their own power. Let the road end at the ranger station that is located towards the front. Sometimes in our race to accommodate everyone, we lose the majesty that comes with not having to.

Sent from my Galaxy Note 2 using Tapatalk 2

[Tipi Walter]

I could not disagree more.


Enjoyment of nature and natural beauty is not something that needs to be paid for . . . . . through physical effort.

This has been the policy for the last hundred years and so we have the cog railway up to Mt Washington (along with the tourist road), and the easy access motor road up to the top of Grandfather Mt in NC and the easy access to Clingman's Dome and all the other thousands of car access to places best left alone.

Your comment is radical and has resulted in radical engineering to get every lard-butted rolling American to every last natural spot and once done the head honchos call it a "Nature Motor Loop" i.e. Cades Cove. What's left? Not much.

I agree with Rick and Trillium. National Parks are for everybody -- not just those of us who can hike 20 miles a day. Or have the means and capacity to hike 100 plus miles a week.

Tipi would have only the fit and the few be able to see (to pick one example out of many) Old Faithful in Yellowstone. And that's not right.

So okay, bring out the hordes. But expect trash, turd piles and spray paint. And to fulfill your fantasy of "multi-use access", well, we might as well build roads into every last acre of American land---just to let those who can't walk have access. Some people probably won't be happy until there's a scenic motor road to the summit of Mt Everest.

I like this quote---
---"Accustomed to centuries of doing what they wanted to the land, some Americans looked upon the idea of leaving a mere 2 or 3 percent of the nation untouched as heretical." QUOTE Peter Wild p. 34 from the chapter "Howard Zahniser: The Gentle, Genial Man Behind the Wilderness Act." From the book "A People's History of Wilderness", edited by Matt Jenkins, High Country News Books, 2004.

[RCBear]

So okay, bring out the hordes. But expect trash, turd piles and spray paint. And to fulfill your fantasy of "multi-use access", well, we might as well build roads into every last acre of American land---just to let those who can't walk have access. Some people probably won't be happy until there's a scenic motor road to the summit of Mt Everest.

We are just about there with Everest. It is now fast becoming the highest land fill on earth. Every year it now sees 300 people summit, with only a small percentage of those actually having business being on the mountain. David Ingles, a man with prosthetics in place of legs, summited a few years ago. While I admired his spirit, he had to be carried down the mountain by the strongest sherpa in the north side.

Just because something is there doesnt mean we must accommodate everyone that wants to explore it.

Sent from my Galaxy Note 2 using Tapatalk 2

[Tipi Walter]

We are just about there with Everest. It is now fast becoming the highest land fill on earth. Every year it now sees 300 people summit, with only a small percentage of those actually having business being on the mountain. David Ingles, a man with prosthetics in place of legs, summited a few years ago. While I admired his spirit, he had to be carried down the mountain by the strongest sherpa in the north side.

Just because something is there doesnt mean we must accommodate everyone that wants to explore it.

Sent from my Galaxy Note 2 using Tapatalk 2

"Just because something is there doesnt mean we must accommodate everyone that wants to explore it." This about says it all.

Or I would change it to read: Just because something is there doesn't mean we must accommodate everyone that wants to drive to it. When I found out they can land a helicopter on top of Everest I figured the thrill is gone and the fun is over.

[Emerson Bigills]

Selfishly, my wish would be like Tipi that we close the roads, but as other have stated the parks are for eveyone's enjoyment, not just those that have a level of fitness and passion to make their own way to the best views and special places. What has been done to summits at Clingman's and Mt. Mitchell is a real tragedy. Have said that I believe there should be parks with road access, I feel any violation of "leave no trace" is unacceptable. Some of the examples given are just inexcusable behavior.

I will admit that one of my pet peaves is returning back to a trail head and around two miles I know I am close because I can hear the loud exhaust from the Harley's. I have nothing against motorcycles or their riders, but I don't understand why the parks and forests don't implement some temporary muffler restraint on these vehicles to allow all of the visitors to enjoy the experience with all their senses. The noise pollution generated by those machines in our park settings is unacceptable in my mind.

[Deer Hunter]

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.

My dad's 82 years old. Quadruple bypass surgery a few years ago. There are a lot of places I have taken him that he wouldn't have been able to see without vehicle access. Yosemite, Denali, Kings Canyon, Sequoia, Death Valley, Glacier, Yelowstone, Everglades, etc.

[rickb]

Or I would change it to read: Just because something is there doesn't mean we must accommodate everyone that wants to drive to it.

We don't.

And if there is a case where new roads are being proposed in Parks along the A now, I would likely be against it.

But so long as they are there, why the animosity towards those who don't take full advantage of all that those parks have to offer?

Shelters are a unique and wonderful part of the AT. Lone Wolf must have been drooped on his head as a baby.

[shelterbuilder]

I'm gonna jump in and then right back out again. Shelters on the A.T.? I've been shelters chairman for a maintaining club for 27 years now, and every time that we have any vandalism occur at a shelter, I - briefly - entertain the idea about tearing down the shelters. But shelters are a resource management tool: they draw users into a small area, concentrating the environmental impact into THAT ONE AREA and allowing most of the rest of the environment the chance to "chug along unimpeded by human intervention". Of course, DISPERSED L-N-T CAMPING would be an ideal solution to the so-called "shelter problem", but I don't see a concerted effort BY ANYONE (including the Boy Scouts) to teach it and practice it. The next generation won't learn it unless they are exposed to it - heck, we are apparently raising the second generation of young'uns who don't know how to $h!t in the woods properly!!!! The roads that go into the open spaces aren't the problem - the real problem are the folks WITH THE OPEN SPACES BETWEEN THEIR EARS who don't know what they're doing, but who go out and try to do it anyway! (And, yes, we just had some MAJOR vandalism at one of our shelters - about 2 1/2 miles from the nearest road....)

[HikerMom58]

Wow, I can honestly say I agree with everything rickb stated. ( Except Lone Wolf being dropped on his head as a baby.) A lot of peeps don't like shelters on the AT.

Shelters are a unique and wonderful part of the AT..... <<<< This...... I like. The shelters def. pose some problems. I think they are more helpful than harmful.

I also believe that we should have the best of both worlds... Wilderness places that can only be reached by foot should exist.

National Parks should be accessible to everyone in this country. Not everyone chose to enjoy our National Parks in a rollin couch potato vehicle. Those folks shouldn't be "punished" for their limited physical abilities even though some others may have, indeed, chosen that for themselves.

[Marta]

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.

From a selfish perspective, without that road and the tourism it brings, I wouldn't have a job here, and would probably still be living in stinky old Charlotte.

Do I think the best way to see the park is to sit in slow moving traffic for most of a day? No. Is it easy to get away from the madding crowd? Yes. Leave your car and you leave most of the stink and noise behind.

I'm for finding a middle ground of shuttle buses and limited hours for vehicle access. The Going to the Sun Road is a fabulous bike route in the off season, like right now. (It will open for cars around June 18th this year.) On weekends there are no cars allowed on most of it and yet the plowing crews aren't working. It's the best bike path you'll ever find.

Cade's Cove is a traffic nightmare. I definitely think private cars should be excluded from it, in favor of bikes, shuttle buses, horse-drawn carriages, and pedicabs.

[Tuckahoe]

My dad's 82 year old. Quadruple bypass surgery a few years ago. There are a lot of places I have taken him that he wouldn't have been able to see without vehicle access. Yosemite, Denali, Kings Canyon, Sequoia, Death Valley, Glacier, Yelowstone, Everglades, etc.

The last time I visited the Smokies, I was one of those tourons who sat on his ass and drove all over the park. Drove the Cades Cove loop and saw my first black bears ever. Yup, from the comfort of a bench seat in a pick up... Ya see that was 2011 and a year after my dad's motorcycle accident that nearly killed him. He was still recovering and it was hard for him to get around. it was our vacation together to the Smokies and I was going to take him wherever he wanted to go. Even drove the Tail of the Dragon, and he bought himself the tshirt too.