Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Don't get me wrong, I realize they require funding. It's just that I go to a park to enjoy pristine nature, not to be shown around by Ranger Rick or enjoy the free wifi at the brand new visitor center.
I am with you decafdave.
You need to take a trip out West. Look on your map for Bureau of Land Management (BLM) land. A lot of sagebrush and nobody really gives a damn what you do for the most part. I love it.
You need to take a trip out West. Look on your map for Bureau of Land Management (BLM) land. A lot of sagebrush and nobody really gives a damn what you do for the most part. I love it.
I would love to get out there! I hope to section hike parts of the Appalachian trail sooner or later as well.
I understand people have different perspectives on this. If I wanted a big family outing, with information plaques and camp grounds with restrooms, I would be content paying the fees. But for those of us who just want to hike or camp in the back country, I feel like it takes away from the experience. Can't take away from the beauty of nature, thankfully
They're too much like museums of nature than true wilderness one can get into and enjoy as originally intended. Regulations galore. Camp a few feet off where they want you to and you get fined, need a permit to hike, and on and on. That's not a wilderness experience, it's a city mindset applied to the outdoors. They're also poorly managed. The "no management" notion of the NPS has done more damage than good, resulting in wildfires on a scale that is unnatural, wildlife dangerously losing its fear of people and bears and such being treated like urban squirrels. Wildlife gets overpopulated and crashes. make no mistake, I'm glad places like Yellowstone, etc., escaped development, but I find it disturbing that while the early park activists wanted to avoid a Niagara Falls repeat with our Western wonders, the NPS has done precisely that with concessions, fees, etc., while using outdated management methods.
I would love to get out there! I hope to section hike parts of the Appalachian trail sooner or later as well.
I understand people have different perspectives on this. If I wanted a big family outing, with information plaques and camp grounds with restrooms, I would be content paying the fees. But for those of us who just want to hike or camp in the back country, I feel like it takes away from the experience. Can't take away from the beauty of nature, thankfully
You just need to hike away from the visitor's center or campground. The parks are huge and full of backcountry, with little to no interference from rangers or even other hikers. I think it's great that the area and resources are there so that everyone can enjoy the outdoors, no matter their comfort level.
The AT can get pretty crowded as well. I don't think I've been alone for more than 15 minutes on the AT. If it's solitude you want, head west.
Southern Ohio has the Wayne National Forest and Shawnee State Forest [largest State Forest in Ohio] which I believe is part of the Wayne preserve.Story I heard is Teddy Roosevelt hunted with a local who was a friend and fell in love with the area.Haven't been to Lake Vesuvius and the forest in a long while might make a day and do a road trip.
The last time I went to Yellowstone it was about as busy as NYC.
I usually avoid National Parks for that reason, but I LOVE public land. I can go wander all over literally millions of acres whenever I want. I could never live back East where you are boxed in by "No Trespassing" signs.
The thing is, Yellowstone is a vast park full of wilderness. The people congregate is specific areas limited to a small fraction of the park. And with all the time I've spent in Death Valley National Park, the only places I've ever found anything approaching a crowd is at the Furnace Creek visitor center and Badwater Basin. Most of the historic sites, overlooks and trailheads have been completely empty; sometimes there are a few people. And often, like when I hiked four miles out to the Panamint Dunes (which is a pretty easy hike), I stood atop the highest dune and knew there wasn't another human being within five miles of me (the distance to the nearest highway, to the south).
Quote:
Originally Posted by decafdave
I love national parks. However, I hate paying fees to enter them...it just feels wrong.
Not to me.
We all pay for the national parks. It's just that those of us who use them pay a bit more. And I do mean a bit. My wife and I are taking our three kids to Yellowstone next summer. The entrance fee is $25, good for 7 days. That's $3.57/day. Or, $0.71/person/day. And that pass is also good for Grand Teton National Park (which we won't be visiting, but it still gives Yellowstone visitors an option of seeing another nearby park). Now, I won't be paying that $25 because each year I buy an annual pass for $80, which gets me into all National Parks/Monuments/Preserves/Seashores/Lakeshores/etc., not to mention a variety of other federal recreation sites, for an entire year, along with three other adults and any number of children 15 and under.
It's quite a bargain. And, the parks are subsidized by all taxpayers, including those who never visit National Parks. Seems fair to ask those of us who do visit to may a very modest fee to enjoy them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiddlehead
I think I agree. I love the parks, and I am glad to pay, because of all the campground and ranger-led tours for my family. If I want to just hang out in the woods, I dry camp on forest service land for free.
Although I think taxes to support parks are justified, it seems more targeted to charge the visitors. The only trade off I can see is that if fees get too high (say $20 or more) visitation will drop off and it will be disproportionately harder on poorer people, which goes against the whole purpose of the parks.
Oh, I don't know. Anyone who can't afford $20 probably isn't going to be making a drive of hundreds of miles to a park, buying gas and maybe staying in a hotel, eating in restaurants, perhaps having invested in tents and sleeping bags for camping. Most National Park visitation comes from people coming in from some distance away, a major endeavor.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
Local parks have staff and security and they are free. I find people just accepting poor management as an excuse to pay for things intended to be free ridiculous.
They are not free. The only question is: who pays? As it is now, everyone pays in the form of taxes from general funds, including people like my mother who is entirely uninterested in the outdoors, hiking, sightseeing. As a user, I pay a bit more through additional user fees.
Quote:
Originally Posted by decafdave
Don't get me wrong, I realize they require funding. It's just that I go to a park to enjoy pristine nature, not to be shown around by Ranger Rick or enjoy the free wifi at the brand new visitor center.
Well, there is far, far more land in the country outside of National Parks with pristine nature and no improvements. The acreage of empty, designated wilderness (no mechanized access, no developments of any sorts, no open roads) in National Forests and on BLM land dwarfs the total acreage of National Parks. Those spaces are there for you, too. But there are people who are older and not as fit who also get to enjoy parks because of some modest development. There are young children who gain invaluable lessons from rangers and from exhibits that show them things.
Even National Parks are full of pristine wilderness-- the location in the Lower 48 furthest from a paved road happens to be in Yellowstone National Park.
It seems reasonable to use small portions of some natural areas to accomodate the general public, not just people like you and I who prefer to plunge into the wilderness than to join the throngs at Old Faithful.
Yeah, how many parks were created because greedy corporate founders created them and then donated them to the public?
A whole heck of a lot more than you might think. How do you think organizations like the Nature Conservacy obtained their lands? Ted Turner and that guy that just surpassed him as the largest private land owner won't live forever. Most likely they will place their land in public trust for the enjoyment and Conservation by all.
We all pay for the national parks. It's just that those of us who use them pay a bit more. And I do mean a bit. My wife and I are taking our three kids to Yellowstone next summer. The entrance fee is $25, good for 7 days. That's $3.57/day. Or, $0.71/person/day. And that pass is also good for Grand Teton National Park (which we won't be visiting, but it still gives Yellowstone visitors an option of seeing another nearby park). Now, I won't be paying that $25 because each year I buy an annual pass for $80, which gets me into all National Parks/Monuments/Preserves/Seashores/Lakeshores/etc., not to mention a variety of other federal recreation sites, for an entire year, along with three other adults and any number of children 15 and under.
It's quite a bargain. And, the parks are subsidized by all taxpayers, including those who never visit National Parks. Seems fair to ask those of us who do visit to may a very modest fee to enjoy them.
$25 is actually a lot for me. I tend to go alone for a day/night, or at most with 1 other person, so there is no spreading out the cost or amortizing it over a week. I understand that to a person well-established in their career, it's easy to pay with a smile and think warmly about the services they are funding for seniors or children. But for me, I'm a recent graduate who is actively looking for a job, and also like to enjoy nature on occasion. Thankfully, $25 is a rate you won't see often.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibbous Moon
Oh, I don't know. Anyone who can't afford $20 probably isn't going to be making a drive of hundreds of miles to a park, buying gas and maybe staying in a hotel, eating in restaurants, perhaps having invested in tents and sleeping bags for camping. Most National Park visitation comes from people coming in from some distance away, a major endeavor.
In my opinion, just because someone is dishing out lots of money on a hotel or gas, doesn't mean that they should have to do the same for some hiking. That doesn't logically justify high fees. Besides, distances are much shorter in the East and it's really not much of an endeavor to reach these parks (also leading to over-crowding unfortunately).
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It's worth every penny
