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.
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.
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.
But that’s kind of the point. Zion is built like an amusement park, so masses of people come. Now shuttles are necessary, and now it feels even more like an amusement park.
Many parks require you to take long hikes to see the most amazing scenery.
I think it’s fine for some parks to provide this level of accessibility, but I do hope it remains limited to a subset for this reason.
Zion is a zoo of people, but it's so freaking huge and gorgeous that the crowds don't diminish it, IMHO. I despise crowds but Zion is worthwhile anyway.
Rented bicycles at Zion, the shuttle will take you and your bike to the end of the park. We hiked and biked our way back across the day. (Am I the baddie?)
I almost did exactly this, and next time I’m there, I probably will!
No way I’m riding those shuttles again. Nothing quite shatters the peace and awe that comes with the scenery like a kid screaming and kicking non stop while his parents act helpless.
> 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 probably shouldn't spoil it, but ...
For Zion/Bryce/Arches, go off season. I went twice: Once was the week after Thanksgiving (weekdays), and the other was in mid-January. It's deserted and you have most of the park to yourself. In fact, during the January trip, we stayed at a Best Western near Zion, and myself and one other party were the only people in the whole hotel that night. I believe even the staff went home (literally no one at the reception - if you really, really needed someone you'd call and they would come).
Early December is probably better, because of less snow. By January a number of trails are closed because they're not going to clear the ice. But even then, it was worth it.
I love cold/snow, and the only thing I could think about as I was driving home is how glorious going back in a few months will be ;)
I got got the off peak experience at a couple of the parks I visited and it’s glorious. Not for everyone, but will definitely factor into future plans.
Cold for me is not an issue (unless we're talking about the -10F or colder kind), and in some cases it's a feature. I can't stand being boiling hot on a long hike, and going out in the winter can be just the antidote to that.
It's also a lot easier to tolerate when the reward is silence and solitude.
To your point, not every trail will be accessible in the cold, and that is certainly a factor. But most parks have trails that are perfectly hike-able in the winter, and one of my favorite recent hikes was a pre-dawn snowy hike to Dream Lake at RMNP. I was the only person up there, got to watch an incredible sunrise reflecting off of the recently frozen lake, and then enjoyed the best tasting coffee I've ever had.
Not for everyone, but can be an amazing experience.
It was not that cold right after Thanksgiving, except at higher elevations. My friend and I hiked amongst the hoodoos in Bryce Canyon in the sun. It was pleasant enough not to need a jacket.
But as I said, once snow falls, they'll either close a number of the trails (Bryce Canyon), or they'll keep them open but you'll be walking on ice (Arches).
I saw Arches only when there was ice, and it was still totally worth it!
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?
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.
I've been to just about every national park in the lower 48. Here's some of the less-well-known ones:
Great Basin has a good hike to the peak, a cave system with guided tours, a nice (summertime) campground, and hiking trails to a really impressive arch.
Mt Lassen has a bunch of hikes, geothermal activity, lakes for swimming, a bunch of campgrounds, and some low-frills cabins.
Arches is always way busier than Canyonlands, but there's also a ton of non-NP features around Moab that are even less trafficked. Natural Bridges National Monument is also great. The Notom-Bullfrom road in Capitol Reef is a beautiful drive, and the campground out there is no-amenity, low-traffic.
Sand Dunes, in Colorado, is super cool, with hundred-foot-high sand dunes, but probably only 1-2 days worth of stuff to do in the park itself.
But if you want beautiful scenery without a lot of people, skip the national parks and look for the national forests. (Or sites in the National Park System that aren't National Parks, like National Monuments etc).
This is a really good point re: National Monuments and Forests. I also found just driving the Pacific Coast highway north of LA county as far north as you can go a different but similarly spectacular experience to many of the parks, with good trailheads and stopping points at various state parks along the way. Obviously a much larger driving commitment, though.
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.
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.
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?
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.