A smarmy article about commercial caves- or am I just cranky

[NZcaver]

... but not right ON the trails, generally. Personally I dig and cover, but perhaps that's still too much information.

[wyandottecaver]

very thought provoking article indeed. lets keep nature natural, reserve nature for the naturalists and get rid of the lazy folks who need to be entertained or transported on something. Sounds great.

Of course then the only people who will CARE about those places are the naturalists. And there aren't enough of us. We could shove everyone out of those places, then the south rim might become the south shore of a reservoir (admittedly a pretty big one :) Maybe if hetch hetche had a motel and mules maybe it would still have water flowing in it instead of over it.

[NZcaver]

Naturalists aren't the only ones who can hike up and down trails on their own two feet. And don't kid yourself that the lazy folks who need to be transported or entertained will opt for a mule ride and ultimately make some difference in the grand management plan. That's wishful thinking.

It's also why article writers frequently dumb-down, exaggerate, use flowery language, bend the truth, etc. Anything to appeal to (or at least be comprehended by) the target audience, some of whom may have no interest whatsoever in experiencing any of that for themselves.

[Teresa]

very thought provoking article indeed. lets keep nature natural, reserve nature for the naturalists and get rid of the lazy folks who need to be entertained or transported on something. Sounds great.

Of course then the only people who will CARE about those places are the naturalists. And there aren't enough of us. We could shove everyone out of those places, then the south rim might become the south shore of a reservoir (admittedly a pretty big one :) Maybe if hetch hetche had a motel and mules maybe it would still have water flowing in it instead of over it.

Did you read the same article I did? I think it was the excesses she was gently making fun of not development per se. Geos like a beer in a frosty pub at the end of the day just like cavers...

[wyandottecaver]

NZ,

I know from 1st hand experiance in Indiana that the folks who want to be transported and entertained do indeed make differences in on the ground management and even preservation. Both as a revenue source and as a big pool of "stakeholders".

If there was mule crap all over the roads and viewing areas, instead of hiking trails think that would get addressed?

Teresa, it is those excesses that bring in the masses. If you had to hike 10 miles or even 5 to see the South Rim how many fewer people would visit at all? Of those, how many were inspired in some way? How much preservation and management is accomplished with that revenue?

[Teresa]

NZ,

Teresa, it is those excesses that bring in the masses. If you had to hike 10 miles or even 5 to see the South Rim how many fewer people would visit at all? Of those, how many were inspired in some way? How much preservation and management is accomplished with that revenue?

I'm not understanding the question. How many of whom were inspired in some way? The folks who drive there, or the hypothetical hikers to the South Rim? You don't "accidentally" go to the Grand Canyon. You gotta wanna. Now how much inspiration happens (even at Inspiration Point) is up to the visitor.

I've only been to the GC once. December 2004. We had the permits, the backpacks and the gear. However, we got there, and there was about 6 inches of snow on the Rim. It didn't look bad, so we started down. Barely 1/4 mile down, the refrozen snow became ice. We got to about a half mile, and my husband (who had previously hiked 80 miles inside the rim) slipped on a tilted, ice covered slope. He wasn't in absolute mortal danger, but being unbalanced because of the pack, he came dangerously close to the edge before stopping himself, bending his hiking staff badly in the process. It shot his nerves. By the time he got calmed down enough to proceed, and knowing the conditions we were facing, we decided to climb back out, rather than push on. The rest of our party continued to the bottom. So we ended up spending 4 days unplanned on the South Rim. We got to see a whole lot more of the Canyon than otherwise, and even managed a couple of day hikes into the Canyon on south facing slopes (sans backpacks). I wrote scads of poetry, and drew a lot of colored pencil sketches. I learned a lot of different things than I would have sliding to the bottom to the Colorado. If NPS would let parks keep most of the revenue they bring in, I bet a lot more would benefit from the amount of money taken to the big parks than they do now.

[NZcaver]

NZ,

I know from 1st hand experiance in Indiana that the folks who want to be transported and entertained do indeed make differences in on the ground management and even preservation. Both as a revenue source and as a big pool of "stakeholders".

If there was mule crap all over the roads and viewing areas, instead of hiking trails think that would get addressed?

Well it's a good thing the Grand Canyon isn't located in Indiana then, eh?

And that's all I have to say about that.

[Jon]

Ok here's my take. The Nat Parks are "OURS". This translates into the Brady Bunch thinking it should be about free. And to some extent that isn't a bad thought. However NPS is tens or is it hundreds of MILLIONS behind in maint. Entry fees and the % from concessionaires doesn't come close to covering all parks. So Here is my solution (GASP) go back to a CCC type system. NO Pell Grants. You work it off somewhat at a Park. There are no free lunches or educations! Next Anybody who is past 26 weeks of unemployment bennies ..... works at a park. On welfare guess what till you find something better shovel that mule poop at least the scenery is good. On SS disability? Bet you can sit at a information desk or reservations phone bank. You know the neat thing about the CCC was that people went to see the parks afterwards. Yeah the car made it easier but the pride and wonder of what they had done, where they had done it, brought them out. That is what we need today especially with the whipper-snappers. Step away from the X-Box and into nature ..... even if that means stepping in some mule poop! Heck today kids think they are in the wilderness if their cell phone doesn't get a signal and there is no Wi-Fi. The Grand Canyon is undergoing changes. Some areas you HAVE to take a free tour bus rather than your car (except for certain times of the year) Yes you can avoid the bus by walking or cycling BUT I want you to think before you get all 'nature should be for naturalists only' on me. There are many men and now a days women too, who have served our country, and now have restricted mobility. There are also people who have been say hit by a drunk driver or through no fault of their own, just the luck of the draw in life have limited mobility. Now I will be the first to say that not everyplace should or can be accessible to everybody. But I will say that reasonable access should be made. Not to every inch of the Grand Canyon, but to the bottom.. Not every inch of Monument Valley but enough to get a good feel (they have it about right) and the same could be said for Canyon de Chelly. Mesa Verde? Well they do a good job with what they have to work with.

For the most part NPS, USFS and BLM do a good job making important stuff and impressive views available to most. The State parks systems here in the west seem to do a good job with what they have. With this however comes the down side for some, that some have to travel farther (read that spend more time and $$$) to get as far away from the masses as they'd like. Till you have to be in a wheelchair, be on crutches or hobble along on a cane through no fault of your own, try not to be too hard on those who do or those who try hard to accommodate them.

Whoops, I need to get off my soap box about now. To get to true wilderness or back country nature I don't mind stages, Blazer till tread lightly can't be. Trails bike (or horseback???) till tread lightly can't be. Then hike it till I can't safely proceed and that's all good for me. And it's good for others to get to their own limits of nature. I don't expect that I can drive a BMW to a paved parking area and then step out into the wild and wooly west while still in view of my yuppie mobile but at the same time be out of view of 'lesser' naturalists.

[sawicks]

I would just say its all about balance, and its what the NPS tries hard to maintain. People will want to see and experience these places. If you keep out the majority then you lose the battle of why to protect it. if we closed carlsbad to everyone but cavers/scientist for example, then you're building dissent within the public who pays to protect it. if they can't see and experience it they why is it worth their tax dollars to protect it. I completely agree that yellowstone, Grand Canyon and yosemite are way to commercialized, but to an extent they have to be. Its how they have to survive. They also do try to protect true wilderness and if you want to find it its not that hard, just leave the main tourist areas.

No private commercialized caves are another story all together, they do what they can to survive and although some (hopefully most) really do try to be good stewards, others fall short. My favorite is a show cave out here that, to save cost on air conditioning, connected a hole from their Visitor Center to the Cave. They then dried out a lot of their cave and now have a hose in one of the rooms to water the speleothems to make them appear wet. They then tell visitors the hose is for air in.

[GroundquestMSA]

I completely agree that yellowstone, Grand Canyon and yosemite are way to commercialized, but to an extent they have to be. Its how they have to survive.

How who has to survive? The Canyon would close up and vanish and the bloody big rocks of Yosemite would melt away without commercialization?

[Jon]

I think what was ment was that in order to survive $$$ wise there has to be commercialization. The word is out about these places and the roads are in. No sodas, burgers, tee shirts or guided tours and well a lot of people wont show up. They don't show up no $ comes in. Less Rangers to keep idiots from vandalizing everything, stealing everything or burning it to the ground . Also less $ means less Rangers to keep snowmobiles, ATC's and big ole 4x4's from trashing the place and disturbing the tranquility (more). You indeed can get to some very remote places at those parks, but it requires a little of what some are gripeing about not getting enough of. You have to get off the beaten path, away from where the BWW's are parking.

With the increase in popularity of user fees, if you got rid of the stuff that brings in the Brady Bunches you would find that a "Back Country Permit" could easily cost hundreds of dollars per person per day. Think of the permit cost for a couple to spend two weeks on the App. Trail, or 5 days in the Canyon, Grand Tetons, or Yellowstone. I don't know about you folks but although I did buy a Sten I can't afford the price of one every couple-few days just for the price of admission to a Nat Park or what I guess would then be almost Wilderness Areas.

[sawicks]

Exactly, of course if we just let them sit there they would survive, but how does it survive humans.

[Jon]

Well what needs to happen is that "The Few, the stupid, the shouldn't be in the gene pool" Need to be weeded out or punished out. The dirty dozen there is such a thing, morons who think it's their right to be rescued and have been many times each, even going to court when agencies try and bill them, who still have to be rescued time and time again....hell with em leave em clinging to the side of el Capitan rather than risk someone to save the fool AGAIN. Start a fire like the Wallow fire here in AZ and not maybe get 6 months and $5000 for each of five offenses, ( they have the people by the way) (( they thought the fire was out, they did nothing but since where a gummi bear wrapper went and didn't melt.....well the fire was out)). How about the fact that 70 homes were lost. Take everything the losers had and everything they ever will have and maybe people will actually check that the fire is out before going on a hike ( and leaving the dogs tied up_) I'm sorry but but stupid needs to pay and not some little slap on the wrist.

As for other things, years ago at Lake Powell we had some areas that were "toilet paper tundras" Catch someone not "doing right" and have them clean an area like that or go to Jail or pay to have the area cleaned. The sale of folding shovels would put the stock market over 14K and John Q Public would become ed-u-ma-cated real quick.

But I'm getting

[Aaron Addison]

Oddly, most of the development at NPS sites is driven by locals / local businesses. There are several well documented cases where theNPS wished to remove infrastructure from a Park only to be directed otherwise due to local political pressure(s). A couple of examples:

Carlsbad Caverns (in an attempt to keep on topic!) - Removal of the lunch room and food service from the cave. This was underway when the concessionaire lobbied local representatives and senators to stop it and allow food service in the cave to continue.

Yosemite - After the floods in 1997 the NPS proposed a plan to close the valley to all vehicular traffic. Afterall, the Merced river had already removed several bridges and a couple of campgrounds. Parking was to be set up at the entrance to the Park and natural gas busses, bikes or walking would have been the only ways to enter Yosemite valley. This was shot down by local politicians and local businesses who were afraid that it would impact tourism numbers. (Similar things have been proposed in both Sequoia and Kings Canyon as well).

Grand Canyon - A plan similar to the Yosemite plan was floated for a large parking area south of the Park boundary on highway 64 north of Williams. I think they may be partially implemented this plan, but it was basically buried.

On a more positive note, NPS units such as Zion and Denali have been very successful with their road closure policies and bus system implementations. Take note though that both of these Parks are in more remote areas and there is not as much local money in play as the bigger Parks.

Cheers,

AA

[Teresa]

Oddly, most of the development at NPS sites is driven by locals / local businesses.]

Nothing odd about that. If you are out in the boonies as many NPS sites are, it makes perfect sense that the local businesses would have a financial interest in the park, since they are furnishing ancillary services.

(mass transit notes snipped)

Mass transit won't happen, not with current demographics of people who are allegic to mass transit in favor of the personal car, and an aging population with the leisure to visit parks. NG buses stink, too. Now if NPS had taken more of a "theme park" approach to transit...very few people object to mass transit within Disney or 6 Flags parks or even the St. Louis Zoo...it's because the transit is trains, sky cars, street trolleys, horse drawn carriages, boats, the people mover, etc., transit with panache. If they are interested in getting people out of their cars, they need to come up with mass transit that has some autonomy, historic dressing, or innovation appeal, like Segways. In a weird sense, the mules at GC are mass transit.

On a more positive note, NPS units such as Zion and Denali have been very successful with their road closure policies and bus system implementations. Take note though that both of these Parks are in more remote areas and there is not as much local money in play as the bigger Parks.

There is nothing more tacky and screaming bourgeois than the tour bus. Dogsleds at Denali would be cool.The other problem with tour buses vs cars is you are putting strangers together in a cramped space. That's anti-American *|:-) (though some of us like it). And most public transport in the US has little accommodation for stuff. For example: a typical family going to a national park, packs a cooler for cold food and drinks, has another sack for bread, chips etc. Public transport in the US is notorious for limiting baggage of all sorts. So we're talking some lifestyle changes just to see a national park.

With public transit into a national park do you not have to have more services on the other end than if you are carrying everything in your car? Where is the win-win on that?

I know we're drifting far afield, an example: cavers are pretty good about traveling light, and not being afraid of a knapsack, but how many people went to Glenwood Springs on public transportation? Probably fewer than 100. There were 20 headed east on my train, and maybe 6-8 headed west from the train station that same day. Most chose to motel it, and eat out because trains now have similar "stuff" rules as airplanes. Luckily, GS had decent buses and a walking friendly town, but it was pretty expensive to do this over hauling your stuff and camping.