Our National Parks

[WaltP]

Originally Posted by emij

Bill, your photos are fantastic! Thank you for sharing!

I enthusiastically agree. Thanks.

Walt

[Jack L]

Originally Posted by ljswanson53

I too love our national parks. Right now we're in Utah just outside Capitol Reef National Park after having spent 3 nights in the park. Woke up to snow/rain mix with about 4 inches of heavy, wet snow on the ground currently. We moved to an RV park with full hookups to wait out the winter storm. Any advice on keeping our hookups operating in freezing weather? Our first time camping in the snow! New memory created! Highly recommend Capital Reef with Scenic Byway Route 12 down to Bryce National Park, Escalante Grand Staircase, and of course Zion National Park! It's another world around here!

The most scenic part of route 12, I believe is called "The Hogs Back" is spectacular, but I would hate to be on it with snow on the road. It and the Moki Dugway are 2 of the most scenic roads I've ever seen.

Wish I was there today.

[bullfrogeh]

Don't overlook the 'Other' fantastic set of 'National Parks', that we share on this 'North American' continent. I'd highly recommend the natural wilderness beauty of 'Pukaskwa National Park', especially for extended canoeing and camping adventures.

[floyd]

We have a fantastic array of national parks for which great sacrifice of property rights and treasure has been made. A hugely disproportionate percentage of them are west of the Mississippi and largely out of reach to the population centers.

Even with more than twice the number of vistors of any other national park ,none is better managed or more amazing than Smokey Mountain National Park. The park hosts nearly 10 million visitors per year and each visitor can experience the wilderness in solitude on the quiet walkways.
These parks are a treasure for all Americans to share and care MUST be taken to keep them affordable and accessible to all. They MUST be visited to be seen and they must be seen to be politically supported, and they must be politically supported to continue to exist as parks. The federal government took these lands for public use and it is incumbent upon them to take the responsibility to keep them open, affordable, and accessible.
Small fees for some services may be acceptable, but to demand "self funding" will destroy the park system as people turn a blind eye to them over time as in the movie "Silent Running". This is one area where public funding is not optional.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yq8y2aYX_8c

[WaltP]

The federal government took these lands for public use and it is incumbent upon them to take the responsibility to keep them open, affordable, and accessible.

A major problem is that the congress refuses to provide adequate funds and then the administration (the government) gets blamed for inadequate performance., especially by the anti government legislators.

This is probably getting too close to being political and we should stick to lauding our wonderful national parks, on both sides of the border.

Walt

[Denece]

I think the more we visit our National Parks the more we all love them. I too wish they were better funded. Perhaps when more of us Boomers are out there using them we will demand that those rascals in Washington take better care of them!
We have visited most of the Four Corners area parks recently but somehow not the Grand Canyon. That one is on the short list. We did arches last year in March. A bit chilly overnight but a fabulous time. Went through nearby Dead Horse State Park, which is a must see if you are in the area. Such stunning views it almost hurts your eyes!


Sent from my iPad using Fiberglass RV

[Glenn Baglo]

Originally Posted by Denece

Perhaps when more of us Boomers are out there using them we will demand that those rascals in Washington take better care of them!

More likely we'll be demanding full service, drive through sites, WiFi, paved trails with hand rails, and five-star restaurants.

[WaltP]

Originally Posted by Glenn Baglo

More likely we'll be demanding full service, drive through sites, WiFi, paved trails with hand rails, and five-star restaurants.

Isn't that what Denece said? LOL

Walt

[Rob Outlaw]

While on our recent trip to UT we stayed a couple of nights at Green River State Park. Nice little campground BTW and not too far from either Moab, Canyonlands, Arches, San Rafael Swell etc. Got to talking with the park ranger for quite awhile whom I believe was the superintendent. He told us the Utah legislature had passed a provision their state parks also had to pave their own way financially. He went on to say Green River was doing ok but many others would most likely falter.

So where does this end? Much of what separates us first world countries and cultures from the 3rd world is often our investment not only in infrastructure, but culture, recreation, education and a litany of similar things that some politicians for what ever reason seem to hate spending money on.

A couple of weeks later while camped at the Sand Island Camground near Bluff, UT (BLM) on the San Juan River the park attendant there said people like us, yes the baby boomers, retired full timers, part time campers etc bitch and moan about have to pay what they feel are excessive charges of a whopping $7.50 per night at half price with their geezer pass. I was astounded anyone could think this. Strikes me as a screaming good deal.

[Rob Outlaw]

The morning we left to come home from the SW we had breakfast in Moab with some old friends, one who is a retired national park ranger. I asked him if he missed his job and to that he said yes he thoroughly enjoyed until the later years when things had changed so much. Pressing him a bit more for the meaning of that statement, he said it was due to all of the constant training all government employees have to go through for security purposes. Why? Because the government is constantly being hacked, and its so bad that each employee has to have a secure card to stick into a slot on the computer in order to do anything. Get up for lunch, go to the restroom, take your card out and with you. Come back, reverse the process, and log in again.

What I derived from this is a huge amount of human resources, time and money are squandered, not to the fault of the national park service by any means, but simply due to either delinquents, criminals or those who would "like to drown the last remaining vestiges of the government in a bathtub".

Sad state of affairs.

[steve dunham]

Originally Posted by Rob Outlaw

While on our recent trip to UT we stayed a couple of nights at Green River State Park. Nice little campground BTW and not too far from either Moab, Canyonlands, Arches, San Rafael Swell etc. Got to talking with the park ranger for quite awhile whom I believe was the superintendent. He told us the Utah legislature had passed a provision their state parks also had to pave their own way financially. He went on to say Green River was doing ok but many others would most likely falter.

So where does this end? Much of what separates us first world countries and cultures from the 3rd world is often our investment not only in infrastructure, but culture, recreation, education and a litany of similar things that some politicians for what ever reason seem to hate spending money on.

A couple of weeks later while camped at the Sand Island Camground near Bluff, UT (BLM) on the San Juan River the park attendant there said people like us, yes the baby boomers, retired full timers, part time campers etc bitch and moan about have to pay what they feel are excessive charges of a whopping $7.50 per night at half price with their geezer pass. I was astounded anyone could think this. Strikes me as a screaming good deal.

According to one of our more illustrious governor's ,who shall remain nameless " It is not the responsibility nor the duty of government to provide outdoor recreational opportunities for it citizens at taxpayers expense" . This is a paraphrased quote from a speech given at a Tea Party fundraiser. Public good has given way to private greed . This may be political but it's the truth IMHO

[Mike Magee]

Originally Posted by steve dunham

According to one of our more illustrious governor's ,who shall remain nameless " It is not the responsibility nor the duty of government to provide outdoor recreational opportunities for it citizens at taxpayers expense" . This is a paraphrased quote from a speech given at a Tea Party fundraiser. Public good has given way to private greed . This may be political but it's the truth IMHO

There are at least two sides and at least two legitimate points of view to just about every issue. This one is no exception. Yes, public parks and lands are great for our recreation. But our Constitution delineates the federal government's powers, and providing recreation is not one of those powers. Who is to say whether the individual states couldn't have done as good a job, or better, at providing recreational opportunities while balancing all the other important interests? Certainly we can find examples of significant waste and cronyism/favoritism that state control may have avoided. I think greed has had its way already with public lands in the form of ridiculously cheap leases and and other tricks. Meanwhile the fed is blocking longstanding recreational access to many federal lands without good reason. I think it's completely unfair to characterize a certain party or group as the 'greedy ones' or as anti-recreation. The situation is not so clear-cut. It's more a debate about different means and methods to reach the desired outcome, with the possibility of improved stewardship, enhanced fairness, and better efficiency.

By the way, all who feel that the national parks need more funding are free to donate extra to the Treasury. If an individual feels the desire to require other people (who may not have the financial means to pay more taxes, or the desire or opportunity to enjoy the parks) to pay more of their hard-won income for that individual's enjoyment of the parks, is this not an example of individual greed? In other words, when a group wants a service to be provided but the group can't afford to pay for the service, is it fair for the group to get the government to pick the pockets of everyone in order to fund the service? It is a philosophical question with practical and even ethical ramifications. There may not be a completely right or wrong answer, but the various interests and priorities must be balanced in each case.

[floyd]

Originally Posted by WaltP

The federal government took these lands for public use and it is incumbent upon them to take the responsibility to keep them open, affordable, and accessible.

A major problem is that the congress refuses to provide adequate funds and then the administration (the government) gets blamed for inadequate performance., especially by the anti government legislators.

This is probably getting too close to being political and we should stick to lauding our wonderful national parks, on both sides of the border.

Walt

So you make it political then demand that no one respond...OK
But I think they are adequately funded and that (the government) has three branches , not just one. ( current evidence to the contrary)
BTW...We don't have any national parks on the other side of our border.

[floyd]

Originally Posted by Mike Magee

There are at least two sides and at least two legitimate points of view to just about every issue. This one is no exception. Yes, public parks and lands are great for our recreation. But our Constitution delineates the federal government's powers, and providing recreation is not one of those powers. Who is to say whether the individual states couldn't have done as good a job, or better, at providing recreational opportunities while balancing all the other important interests? Certainly we can find examples of significant waste and cronyism/favoritism that state control may have avoided. I think greed has had its way already with public lands in the form of ridiculously cheap leases and and other tricks. Meanwhile the fed is blocking longstanding recreational access to many federal lands without good reason. I think it's completely unfair to characterize a certain party or group as the 'greedy ones' or as anti-recreation. The situation is not so clear-cut. It's more a debate about different means and methods to reach the desired outcome, with the possibility of improved stewardship, enhanced fairness, and better efficiency.

By the way, all who feel that the national parks need more funding are free to donate extra to the Treasury. If an individual feels the desire to require other people (who may not have the financial means to pay more taxes, or the desire or opportunity to enjoy the parks) to pay more of their hard-won income for that individual's enjoyment of the parks, is this not an example of individual greed? In other words, when a group wants a service to be provided but the group can't afford to pay for the service, is it fair for the group to get the government to pick the pockets of everyone in order to fund the service? It is a philosophical question with practical and even ethical ramifications. There may not be a completely right or wrong answer, but the various interests and priorities must be balanced in each case.

[Rob Outlaw]

Originally Posted by Mike Magee

There are at least two sides and at least two legitimate points of view to just about every issue. This one is no exception. Yes, public parks and lands are great for our recreation. But our Constitution delineates the federal government's powers, and providing recreation is not one of those powers. Who is to say whether the individual states couldn't have done as good a job, or better, at providing recreational opportunities while balancing all the other important interests? Certainly we can find examples of significant waste and cronyism/favoritism that state control may have avoided. I think greed has had its way already with public lands in the form of ridiculously cheap leases and and other tricks. Meanwhile the fed is blocking longstanding recreational access to many federal lands without good reason. I think it's completely unfair to characterize a certain party or group as the 'greedy ones' or as anti-recreation. The situation is not so clear-cut. It's more a debate about different means and methods to reach the desired outcome, with the possibility of improved stewardship, enhanced fairness, and better efficiency.

By the way, all who feel that the national parks need more funding are free to donate extra to the Treasury. If an individual feels the desire to require other people (who may not have the financial means to pay more taxes, or the desire or opportunity to enjoy the parks) to pay more of their hard-won income for that individual's enjoyment of the parks, is this not an example of individual greed? In other words, when a group wants a service to be provided but the group can't afford to pay for the service, is it fair for the group to get the government to pick the pockets of everyone in order to fund the service? It is a philosophical question with practical and even ethical ramifications. There may not be a completely right or wrong answer, but the various interests and priorities must be balanced in each case.

It was only a matter of time before The Constitution came up in this discussion. While I'm certainly not a constitutional scholar I do have a some issues with some of your points.

First, we could probably fill up Ft. Knox with a list of things that our government has done in the past that either circumnavigate or outright defy the constitution, let alone what the founding fathers might have had in mind some 240 years ago. As an example here are few that come to mind. Only roads for postal routes were included in the document, nothing was said about interstates, secondary paved roads, let alone airports or the security for such. While there is mention of the congress having the power to acquire armies only the Navy is actually guaranteed in the document. The Air Force was not mentioned, wonder why that is. In fact there are so many attributes to our modern society that the founding fathers could never in a 10 lifetimes have imagined back in those days. I'm not trying to be flippant here but the fact is life in this country is on an order of magnitude more complex than 240 years ago and if a country, any country and its government doesn't respond and invest accordingly what you end up with is a 3rd World country and society to match. But at least in section 8 of the constitution it does state the following:

"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;" again putting this into perspective 240 years ago it would appear these people had some wisdom to invest in the science and arts for the wellbeing of the society.

Regarding states rights of these public lands. It wasn't theirs to begin with, it was the federal governments bought and paid for, either through the Louisiana Purchase, Spanish Cession or Oregon Purchase. The notion that cronyism, pandering and favoritism only exist at the Fed level is naive at best. Its everywhere at all levels of government, city, state and fed.

I'm not sure what area of land you're discussing being blocked from recreation use by the feds. I don't think I've ever ran into that in almost 50 years of camping and hiking, cycling etc.

Does anyone really believe the founding fathers intended for corporations to be considered people, let alone that freedom of speech should be bastardized in the name of limitless spending of money to elect Senators and Congressmen. Lobbyist, nope didn't see anything in the Constitution about them either.

Regarding your last paragraph. The long and short of it is we are all in this together, like it or not. And part of that scenario requires taxes to be levied for what has been put forth by our elected officials and what the majority of people either want, require or need. We don't get to pick and choose. I spent 4 years in the Navy, so now I don't want to fund the Air Force. I may never go to Maine so I don't want to fund taxes on their roads. This is what I meant earlier in a previous post, where does this end? So yes its absolutely beyond a shadow of doubt completely fair for everyone to belly up to the bar and pay for things that our elected officials and the body politic have deemed worthy and or necessary.

Its interesting that in this day and age people, tax payers are not outraged by the fact that roughly 2/3rds of our corporations do NOT pay taxes, yet they can spend as much as they want (and do) to corrupt elected officials and help bribe their way into office in order to secure favors later on. Not the least of which might be acquiring public lands, wilderness, and the national parks for their own benefit.

Apologies for the long winded post and rant.

[CamperBill]

Originally Posted by Stan and Carol

Been watching a great series on the National Parks by Ken Burns on PBS this week.

Time to plan our next trip.

Stan

Watched a PBS show tonight about National Parks in Colorado. Looks like Colorado will definitely one of the next states out west we visit!

[Mike Magee]

Rob, to answer your question, there have been posts on another RV forum I frequent, in which members complained of NF roads being suddenly closed off. Places the people had been going to for years to camp or fish or ride are now made inaccessible, with boulders and other barriers put across the roadways.

A related issue is the growing limitations placed upon travelers on the still-open NF roads and trails. Motor Vehicle Use Manuals must now be consulted for any given NF, to see what can be driven upon which road. Complex rules abound; one guy was driving on a narrow NF road in Idaho when a faster-moving pickup caught up to him and was staying right close on his tail. So, being a considerate driver, he moved over (two wheels off the trail itself) so the pickup had room to pass. The pickup turned out to contain two federal employees, and the considerate driver was fined $500 for leaving the roadway.

[floyd]

Originally Posted by Rob Outlaw

It was only a matter of time before The Constitution came up in this discussion. While I'm certainly not a constitutional scholar I do have a some issues with some of your points.

First, we could probably fill up Ft. Knox with a list of things that our government has done in the past that either circumnavigate or outright defy the constitution, let alone what the founding fathers might have had in mind some 240 years ago. As an example here are few that come to mind. Only roads for postal routes were included in the document, nothing was said about interstates, secondary paved roads, let alone airports or the security for such. While there is mention of the congress having the power to acquire armies only the Navy is actually guaranteed in the document. The Air Force was not mentioned, wonder why that is. In fact there are so many attributes to our modern society that the founding fathers could never in a 10 lifetimes have imagined back in those days. I'm not trying to be flippant here but the fact is life in this country is on an order of magnitude more complex than 240 years ago and if a country, any country and its government doesn't respond and invest accordingly what you end up with is a 3rd World country and society to match. But at least in section 8 of the constitution it does state the following:

"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;" again putting this into perspective 240 years ago it would appear these people had some wisdom to invest in the science and arts for the wellbeing of the society.

Regarding states rights of these public lands. It wasn't theirs to begin with, it was the federal governments bought and paid for, either through the Louisiana Purchase, Spanish Cession or Oregon Purchase. The notion that cronyism, pandering and favoritism only exist at the Fed level is naive at best. Its everywhere at all levels of government, city, state and fed.

I'm not sure what area of land you're discussing being blocked from recreation use by the feds. I don't think I've ever ran into that in almost 50 years of camping and hiking, cycling etc.

Does anyone really believe the founding fathers intended for corporations to be considered people, let alone that freedom of speech should be bastardized in the name of limitless spending of money to elect Senators and Congressmen. Lobbyist, nope didn't see anything in the Constitution about them either.

Regarding your last paragraph. The long and short of it is we are all in this together, like it or not. And part of that scenario requires taxes to be levied for what has been put forth by our elected officials and what the majority of people either want, require or need. We don't get to pick and choose. I spent 4 years in the Navy, so now I don't want to fund the Air Force. I may never go to Maine so I don't want to fund taxes on their roads. This is what I meant earlier in a previous post, where does this end? So yes its absolutely beyond a shadow of doubt completely fair for everyone to belly up to the bar and pay for things that our elected officials and the body politic have deemed worthy and or necessary.

Its interesting that in this day and age people, tax payers are not outraged by the fact that roughly 2/3rds of our corporations do NOT pay taxes, yet they can spend as much as they want (and do) to corrupt elected officials and help bribe their way into office in order to secure favors later on. Not the least of which might be acquiring public lands, wilderness, and the national parks for their own benefit.

Apologies for the long winded post and rant.

Then there are those little things like liberty and principle to be considered...
The constitution is still relevant, but I doubt for long, I think it may have drawn its last breath this past February ....
Can I too have a diatribe without being censured? Can I,can I??

[steve dunham]

Originally Posted by Mike Magee

Rob, to answer your question, there have been posts on another RV forum I frequent, in which members complained of NF roads being suddenly closed off. Places the people had been going to for years to camp or fish or ride are now made inaccessible, with boulders and other barriers put across the roadways.

A related issue is the growing limitations placed upon travelers on the still-open NF roads and trails. Motor Vehicle Use Manuals must now be consulted for any given NF, to see what can be driven upon which road. Complex rules abound; one guy was driving on a narrow NF road in Idaho when a faster-moving pickup caught up to him and was staying right close on his tail. So, being a considerate driver, he moved over (two wheels off the trail itself) so the pickup had room to pass. The pickup turned out to contain two federal employees, and the considerate driver was fined $500 for leaving the roadway.

Mike , I am confused . Are you saying that the FS has no right to close roads on FS lands ? After witnessing the damage 4 wheelers , ATV's and dirt bikes have done to State and FS roads / land , along with stream beds and and newly planted trees , I wish they would block off more roads. Everything does not have to be accessible by a motorized vehicle , that's why God gave us two feet. You can still go to your favorite fishing hole , but now you just have to walk
One of the beauties of the BWCA in Minnesota is the fact that no motorized vehicles are allowed. I have paddled there on several trips and the solitude from not having to listen to outboard motors is refreshing.
If people want to go off roading and destroy property and the enviroment then let them buy 80 acres and have at it.

[David B.]

Steve, up until a year ago I could hike with the best of them, but arthritis has hit me hard in the feet, knees, spine, hands, shoulders and neck. Now I need 4x4 to get back to dispersed camping with our Lil Snoozy, and to sight see. In the past I have picked up litter left behind by many hikers. There will always be those that spoil it for the rest of us, but don't just lump everyone into a stereo type and close people out. The land belongs to us all, and needs to be managed, not just closed as a way to manage it. When there is less land to use, and more people wanting to use what is left, the land that is left is heavily impacted.
Dave & Paula