Congress moves forward ..

balzaccom

balzaccom

Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2014
Messages
748
I thought it worth posting here. It's good news from a source that rarely delivers good news...

www.stgeorgeutah.com

The Explore Act, one of the largest outdoor recreation bills ever, poised to impact Utah

The U.S. House of Representatives has thrown its support behind one of the country’s largest-ever bills focused on outdoor recreation, sending the Expanding Public Lands Outdoor Recreation Act to the Senate with unanimous approval on April 9. Known as the Explore Act, the 220-page package seeks...
www.stgeorgeutah.com www.stgeorgeutah.com
 
Sorry, not for it, my view .... Sounds like spend more money put more people in the outdoors more invasive ideas.. ie broadband, climbing routes parking lots where it will increase people. Not much to help the failing infrastructure already in place or outdoor behavior education. Sounds like private will reap $$ with contracting.... Housing hotels and restaurants? And of course access for disabled....
 
It is a complicated issue, indeed. Do we want more people to visit the wilderness, learn to love it, and vote to protect it? Yes. But increasing the number of people in the wilderness (and their favorite activities) will also certainly degrade the wilderness experience. Not an easy water to navigate.
 
I agree it's a sticky subject. I'm often reminded of an article I read a number of years ago about the possibility of putting disguised cell phone towers in National Parks. A range said he was for the idea because it would draw in the younger generations, and without that, it may be that there's no one to protect these places for future generations.

At the same time, these types of things that are being brought up are not for the people who are actually "visiting the wilderness." They're accommodations for those who are driving through the parks, stopping at the turnoffs, taking pictures and posting them to their social media. I see it every time I visit Rocky Mountain National Park - which is quite often. I'd guess 3/4, if not more of the people that visit, never make it more than a half mile beyond a trailhead, and I'm guessing it's no different at most of the major parks and monuments. Once they've experienced the park, they merely think it's a cool place, but do they love it? I highly doubt it. Are they willing to protect it? Again, doubtful - especially if it in any way inconveniences them. It's likely that they likely could care less - they already have had their moments and pictures.

If we have to start doing things just to draw people who likely will only drive though, then how long will it be that we'll have to have Starbucks at the turnoffs? What will "have to" come after that to continue to draw them in?

I'm not sure there's an easy, or a good answer. But I'm leaning more and more towards opposing that ranger's thoughts. I don't think bringing in more things to accommodate the youth of today will do much more than have them drive through the parks while looking down at their phones, rather than out their windows. Perhaps they'll do so while sipping on their freshly brewed double caramel macchiato with soy milk from Starbucks.

The people who will fight for the preservation of these places are the people who TRULY yearn to experience the wilderness in these places. You might pick up a few here or there from the group mentioned above, but I doubt that would be enough to truly do any good.
 
Smokies are the same way, the most visited national park in the country (13 million) and probably 12 million never leave pavement/concrete. Spend a day in the park and then go to the casino in Cherokee or wander the streets in Gatlinburg or check out Dollywood.
 
wsp_scott said:
Smokies are the same way, the most visited national park in the country (13 million) and probably 12 million never leave pavement/concrete. Spend a day in the park and then go to the casino in Cherokee or wander the streets in Gatlinburg or check out Dollywood.
Click to expand...
To be fair, most Smokies "visitation" is just people paseint through on 441, rather than actually coming with the intention of going to a national park.
 
Simple solution: the best way to preserve the parks and monuments is to block them from ALL human visitation.
 
Seems like more good than bad to me. And as most things in politics, if it leaves everybody somewhat happy and somewhat disappointed, then it is probably a reasonable compromise.

The one thing I would actually have a hard time accepting at all is the gun ranges. As an avid shooting enthusiast, I would be first to point out that the majority of my fellow gun owners that use outdoor ranges are the absolute worst stewards of the environment that they shoot in.

Safety is marginal at best, and the amount of shell casings and garbage (food containers, def jugs, diapers, tampons - seen it all) left around makes you wonder how some of our fellow citizens ever evolved their way out of the caves.

I’d rather see all public shooting ranges closed than see that sort of behavior extended into national parks/wilderness areas.
 
OK, I've decided to run for Prez on the platform of closing all parks and monuments permanently to human visitation. Migrating and resident aimals are fine. I promise it will not only preserve the parks, but also the BLM and Nat'l forest lands near the parks. Here's how it will work:

People can still visit/camp/recreate on other Federal (meaning belongs to us) lands. However. without the crowds (which some find soothing and safe) and amenities (nearby park towns, which will die out, park restaurants, stores, etc.), pavement, and signage, I think a majority of people won't want to go to non-park lands. A lot of the Federal lands around the parks are visited only because people can't find a campspot in the park.

Am I saying that a majority of people go to the parks to say they've been there, post selfies, and socialize?

Maybe. (Keep in mind I'm now a politician, so you can't pin me down on anything.)
 
Last edited:
Rockskipper said:
Migrating and resident animals are fine
Click to expand...

President Rockskipper declares an equivalency between migrating and resident animals and refuses to disavow cows and sheep.
 
LarryBoy said:
To be fair, most Smokies "visitation" is just people paseint through on 441, rather than actually coming with the intention of going to a national park.
Click to expand...
Based on past experience, I think everyone who drives 441 feels obligated to drive to Clingman's Dome if the road is open. They still never leave pavement, but they have been to a national park :)

Seriously, have you ever seen how visitor numbers are counted for the smokies? No entry fees, 441 through the middle, couple of more off the beaten path trailheads. I have no idea how they get that 13 million number.
 
Wanderlust073 said:
President Rockskipper declares an equivalency between migrating and resident animals and refuses to disavow cows and sheep.
Click to expand...
Well, I have nothing against either species, though I will concede they can do disproportionate harm to vegetation and riparian areas. Like Ed Abbey said, "If you don't like cows, don't eat them."
 
wsp_scott said:
Based on past experience, I think everyone who drives 441 feels obligated to drive to Clingman's Dome if the road is open. They still never leave pavement, but they have been to a national park :)

Seriously, have you ever seen how visitor numbers are counted for the smokies? No entry fees, 441 through the middle, couple of more off the beaten path trailheads. I have no idea how they get that 13 million number.
Click to expand...
Cameras.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Similar threads
Thread starter Title Forum Replies Date
balzaccom Paying it forward General Discussion 0

Similar threads

Back
Top