Loving our Parks to Death

[WasatchWill]

Heavy traffic forces shutdown at entrance to Arches N.P.

http://www.moabtimes.com/view/full_...to-Arches-N-P-?instance=lead_story_leftcolumn

...and to think, I barely saw anyone over in The Maze area. But it's crazy that Moab's getting this busy, I just hope it doesn't spill over into the winter months...

I can almost hear Edward Abbey turning over in his grave.

I found this to be a quick and interesting read...

http://www.hcn.org/articles/arches-crowds-tourism-national-parks-utah

There are some good graphs showing the visitation increases over the last few years for all 5 of Utah's parks, thanks largely in part to the Utah tourist office's "Mighty 5" campaign.

My favorite quote from the article is the final paragraph:

Cannon notes the conflict often inherent between protecting natural and cultural resources and providing for visitor experience. “It's couched as a scientific question, but it's really a value judgment. How many people can be here and still enjoy the values that the park was established to provide?” she asks. “But it's so wonderful to have these phenomenally beautiful, culturally rich places for people to enjoy. It's well worth struggling with these questions.”

I have some thoughts and opinions on this. One being, I wonder if we'll see the day where Angel's Landing in Zion becomes a permit only spot for safety reasons, similar to how Half-Dome in Yosemite is managed now. Then again perhaps the shuttle system, even being run at double their capacity, is helping to put a cap on the crowds up Zion. Obviously there are permits for other areas and activities in the park. I'm not sure what the answer would be to Arches and elsewhere. I was actually surprised to see that Bryce sees a few more visitors than Arches despite being smaller and a bit more of a drive from the major hubs of Moab and St. George. I've been to both Arches and Bryce a few times now and Arches always appeared way busier than Bryce ever did.

There are so many pros and cons to all of the proposals and such out there, for parks, visitors, surrounding communities, and the state. Yellowstone, Yosemite, and Grand Canyon are other big parks out here in the west that probably still see far more visitors than Utah's parks do, I would think, so they must be finding ways to cope.

I actually thought about starting a new thread with this post that would have been entitled Loving our Parks and Other Wilderness Areas to Death because this topic may warrant some considerable discussion. Mod: feel free to break it off here if you agree.

 

[Nick]

I actually thought about starting a new thread with this post that would have been entitled Loving our Parks and Other Wilderness Areas to Death because this topic may warrant some considerable discussion. Mod: feel free to break it off here if you agree.

Done!

One being, I wonder if we'll see the day where Angel's Landing in Zion becomes a permit only spot for safety reasons, similar to how Half-Dome in Yosemite is managed now.

I could totally see this happening.

 

[Nick]

http://www.nps.gov/arch/learn/news/news071615.htm

Arches and Canyonlands National Parks Seek Public Input on Traffic Congestion Management Plan

The NPS is seeking public input on these suggested solutions as part of the public scoping process, and will examine a range of alternatives crafted from these solutions in the final EA.
The public comment period will open on July 20, 2015, for 30 days.
Individuals wishing to participate are asked to submit comments on the NPS Planning, Environment, and Public Comment (PEPC) website at:

http://parkplanning.nps.gov/arch_traffic_congestion_management (Arches), orhttp://parkplanning.nps.gov/cany_traffic_congestion_management (Canyonlands).
Deadline for comments submitted via these websites is August 19, 2015.
Anyone unable to submit their comments to either of the above websites may submit comments via email or mail their comments to:National Park Service Attn: Planning and Compliance
2282 SW. Resource Blvd.
Moab, UT 84532

Emailed comments must be received by, and written comments must be postmarked by, the August 19, 2015, deadline.

 

[Nick]

Will this help ease the congestion in Arches?

http://www.nps.gov/cany/learn/news/news081415.htm

 

[Dan_85]

150% increase for private vehicles?! That's a pretty steep price hike...

 

[IntrepidXJ]

I know if it weren't for the America the Beautiful annual pass, it would keep me away. Then again, I typically only visit in the off-season anyways...

Will this help ease the congestion in Arches?

http://www.nps.gov/cany/learn/news/news081415.htm

 

[Tres Westbrook]

We arrived in Moab for our Canyonlands canoe trip on May 23, and were stuck in traffic outside Arches while trying to get into town in the morning, and after lunch saw that Arches was closed as we headed towards Canyonlands. Canyonlands itself was not as crowded as Arches appeared, but every wide spot in the road was filled with automobiles. Luckily, we were looking for something away from the crowds and found it, but I would not have wanted to have been visiting the tourist areas in either Arches or Canyonlands that day.

After our week long canoe trip down the Green River, we put aside the last Saturday before our return home to visit Arches. We basically just drove through the park following the CD tour and trying to find places to park. We didn't even try to hike to Delicate Arch -- cars were parked down the road a long way from the parking area and it was like a pilgrimage. We just drove past and got the "long" view of the arch from the parking area at the end of the road. Anyway, I came away with a not very good feeling towards Arches. I'm glad we did it, but I have no desire to go back, based purely on the crowds we had to deal with, which are the strongest memories I have of the place.

I don't know what can be done but at some point the sheer volume of humanity packing these areas will make a mockery of the promotional campaign. Folks won't go home with stories of the beauty of the area but with tales of having to survive the hordes. They may become places to avoid rather than places to seek out.

 

[Tres Westbrook]

Fee increases will have marginal effect, although to have a significant impact I think that the fees would have to go up quite a bit. They're still a lot cheaper than Disney or Universal. I think that access will need to be limited or facilities will need to be expanded.

 

[IntrepidXJ]

Anyway, I came away with a not very good feeling towards Arches. I'm glad we did it, but I have no desire to go back, based purely on the crowds we had to deal with, which are the strongest memories I have of the place.

That's how I feel about my last visit to Zion.

 

[mak1277]

I just don't think there's any incentive for the gov't to fix the problem...and I dare say they probably don't even feel like there IS a problem.

 

[Nick]

I just don't think there's any incentive for the gov't to fix the problem...and I dare say they probably don't even feel like there IS a problem.

I disagree. It's a huge problem for them to deal with overcrowding. More people means more problems and they are the ones stuck dealing with the mess. Why else would they be asking for input on how to fix it?

http://www.nps.gov/arch/learn/news/news071615.htm

Arches and Canyonlands National Parks Seek Public Input on Traffic Congestion Management Plan

The NPS is seeking public input on these suggested solutions as part of the public scoping process, and will examine a range of alternatives crafted from these solutions in the final EA.
The public comment period will open on July 20, 2015, for 30 days.
Individuals wishing to participate are asked to submit comments on the NPS Planning, Environment, and Public Comment (PEPC) website at:

http://parkplanning.nps.gov/arch_traffic_congestion_management (Arches), orhttp://parkplanning.nps.gov/cany_traffic_congestion_management (Canyonlands).
Deadline for comments submitted via these websites is August 19, 2015.
Anyone unable to submit their comments to either of the above websites may submit comments via email or mail their comments to:National Park Service Attn: Planning and Compliance
2282 SW. Resource Blvd.
Moab, UT 84532

Emailed comments must be received by, and written comments must be postmarked by, the August 19, 2015, deadline.

 

[mak1277]

@Nick , I'm not saying they don't see the traffic as a problem, but I am skeptical (at best) that they see overcrowding/over-visitation as a problem. It's the whole Industrial Tourism issue, isn't it? Getting rid of the roads into the Parks won't ever happen though, because the gov't wants visitors and fees and the infrastructure that goes with the parks and the roads.

 

[Nick]

If overcrowding doesn't hurt the park, then you might be right. I think of a place like The Narrows. It's built for crowds and the river is very resilient to the traffic. Probably not a big concern. But when it comes to overcrowding having an impact on the landscape, I think most of the people who work in and operate our parks have a real interest in keeping the place as true to nature as it can be. Yeah, there are paved roads, sidewalks and lots of other improvements, but overcrowding results in the destruction of much more than those things that are planned. Parking off the side of the roads, social trails, etc. Why even bother having rules and regs if all they care about is how many people and dollars there are? I'm sure there are some who just don't care, but I believe that the majority of our park managers genuinely care about these places and want to be good stewards.

 

[Dan_85]

Yosemite Valley is exactly the same. I hiked 70 miles on the JMT in July, starting from the valley and every time i'm there I can't help but think "is this really how it was meant to be?!". It's like someone built Times Square in one of the most beautiful places on Earth. Sitting in bumper to bumper traffic for 30 mins trying to get out of the park. Rangers at intersections having to direct hordes of cars, buses etc. Vehicles parked in every conceivable tiny space. Campgrounds full of people with boomboxes blasting at full volume all day and late into the night... It was so good to get into the backcountry and away from all that chaos.

But what can be done?

Like many visitors to the parks, i'm a foreigner. I visit Utah about once a year or so. I'll be back in October. I've done all the "Big 5" and most of the "iconic" frontcountry hikes now so don't tend to visit the tourist-y areas of the parks so much anymore but I don't think a $25 fee would put me off, if I did ever want to head into Arches in October. And I imagine it's the same for a lot of visitors. $25 really isn't much for something that you don't do very often - or maybe only a few times in your life. How high does the price have to go to really put people off. Honestly, I think it has to go above $100. And I don't see that happening, there would be an outcry.

I really think the only solution that will make a difference is to put a limit on visitation numbers - a set number of vehicles allowed in the park at any one time. Is that likely to happen? *Maybe* at Arches which has very limited facilities beyond the visitor center. In a place like Yosemite, where you've got the likes of Delaware North, Aramark, YARTS, Xanterra running big money contracts dependent on large numbers of visitors? I don't think so.

 

[mak1277]

What would happen if we designated all of the national parks as wilderness areas? I think it would surely solve the over crowding concerns. Would that ever fly at a macro level?

@Nick i have no concerns about park managers on a micro level. My issues are more big picture. Does the park service as a whole want to maintain the wild places?

 

[Nick]

@Nick i have no concerns about park managers on a micro level. My issues are more big picture. Does the park service as a whole want to maintain the wild places?

Maybe I'm naive, but YES. I think so.

What would happen if we designated all of the national parks as wilderness areas? I think it would surely solve the over crowding concerns. Would that ever fly at a macro level?

National Parks, in my opinion, are all about a healthy balance of access and conservation. Too much or not enough of either and then it becomes something else. Closing them off and making everyone hoof it is fun to think about, but we have places for that. And we have places inside National Parks for that.

 

[WasatchWill]

I think the crowds to the extent parks are seeing now will come in waves. By that, I mean economies have recovered and promotional campaigns are reaching more people than ever before with Internet and other technologies. There will certainly be those who still enjoy their visits but many others who will have bad experiences with all the lines, parking, etc and put out a bad vibe for others, so much so that others may have second thoughts about braving the crowds as these parks develop a new reputation. So, as economies cycle through waves and the parks get reputations for being overcrowded, there will likewise be cycles of lesser visitation to the parks. That's my theory of how things will shake out if nothing more is done to cap the number of visitors/vehicles in some of these parks.

 

[mak1277]

National Parks, in my opinion, are all about a healthy balance of access and conservation. Too much or not enough of either and then it becomes something else. Closing them off and making everyone hoof it is fun to think about, but we have places for that. And we have places inside National Parks for that.

Ultimately I agree with you on this point. Personally, I like the Zion model where you park at the edge and have shuttle/bike/foot access to the guts of the park.

 

[Nick]

I like how Zion does it too.

Speaking of which...
http://suindependent.com/zion-national-park-visitation-crisis-levels/