NPS=Bad Food Service

@Joey is right on, Signal Mt.s nachos are an awesome way to celebrate a great hike or other backcountry outing. Grand Teton generally has very good food, love having a beer and lighter fair at Blue Heron at Jackson Lake Lodge and Dornans in Moose which is also in the park.

Thanks to all but especially @Joey @steve and @ben cowan for a good conversation. Perhaps there should be a "What Should A National Park Be?" thread? What about a "Best After Hike Eats" thread or something similar?

On this thread dos centavos mios:

Steve's idea of parks is one I contemplate every time I hit traffic in our two parks and parkway here. It can indeed be dangerous when people go on vacation and leave crucial elements of their brain at home. Getting backed up at gates agravates me on multiple levels that will be illuminated shortly.

I love wild lands. Although I was quite fortunate to extensively ride southern Yellowstone as a boy and young man and hike it in the last decade my favorite places on earth are not in our first National Park, but rather our first National Forest. The solitude has a lot to do with it but we all know there is a lot of spectacular landscape out there worthy of iconic park status. We like keeping it that way.

That's one of two major reasons why I appreciate parks and their usual development and ease of access; it concentrates the less inclined towards outdoor recreation from less notorious places we love.

The other reason is one that will intrude on the political so please take this with the respect its intended. I passionately believe that getting as many people as possible out into even just quasi-natural environments and inspiring a sense of far more responsible place should be one of our greatest National/Global Security concerns; right up there with climate change and obesity. I am deeply troubled by every single one of the proposed increases in existing entrance/access fees. Those de facto taxes to enter our own public lands cover less than 5% of the NPS budget last time I checked. The cost of one B1 Bomber could have covered that for each and every American and foreign visitor for a dozen years or more. I'm sure some of you are tired from me saying this before but IMO Muir, Roosevelt, Leopold, etc., are all rolling in their proverbial graves knowing that as it stands a low income family in places like here in Teton County has to choose between a day if not two's worth of groceries or admission to their national park right up the road. We need to get more children outside, we need to help parents make that choice far more easily. There is unequivocally no "benefit of all" if a single parent has to make the choice I noted. Select free days and the incumbent crowding is IMO disgustingly insulting.

Thanks again gentlemen,

John
 
i started writing this before the last couple posts, Nick's and John's.


i think that Steve is right about yosemite, and other similar places, that a 40 mile dirt road solution is the only way that you could realistically decrease those crowds. but i think that if you scaled back the development, along with fewer people, over all you'd also see more of one specific type, the people who were willing to make their way out there, but not willing to clean up after their selves.

my introduction to southern utah was on a week long trip with my family where we stopped at all of the utah national parks, plus the grand canyon, plus goblin valley. so we hardly did any thing besides stopping at visitor centers and a few view points. both of my grandmas were with us as well. it wasn't my kind of trip, but it gave me a glimpse of a lot of places that i wanted to go to, and have gone back to now. a couple years ago my mom made it up to Angels Landing, and it was a huge deal to her, and a great experience. and she'd never have done it if there wasn't a road in zion canyon. and when we went to the grand canyon with my grandmas, they both walked down to one of the view points from the north rim lodge. an experience i'm sure they would have missed too if things weren't set up the way they are. and while i've thought how much i would like it personally if there were no road at all in most of these areas, i wouldn't want it to be at the expense of other people's experiences like these. both of my parents are in their fifties now, and have a bad knee each. they still love going to the national parks, and seeing places like that, but they do it closer and closer to the car. same with an aunt i have who is disabled who saw yellowstone entirely from the car with us a few years ago, but still had a fantastic time. all i really mean is that i think on the whole, the nps is doing about the best job of managing these areas that i can imagine.

reflecting on what Nick said, and the whole question over all, i think that's there's some what a problem of conflicted ideals. i don't want to see cows in my backcountry, but i do love eating cheese burgers.
 
Good points, Ben.

ben cowan said:
reflecting on what Nick said, and the whole question over all, i think that's there's some what a problem of conflicted ideals. i don't want to see cows in my backcountry, but i do love eating cheese burgers.
Click to expand...

When it comes to cattle, I don't think it's that conflicting. I do my best to eat no meat that grazed on public land. In fact most of us probably don't without even trying. According to the article linked below, grazing on public lands accounts for only 3% of our national beef supply. And if I could choose between a life with beef on my plate or a life with zero cows on public land but no more beef for me, I would without hesitation choose the latter.

http://www.revealnews.org/article/weak-oversight-of-public-grazing-land-thanks-to-lord-of-yesterday/

Funny how this thread has transformed, and now we're back to food, sort of. Haha!
 
thanks Nick, that's actually good to know
 
steve said:
I'm convinced that the fastest way to overcrowd and dirty up a beautiful hiking trail or vista is to turn it into a national park. Not because the employees don't do a good job, but because national parks attract people who would never visit otherwise.
Click to expand...

Certainly a mixed blessing, but I look upon this the same as Absarokanaut. In the big picture, the complete lack of a real backcountry experience in probably at least 95% of the U.S. population is first and foremost why there is so little public support for wilderness areas. If the National Parks somehow prick the interest of even 1% of the visitors, those sacrifice areas are worth it. And they ARE sacrifice areas. Short of a subdivision development or open pit mining, probably the worst thing we could do to pristine areas.

As far as NP food goes, I can't really comment. The last meal I bought in Yellowstone was about 1968 and have no plans on buying another there or in any other NP. Just say NO to that BS. Do the concessionaires abuse employees? Yes and no. Where the hell else could one experience some of that grandeur and sort of get paid for it, crappy job, crappy food, and crappy quarters or not?
 
I think it's wonderful that the average Joe, and those with disabilities or old age can still have access to such amazing places as our national parks. Without our national parks many people would have less experience with the outdoors and we would see less of a desire to protect and preserve wilderness for future generations. I guess you could say they are kind of the sacrificial lambs of our public lands.

I may be an old man someday, maybe, and I would hope that when/if I can no longer backpack 50 miles into the backcountry that I could still be able to have a taste of the outdoors through our national parks.
 
andyjaggy said:
I may be an old man someday, maybe, and I would hope that when/if I can no longer backpack 50 miles into the backcountry that I could still be able to have a taste of the outdoors through our national parks.
Click to expand...

It's all relative and I'm relatively way older than I ever thought I'd make it. But I'm still going to be hitting a fifty miler this summer. That said, there are a lot of other options for people with disabilities to see the outdoors. Plenty of USFS and BLM land open to motorized use and at least some of it is on par with the national parks. Or you can always go the outfitter option if you have the bucks and are into that. None of those options are as commercialized as the parks.

Unfortunately, I see a lot of the motorized use crowd as a microcosm of the majority of users in the national parks. A very high percentage of those folks can't be bothered getting off or out of their vehicles and have little appreciation of the ground they just traveled over. Much less park it and take a hike/pack trip.
 
John Goering said:
... there are a lot of other options for people with disabilities to see the outdoors. Plenty of USFS and BLM land open to motorized use and at least some of it is on par with the national parks.
Click to expand...

I 100% agree John, well said. This is why I'm ok with dirt roads staying legal where they are. Some people see it as black and white, where we either need an area to be a NP (thereby allowing a mini city) or an area that shuts vehicles out completely. I think there's room for middle ground. I think of all the great dirt roads in this state that allow people to enjoy the outdoors without it becoming a mini-city. Over half of my hikes, river trips, and camping opportunities wouldn't be possible if the dirt roads to them were closed to motorized vehicles.

Do I think some areas should be off-limits for vehicles? Absolutely. But I also think there's a middle ground for vehicle-based nature lovers that extends beyond the national and state parks. I think about lockhart, white rim, the swell, the utah backcountry discovery route, elephant hill, and beef basin, valley of the gods, backroads in and around strawberry, Joe's valley, skyline drive, fish lake, af canyon, hobble creek, diamond fork, reservation ridge, the maze, robber's roost, the henries, dirt roads in the uintas, west desert, etc. I think we've got a great balance in this state.

I hope it doesn't sound like I'm super anti national parks; I'm not. I think national parks are great and I'm glad we have them. There are inherent pros and cons to the customers they attract. Personally, I think hotels and restaurants make a park feel more like a city than nature, but I understand why people would utilize them if they were there. Fortunately the great state of Utah has so many options to recreate that I'm not limited to just national parks. Ultimately that's why I choose to live here over anywhere else.
 
steve said:
Some people see it as black and white, where we either need an area to be a NP (thereby allowing a mini city) or an area that shuts vehicles out completely. I think there's room for middle ground.
Click to expand...
I agree with this. And I think each park or wilderness area is unique to it's own management.

Parks like Yellowstone, Yosemite, and Glacier were preserved for the people to be able to visit. If they hadn't been designated National Parks, I think they would be far worse today. Just look at how built up the outlier towns are around these places. A bunch of fast food chains are beating down the doors to get in. These parks were never suppose to keep the wilderness in its complete natural state, but rather make them accessible to everyone to visit and enjoy. They are in a way similar to Disney World. I'm okay with that. I think they do a lot of good for people, especially people who live different lifestyles than most of us on these forums. And they accommodate the amount of visitors they get. It allows many people to see places they would never see otherwise. I also don't like the entrance fee's, and I agree with everything @Absarokanaut says in his post above.

What's interesting, is that no little kid ever goes to a place like Yellowstone and complains about the amount of people there. Think about that for a minute.

But not all National Parks are the same. And I don't think we should turn other places into Yellowstone and Yosemite. I'm all for keeping places wild, and I don't think we need to make every wild place easily accessible.
 
Joey said:
I agree with this. And I think each park or wilderness area is unique to it's own management.

Parks like Yellowstone, Yosemite, and Glacier were preserved for the people to be able to visit. If they hadn't been designated National Parks, I think they would be far worse today. Just look at how built up the outlier towns are around these places. A bunch of fast food chains are beating down the doors to get in. These parks were never suppose to keep the wilderness in its complete natural state, but rather make them accessible to everyone to visit and enjoy. They are in a way similar to Disney World. I'm okay with that. I think they do a lot of good for people, especially people who live different lifestyles than most of us on these forums. And they accommodate the amount of visitors they get. It allows many people to see places they would never see otherwise. I also don't like the entrance fee's, and I agree with everything @Absarokanaut says in his post above.

What's interesting, is that no little kid ever goes to a place like Yellowstone and complains about the amount of people there. Think about that for a minute.

But not all National Parks are the same. And I don't think we should turn other places into Yellowstone and Yosemite. I'm all for keeping places wild, and I don't think we need to make every wild place easily accessible.
Click to expand...

I would argue that most of the development adjacent to the parks is the direct result of creating the parks. You find very little of that around most wilderness areas, the Uinta's being a possible exception. Would Yellowstone, Teton, or Glacier without roads have the same development? It's hard to say whether those places would have fared better or worse under USFS administration. They would certainly be better off under the Wilderness Act but a lot could have happened in the interim.

I too feel there really isn't any place that would be really improved by creating more national parks. More wilderness-absolutely. And I totally agree with the kid analysis, even if I need a valium prescription to drive in those places during the summer.
 
John Goering said:
I would argue that most of the development adjacent to the parks is the direct result of creating the parks. You find very little of that around most wilderness areas, the Uinta's being a possible exception. Would Yellowstone, Teton, or Glacier without roads have the same development? It's hard to say whether those places would have fared better or worse under USFS administration. They would certainly be better off under the Wilderness Act but a lot could have happened in the interim.
Click to expand...
Yes and No. People were already flocking to those places before they became National Parks. Check out the history of them.
I believe by making those places National Parks, they kept them from being even more exploited than they are today.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ben
the Sawtooths have more than one lodge, and there's not even a park in idaho! (not all the way at least)

I'm with Joey. i know that a lot of people go places for the fact that they are national parks. but i think that if there was no such thing as a national park, most of those people would still find the same areas, for the same reason. i think yellowstone, glacier, yosemite, the grand canyon would still be just as acclaimed with or with out any kind of park status. and i think that the problem with comparing development adjacent to national parks to that of national forest wilderness areas is that the national park status draws much of that development away from other wilderness areas.

i would argue that most of the development adjacent to the parks is the direct result of the fact that those park areas are freaking awesome. i think that the national park designation merely centralizes some of that development in a more visible way. perhaps @Vegan.Hiker can chime in here about development around popular hiking areas in new york, new hampshire and vermont, none of which have a park. i get the impression there might be some of that around an area like the presidentials.
 
I'm no expert on this stuff, but I agree with Ben. Areas over here attract tourism based on their wow factor, not their designation. I bet the majority of the "tourists" that visit the Whites don't even know whether it's a National Forest or a National Park.

I'm not knowledgeable about places out west, but the White Mountains were saved by the Federal govt. Before it became protected by as a National Forest 100 years ago, the entire area was ravaged and destroyed by the logging industry.

When you guys talk about the "commercialization" of wilderness areas, I'm not really sure what level of tourism you deem excessive since I'm not from out there. My gut feeling is that we don't have the over-commercialization problems that you guys seem to have out west in some spots because hiking and camping simply isn't as popular over here. The majority of people I know have never hiked or backpacked before. Going to the beach or doing stuff in the major cities are the mainstream things to do here. Even though I only live 30 miles from New York City (which has roughly 3 times the population of the entire state of Utah) I rarely have to contend with more than 4 or 5 cars at trailhead parking lots on even the nicest summer weekends. To illustrate just how unpopular hiking is over here, think about this... 8.5 million people live in NYC and another 9 million live in NJ, yet how many BCP members have you come across from NYC or NJ? Utah has a population under 3 million and look at how many members here are from Utah.

From what I've seen, the only notable tourism that's a direct result of a wilderness area being tremendously popular in the northeast is the town of North Conway right outside of the Presidentials in the White Mountains. The town is filled in the summer with family vacationers, outlet malls, chain hotels, and amusements like water parks and mini golf, moose sighting bus tours, etc. For most of those family vacationers, their experience of the actual White mountains rarely goes beyond taking the auto road or cog railway up Mt Washington or the gondola up Wildcat Mountain. If you are a hiker/backpacker, it's easy enough to just avoid North Conway during the busy months. None of our other areas are popular enough to bring much tourism, hence no shuttles, permit systems, etc.

Not sure if that answers your question @ben cowan
 
Last edited:
A really interesting conversation guys. The only thing that bugs me is the twinge of dare I saw 'elitism' that comes from these types of conversations. I've gotten it before on other forums, people that feel like they are somehow more privileged to these areas than someone who just wants to drive through and look at it through their window.

Dry Creek trail head here in Pleasant Grove has a subdivision of absolute monstrosities at the base of the mountain. We are talking 10,000 + Square feet homes. Those people are in a completely different class than me, but once we step onto that trail we all have the same privilege and access. That's what makes our public lands so amazing and why I fight to protect them. Whether someone likes to backpack 100 miles into the wild, or simply drive on the road through Zion without getting out of the car, we all have the same privilege to enjoy it in whatever way we see fit. Luckily our public lands have a large enough variety that we can all find something to satisfy our needs.
 
If you haven't seen the Ken Burns documentary on the National Parks, you need to...
http://www.pbs.org/nationalparks/

Free on Amazon Prime. I just watched them all again last week.
 
andyjaggy said:
The only thing that bugs me is the twinge of dare I saw 'elitism' that comes from these types of conversations. I've gotten it before on other forums, people that feel like they are somehow more privileged to these areas than someone who just wants to drive through and look at it through their window.
Click to expand...
This times 1000.

Its not just the backpackers. Photographers, wildlife watchers, the "locals". Too many people seem to forget they too once visited a place for the first time.

I think its a very selfish, self centered point of view to want to keep other people from visiting places, especially if its to enhance your own experience. There are too many other places that are still wild for you to go visit.
 
And just to clarify, my last comment isn't a shot at anyone posting in this thread. Outside of the first post, I pretty much agree with what everyone has posted, or at least understand their point of view.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ben
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top