Support your National and State parks this summer!

[Crumb]

Originally Posted by Qingdai

You've stayed in a yurt, Crumb?
Should I bring sleeping bags or sheets and blankets?

We did sleeping bags.

There are pics in the gallery of our first yurt trip. Freethought Forum There are interior and exterior yurt shots. Those are at Oregon state parks so they should be about the same. They have heat and light. The beds are like vinyl covered mattresses. You could use sheets, but it might be better to have something thicker between you and the mattress if it is chilly.

[BDS]

I believe throat singing around the campfire is mandatory.

[Qingdai]

I'm bringing my little mongol pony!
Oh wait, that's our car.

[LadyShea]

Least Visited National Parks

[Qingdai]

I'm not surprised that so many places are in Alaska. It's pretty and pretty far away.

The North Cascades looks do-able for us. I like the boat trip that takes you to a place Martha Stewart featured.

My friend who lives in Florida likes to go to Dry Tortugas.

[viscousmemories]

Ken Burns was just on The Colbert Report last night pimping his documentary The National Parks: America's Best Idea. That makes twice in 24 hours I've heard the phrase "loving our national parks to death". I don't personally see much point in having them if humans can't enjoy them.

[LadyShea]

I just made reservations for visiting the most visited national park for Kiddo's birthday.

That makes twice in 24 hours I've heard the phrase "loving our national parks to death". I don't personally see much point in having them if humans can't enjoy them.

Part of the experience, for me, is learning about the conservation and protection in any park. They can't do much without funds and few people will donate without visiting. I think we need to start from that.

Here's the website about that documentary The National Parks: America's Best Idea: | PBS and it starts on PBS this Sunday

[Crumb]

Originally Posted by vm

I don't personally see much point in having them if humans can't enjoy them.

Seriously? What about preserving spaces for plants and other animals? Poor bastards can't get away from us.

[viscousmemories]

I don't know, it just seems like it would be a little hypocritical for me to worry about preserving a happy place for some plants and animals while making books and shoes and filling my stomach with others. I guess I just don't care that much.

[Crumb]

Interesting. Because I would say that the very fact that we exploit natural resources on such an enormous scale, makes us obligated to leave some natural spaces untouched. It is too bad we don't leave more of the natural world alone.

[Qingdai]

I agree with Crumb. We need wild spaces to keep genetic diversity, fresh air, clean water and innumerable things that aren't readily apparent to us.

I wish that park funding wasn't being shoved into being mainly user fees. I preferred it when they had a budget from the parts that they allow (which they allow anyway) to be mined, logged and traded, instead of that money going into the general fund.

[LadyShea]

The first episode of the documentary was excellent! Excellent I tell ya!

I now want to learn everything I can about John Muir, either I learned about him and I forgot, or I heard about him and the person telling me was not properly enthusiastic about how fascinating he was.

[LadyShea]

National Park Week | National Park Foundation

[The Lone Ranger]

Edward Abbey argued that automobiles should be banned from the national parks. I'm often inclined to agree.

More specifically, he argued that vehicular access to the national parks should be limited to service vehicles and shuttle buses for those who cannot or will not get to the sights on foot. (Actually, I'd allow bicycles on the park roads, myself.)

Since congestion is a very serious problem in some of the parks (I've seen long lines of traffic in Acadia National Park, for instance, and especially in Great Smoky Mountains National Park), and the traffic has been shown to be detrimental to wildlife, this seems like an idea well worth considering, if you ask me.


And I'll be absolutely blunt: I care a lot more about the comfort and well-being of the plants and wild animals that inhabit the parks than I do about the comfort and convenience of the human visitors, myself included.


Cheers,

Michael

[wildernesse]

We had a great visit to a state park last weekend, Brazos Bend, and bought a park pass. It was $60 and it covers everyone in a non-commercial vehicle with you. The park itself was very nice and full of alligators and birds--we are actually going back next week.

I am really excited about visiting more state parks here in Texas.

[LadyShea]

Demi was telling me about a great NP in Texas...Big Bend.

I want to try to go to Gulf Islands National Seashore sometime during NP Week...before it gets too hot and buggy.

[Shake]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I don't think anything, I am not arguing I am asking a question.

I know that many parks are working constantly to preserve and/or restore. Yosemite has many programs underway. Falling Waters, one of the parks I visited last weekend, does controlled burns every 2-3 years to maintain the natural cycles needed for a healthy pine forest in this region.

What I want to know is what effect these efforts are having.

I will read the book you recommended.

godfry's original link may have been old, but the story hasn't changed a lot. I recall a news piece on the national news talking about how having too many visitors was having negative effects on some of the parks. I don't have time right now to go dig anything else up on it, but will try to find something later for you.

[wildernesse]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Demi was telling me about a great NP in Texas...Big Bend.

I want to try to go to Gulf Islands National Seashore sometime during NP Week...before it gets too hot and buggy.

We are definitely going to Big Bend and Guadalupe Mountains, if it is at all possible, while we live here. And go paddling in the Big Thicket. I also want to visit the canyon state parks in the panhandle.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by Shake

godfry's original link may have been old, but the story hasn't changed a lot. I recall a news piece on the national news talking about how having too many visitors was having negative effects on some of the parks. I don't have time right now to go dig anything else up on it, but will try to find something later for you.

Well, without the parks, that land would look like the lands around them....developed, cleared for logging, planting, or grazing, strip mined, filled in wetlands, etc.

You have to look at the conditions at the time each park was established as well as today. They were clear cutting hundreds of acres a week in the Great Smoky Mnts, right up to the day the park was established. The Everglades? Forget it...would have been filled in by now. Gulf Islands NS and Gulf State Park? High Rise Condos stretching for miles and probably the complete loss of Loggerhead Sea Turtles. Western canyons? Dammed to the last one.

The public is not likely to monetarily support millions of acres of pure conservation area that they can't visit. The parks I have been to (dozens) were in good shape and well tended. So it seems to me the Parks system has achieved a pretty good balance of conservation and human recreation. Is it perfect? No, but vastly better than what would have been otherwise.

[The Lone Ranger]

Indeed. The National Parks may not be perfect, but they're definitely a darned sight better than the alternative. Personally, I would shift the balance between conservation of wildlife and vistas versus human comfort and ease more toward the conservation side. As such, I would severely restrict vehicular access to the parks, if I had my way.

Smog is a serious problem in Yosemite. Ozone levels in Great Smoky Mountains are sometimes so high that they have to issue "ozone alerts" and warn people not to engage in strenuous activities (ozone levels in GSMNP are often higher than is legally permissible in cities). In fairness, this isn't just due to vehicles in the parks -- some of it comes from nearby cities.


In any event, many of these irreplaceable natural areas would have long-since been all but destroyed had they not been protected as parks.


Cheers,

Michael

[wildernesse]

Some state parks are primarily for recreation. Some state parks are not available for people to drop in, you have to make reservations to come on a group tour. It's the same for some national parks--when we were in Denali, we drove out to the furthest point private cars were allowed, but if you want to go further in a vehicle you have to be on a park shuttle bus.

Besides state and national parks, there are also national forests, wilderness areas, wildlife refuges, national monuments, all which fall along different points on the balance between recreation, conservation, and preservation. Some areas, such as wildlife refuges and wilderness areas fall pretty far along on the preservation side of things. Legislation creating wilderness areas actually defines them as places where "man himself is a visitor who does not remain."

If you have a chance and these kinds of lands exist near you, I would encourage you to visit them as well. They can be great places to become more aware of your surroundings, and you often can learn how your everyday activities affect the environment so that when you go home you might change your behavior.

I should probably search this thread before I post this, because I might have said this before. But I am lazy.

[LadyShea]

Good points Wildy!

We have hiked in the Bon Secour National Wildlife Refuge. There are no roads inside, you have to park then hike. There's no campground. There aren't even bathrooms. It's pretty pristine.

[Ensign Steve]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

There aren't even bathrooms. It's pretty pristine.

Does not compute.

[LadyShea]

Pristine wilderness, you!

[The Lone Ranger]

Yup. There are some really wonderful wilderness areas out there that are well worth exploring. You might be surprised; there are officially-designated wilderness areas surprisingly close to some of the country's major cities.


On the other hand, one of the more annoying things in life is how often, when it appears that Congress may be considering designating some area as a protected wilderness (thus putting it off-limits to most forms of "development"), timber companies will quickly run a road into it, to prevent that from happening.

Urgh.