Backpacker magazine has devoted its June issue to the national parks, and the 112-page mag packs quite a lot of information -- some great features on park destinations and a discussion-spurring list of parks the editor-in-chief would do away with in favor of new units -- between the covers.
I must admit I struggled a bit with how Casey Lyons approached his story to a long backcountry loop hike in Glacier National Park with a friend who suffers from biopolar II and "hypomania."
Doctors describe the latter as a persistent and pervasive euphoric, or "elevated," state characterized by infinite energy, fierce competitiveness, and a gluttony for risk. Mike described it has "a 24-7 cocaine high!" and laughed his crazy laugh.
That's not something you might imagine to find in Backpacker. But, to Mr. Lyons' credit, he deftly pulled off twining his friend's condition with the wonders of Glacier's backcountry into an interesting read.
Elsewhere in this issue you'll find Michael Lanza's story about introducing his two young children to the Grand Canyon during a family backpack trek, Ted Alvarez' adrenalin-spewing journey into Denali National Park's backcountry, Steve Howe's adventures deep in the Waterpocket Fold in Capitol Reef National Park, and, among others, Brian Beer's suggestions on how to flee the crowds at Yosemite National Park with a four-day exploration of the Clark Range.
Those all are good reads, the kind of stories that not only pull you into the landscapes but, at the end, leave you thinking, "I need to add that to my to-do list!"
But the editor's note, well, that one leaves you thinking about justifications made around the qualifications for units of the National Park System. True, this is not a new debate for Traveler, but it's always interesting to see how others would approach the selection process. Here's the bottom-line of Jonathan Dorn's position on the matter:
Tough times call for touch decisions. If Congress won't make new parks, we'll swap 8 for 8.
In: ANWR (Arctic National Wildlife Refuge), Bruneau and Upper Owyhee Rivers, Glen Canyon, Lost Coast, Maine Woods, San Juans, White Mountains, Wind Rivers.
Out: American Samoa, Biscayne, Carlsbad Caverns, Cuyahoga Valley, Dry Tortugas, Hot Springs, Virgin Islands, Wind Cave
Quite the list, no? Not sure about adding Glen Canyon, since, technically, it's already part of the park system. But I like Maine Woods, the White Mountains, and the Wind Rivers. At the same time, I definitely would argue against removing Virgin Islands, Carlsbad Caverns, and Biscayne.
What do you think? Leave your thoughts here, and at Backpacker's website.
Comments
I'm a subscriber to Backpacker, and I have read the full Editor's Note. While I can understand Kurt's truncation in his summary to provoke discussion, I wanted to point out the true meaning behind the magazine's ill begotten idea. The magazine is not asking to delete or swap out the aforementioned Parks because they do not think them valuable---their list of eight to trade out is simply constructed because they do not consist of any appreciable backcountry for their readers to go tromping and camping in. So everyone can take a breath and relax.
Well, Toothdoctor, perhaps we should pitch Backpacker a story on the 85 miles of backcountry trails in Carlsbad's 33,000+ acres (roughly 52 square miles) of officially designated wilderness, eh? That would seem pretty appreciable to many folks, I'd think;-)
And, the backcountry wilderness in Carlsbad is incredibly beautiful and rugged. I am sure that somewhere out there, there are more caves to be discovered. This is not, however, a wilderness to underestimate. There are few water sources. The hiker needs to be self-reliant and careful as the rescue resources there are not as easily-accessed as they are in some parks.
Rick
Glad somebody mentioned the Carlsbad backcountry, which is on my list of things to do.
As for my own "next national park" list, how about Dinosaur National Monument? Wonderful, wonderful place.
Couldn't agree with you more, Bob....
/2009/06/dinosaur-national-monument-more-you-can-imagine
That "somebody" who mentioned the Carlsbad backcountry is a former superintendent of Carlsbad.
Not sure about Wind Cave. Its backcountry is pretty spectacular--prairie mixed with ponderosa pine forest, limestone cliffs, rushing streams; bison, prairie dogs, pronghorns--and I didn't run into another soul out there. Is the backcountry not officially designated wilderness? Is that the case for swapping it out?
Their selection is made entirely on the value of a park in terms of its potential for backpacking, whereas there are more criteria for any park. A place like Wind Cave, which I enjoyed, doesn't have the extensive back country of, say, Yellowstone or Canyonlands, but is preserved largely because of its caves, a worthy thing to do. A backpacker who has hiked extensively may need the more spectacular parks like Canyonlands or Grand Canyon, but I found Wind Cave to be a quiet, pleasant park, a good place to relax, and a good place to hike. I'm sure others who venture to Wind Cave will enjoy it. I'll be going back shortly and look forward to it. It would be a mistake to remove its national park status.