Are these people bored? Fayette Station Rapids, New River Gorge National River/NPS
Did you hear the news?
National parks, those wondrous and scenic expanses of Nature's eye candy, those wild and rumpled landscapes that test your skills and will kill you if you're not careful and prepared, or maybe just in the wrong place at the wrong time, are boring. They've been transformed -- or, perhaps, kept since their creation -- as "drive-through museums."
How did this happen with the National Park Service on watch for the past 98 years?
Apparently because the parks, the Western landscape parks, at least, are managed primarily to protect and preserve their landscapes, not as testing grounds for the latest recreational fad. They are, as Park Service Director Jon Jarvis told us back in March, losing their relevancy with the American public.
'There's a real relevancy problem with the parks,' Adam Cramer, the executive director of the Outdoor Alliance, told a writer from Outside Magazine. 'They're shutting off vectors like bikes and kayaks for people to have the kinds of meaningful experiences that are the genesis for a conservation ethic.'
Really?
Paddlers have been having "meaningful experiences" in the national parks for generations. In our Essential Guide To Paddling The Parks we list more than 90 units of the National Park System that welcome paddlers. They measure themselves (and have meaningful experiences) against the Colorado River through Grand Canyon National Park and Canyonlands National Park, down the Green and Yampa in Dinosaur National Monument, and against the Alaskan rivers that flow through Wrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve, Gates of the Arctic National Park and Preserve, and Noatak National Preserve, just to name some of the possibilities.
It takes a good deal of effort, and lust for adventure, to kayak the far end of Glacier Bay in its namesake national park/Kurt Repanshek
Sea kayakers tour the lakes of Yellowstone, Voyageurs, and Acadia national parks, lose themselves for days and even weeks in the waters of Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve, explore the sea-like waters of Lake Superior in Apostle Islands and Pictured Rocks national lakeshores, and venture out into the watery landscapes of Cape Lookout National Seashore, Everglades National Park, and even Glen Canyon National Recreation Area (Lake Powell). Do they go in search of boredom?
Kayaking the Potomac River at Great Falls Park. Boring? No. Crazy? Perhaps/NPS
White-water kayakers can choose from among the New River Gorge National River in West Virginia, the Gauley River National Recreation Area, also in West Virginia, Big South Fork River and Recreation Area in Tennessee, as well as the parks through which the Green and Colorado rivers run. There is no shortage of opportunities. There's even one in Washington, D.C.'s backyard, the Potomic River that roars through Great Falls Park.
Consider the climbing possibilities in places such as Denali National Park, Mount Rainier National Park, North Cascades National Park, Grand Teton National Park, Rocky Mountain National Park, and even on the cliffs of Acadia, and swallowing this "boring" concept gets tougher and tougher.
Really, the issue is not that the parks are "boring." Rather, the Outside article bemoans that they're not flung open to all recreational comers. But then, they weren't intended to be larger manifestations of your local city park.
This Denali climber doesn't look bored/NPS
There's not a "relevancy problem" with the national parks, at least not when it comes to outdoors recreation. If you're bored with the opportunities in the national parks, you're not realizing the possibilities.
Set off, as Andrew Skurka did in 2010, on a 4,679-mile circumnavigation of Alaska on skis, packable raft, and hiking boots, and you won't be bored. You'll be challenged to stay alive in one of the most glorious and demanding settings in North America. Hike the 2,650-mile Pacific Crest Trail as blind hiker Trevor Thomas did, or the 2,184-mile Appalachian National Scenic Trail as Jennifer Pharr Davis did in record-setting time, in one five- or six-month bite and you'll be transformed, physically as well as mentally. You'll likely reorder your life. Discover, as two cavers did in Carlsbad Caverns National Park last Halloween, the largest subterranean room found there in decades, and you won't stop talking about it for a good while.
Are those the types of folks who are being "ostracized," as Grayson Schaffer put it?
In his article in Outside, Mr. Schaffer would have us believe that we need professional bike races through places such as Colorado National Monument, marathons run through Death Valley National Park, and to be able to launch ourselves, cloaked in a wingsuit, off El Capitan at Yosemite National Park to appreciate, savor, and enjoy national parks. Does base-jumping, an inherently dangerous endeavor that has killed two in Zion National Park in Utah this year already, nurture a conservation ethic...or fuel an adrenalin kick, one with a high-risk downside?
How does any of that develop a conservation ethic? Such an ethic is achieved through soaking in the mountains, forests, rivers, lakes, and glaciers, appreciating them for their very existence, and seeking ways to conserve them.
The fallacy of Mr. Schaffer's argument can even be found elsewhere in Outside. In March 2012 the publication ran a story about "12 National Park Adventures Off the Beaten Path." It pointed to:
* river kayaking in Olympic National Park;
* pedaling over the Going-to-the-Sun Road in Glacier National Park and continuing on to Waterton Lakes National Park in Alberta, Canada;
* sea kayaking (with fresh lobster for dinner) at Acadia National Park;
* sea kayaking among the whales and icebergs in Glacier Bay National Park, (where you might share your camps with brown bears);
* climbing among the boulders and outcrops of Joshua Tree National Park;
* climbing to the 13,770-foot summit of the Grand Teton in its namesake park;
* hoisting a pack on your back and hiking for five days through Isle Royale National Park with hopes of catching a wolf's howl;
* or mountain biking in places such as Mammoth Cave National Park in Kentucky, Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area in California, Big South Fork River and Recreation Area in Tennessee, or New River Gorge National River in West Virginia.
And there was nary a mention of boredom or lack of opportunities.
That same year, Outside ran an article by Michael Lanza, an occasional contributor to the Traveler, on "The 10 Best National Park Adventures With Kids," and there were no mountain bikes or wingsuits necessary, (although hiking boots, sea kayaks, cross-country skis, and backpacks were).
Finally, we have to wonder what point Mr. Grayson was trying to make when he wrote:
The nonprofit Outdoor Alliance, a Washington, D.C., umbrella group for human-powered-advocacy organizations like American Whitewater, climbing's Access Fund, and the International Mountain Bicycling Association (IMBA), has 100,000 members and skews toward a Gen Y demographic. By comparison, the National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA), the historical champion of the national parks, has 500,000 members with a median age in the sixties.
Is he stereotyping older folks as sedentary folks? Surely that can't be the case, can it? I know and encounter plenty of folks in their sixties and older out enjoying the parks in active recreational pursuits. Indeed, one friend in her 70s rows her own raft down the Yampa and Green rivers through Class III and IV rapids in Dinosaur National Monument, and another still climbs mountains. There are other examples, but the point is that entering one's seventh decade doesn't automatically equate with avoiding the outdoors and retiring to the couch.
The national parks were meant for testing our physical skills, yes, but that basic skill still is walking. Hiking, climbing, cross-country skiing, and paddling are part of walking. Those activities say look at the wilderness, not look at me. Extreme sports are the epitome of 'look at me. Look what I can do!" Fine, put that in an arena, not in a national park. Give it an X Games channel. If Outside Magazine wishes to be Sports Illustrated, tell us now when we may expect the swimsuit issue. But don't call that loving the national parks.
Unfortunately, the blame lies chiefly with the National Park Service and its government narcissists, who, too, have lost their sense of history. As Peggy Noonan writes in The Wall Street Journal, government has simply 'gone too far.' Government has listened to everyone except the people it should be listening to, and sadly, that also goes for our national parks.
Comments
...yet not in the park enough to check out the NPT article and its assertions about a private resort.
This mission of the NPS is to serve the people. Not the well connected and those who make money from the park or are park service employees.
This article is interesting. I revert to Kitty Benzar's comment. Jarvis and his cronies have whored the NPS out to the highest bidder and will, if unchecked, allow concession interests to further rule these lands. Kitty is a hero. And she doesn't work for the NPS or some group tied with them, just us common, taxpaying citizens.
It's time to take the public lands back and put them in the hands of the people. Jarvis has effectively disenfranchised the populace and has folks doing his dirty work that are under his employ. Restoring faith in the NPS will take a house cleaning from the top down. Too bad most are afraid to rattle the right cages. But most people serve their own wallets and those who sign their paychecks.
Rmackie, 59 National Parks in the system, and there could be 60 by the end of the year with Colorado National Monument being upgraded.
And backpacker, you might be delusional. I am in the park just about every other day on trails or out filming. I have yet to encounter 4 wheelers, and ive hiked, and backpacked about a thousand miles since I arrived here in numerous areas of the park. I have seen my share of things, don't get me wrong, but ATV use isn't one of them. Amazing how the only one to encounter them is YOU, who has an agenda, and is in bed with the tea party clan that wishes to privatize the parks.
Here is the mission of the NPS, obviously you never spent much time trying to interpret it:
The mission of the U.S. National Park Service (NPS) is to conserve the scenery, the natural and historic objects, and the wildlife in United States' national parks, and to provide for the public's enjoyment of these features in a manner that will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.
"unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations" doesn't include clear cutting a hundred trees along the hurricane gap because you are a private resort and wish to have your Clients enjoy some horseback riding/atv and hiking on your own private trails in the Smokies. For someone who is "in the park" as much as you claim to be, you still haven't found the time to go over to see those private trails, have you Gary? That is because it would be embarrasing for you to have to admit the obvious. I don't support privitization of the NPS. Just responsible management and a house cleaning from the top down. These statements may curry you a lot of favor with your bosses at the Great Smoky Mtns Association but your convenient flip flopping on issues here is laughable.
Yes, i'm in the park A LOT. I think my work over the years can prove that. As ive already stated, but I realize you have the reading comprehension of a 4th grader, the hurricane mountain trail was built by the CCC. Anyone can hike manways, and no ATVs are allowed on trails in the park. Cutting down STANDING trees is also illegal in the park. Your own blogs from your own words expose that your trumped up charges are mere lies.
And i'm not speaking for the Association, but simply as myself here. I've spent quite a few years being an observer in the Smokies studying numerous subjects in the park. I think I might have more of an insight than someone that just uses the park occasionally on their own ego trips. And yes, you do support privitization. I have seen comments from you that state it, especially during the shutdown when the tea party hijacked our government. You support anarchy, and complete destruction of the NPS, it's evident your only agenda is loathing all things that go into the parks. You have no real ideas, obviously. You hate it all, and want to see all the pesky rules eliminated so you can do what you want and have your own private smokies free from anything, including rules. You couldn't walk a day in anyone's shoes that works at the NPS. That I do know. You don't have the education, the intelligence, or the rationale. So what do you want, Johnny? You can use words like "fire em' all from the top down" as if the big broad brush propaganda technique can be applied to all diverse fields and jobs. Only morons are going to fall for that sort of propaganda.
Like i've stated your owls eyes are pretty much shut. A watcher you are not.
Because their constitutents don't see it as a major priority. The parks are not relevent to many of them. You can argue that the parks need to be protected and access restricted but then don't complain when those that have been excluded don't want to pay for them.
Ok, folks, it's been a nice, lively discussion. But some folks are getting too lively. Let's stick to the topic at hand and refrain from butting heads too personally, please.
Quite the opposite Gary, its your ilk that wants to restrict access - to take public lands and shut them to public activities.
And once again, Gary, there is no question there are alternatives. That is the whole point of the Outside article. Some people are not going to the Parks because they can't do certain activities that they would like to do. They go somewhere else. It has nothing to do with ego, its called choice. And the more people that choose the alternatives over the Parks, the less people there will be who find the Parks relevent and want to fund them. Perhaps that is a sacrifice worth making. If so, the scope of the NPS will necessarily have to change and shrink dramatically.
Gosh, ec, do you actually believe that our Congresscritters care one whit for what their constituents think or want?
In Utah something like 80% of our citizens support better funding for parks -- but 100% of our Congresscreeps vote against it.
If our lawmakers on the hill in Washington care so much for their constituents, why do only about 10% of those constituents approve of what the inhabitants of the Capitol asylum are doing?