Crowds were common atop Cadillac Mountain in Acadia National Park before the park instituted a reservation system for managing visitors/NPS file
While a Congressional subcommittee this week discussed crowds in the National Park System, few solutions seemed to gain much traction, and some of the solutions that seem obvious to the National Parks Traveler's audience didn't even gain mention.
For example, across the Traveler's Facebook and Instagram channels readers said there need to be more national parks, that international travelers should pay more to gain entrance to a park, that bus tours should be limited, and even that gateway communities should limit accommodations for travelers.
"Popular parks such as Yellowstone, Zion, Yosemite, etc., should STOP posting beautiful scenic pics!" wrote Denise Seith on Facebook. "Instead, lesser known parks with equally scenic views, wildlife, etc. should be advertising their features and encouraging visitors."
Ron Santi voiced support for higher entrance fees for foreign visitors.
"I have no problem with them visiting our treasures," he wrote, "but maybe increasing the fees could curtail some of these travelers."
While Steve Mooney said the easy solution was to cap day traffic in national parks, Jonathan Thompson said that was just a bandaid approach.
"Populations are going to continue to grow, meaning longer waits for people to gain access to their supposed birthright," wrote Thompson. "In my opinion, we need to redesign the parks. If they weren’t so car-centric, then we could fit a much greater number of people."
Zachary Furlow, however, didn't think there should be any limits on visitation.
"No restrictions whatsoever should be put on park entry in general, with Yellowstone (and maybe some of the other ones with high entry) being the only exception," he offered. "I do like Zion/Rocky Mountain's plan of timed entry for certain, more populated sections of the park. NPS should, however, reclassify some national monuments as NP’s to give them more name recognition and reduce more some more strain from other NP’s."
Over on Instagram, "neonlumberjack" said gateway communities need to play a role in reducing crowding.
"It is locals' responsibility to gauge commercial benefit of the business and accommodations that they provide that allow for so many visitors," he wrote. "Simply put, if local infrastructure is minimal, visitation is lower."
"Heritagehikers" offered a perspective that others shared:
"No offense, but most of the 'concern' I’ve seen about Glacier is people complaining that they can’t just take a spur of the moment trip and see everything or go everywhere they want," they wrote on the Traveler's Instagram channel. "They see crowds as something in their way, not something they are just as much a part of."
Pushing against the call for more units in the National Park System was "fireman7606" on Instagram.
"No, we don't need more. This was land that was taken from people that actually owned it and the government took it from people. Now our tax dollars go to the government for them," he wrote on Instagram. "Now the Great Smoky Mountains are going to start charging to park in the park by forcing you to buy a pass after your tax dollars go towards the park. Double taxed. The federal government shouldn’t own any land. It's we the people, not we the government."
Support Essential Coverage of Essential Places
Comments
While working in the parks I would often hear the comment of "its so crowded!"... While all I could think to myself was- but are YOU considering yourself part of the crowding issue?
Most want the park to themselves while not caring if OTHER people have access.. You saw this with "timed entry" and the reservation system. It basically turned our Parks into a private entity with a private for profit booking system.
Most of the "experts" that were on that hearing the other day were calling for more use of recreation gov, and even parking attendants. One called for the parks to be run by the concessions.
I will take the crowding and the freedom that comes with it. We have K.O.A campgrounds next to most natonal parks if people want a restricted visator experience with nature.
The National Park Service established by the Act "shall promote and regulate the use of the Federal areas known as national parks, monuments, and reservations hereinafter specified by such means and measures as conform to the fundamental purpose of the said parks, monuments, and reservations, which purpose is to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wild life therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations". From Wikipedia article "National Park Service Organic Act." (My bolding). Read the wording carefully. In my opinion, the National Park Service, by not regulating the "crowding," is now, and has been for decades, in violation of the Organic Act. And note that nowhere does the Act say that we as citizens and taxpayers have a right to visit the parks, monuments, and reservations whenever we have a mind to; nor does it say anything about them being operated for the benefit of commercial interests. Indeed, to me the Act implies that the NPS can legally implement whatever restrictions it has to in order to fulfill its responsibilities under the Act. Now, Congress certainly has the power to change the Act. Perhaps it should. But to my knowledge it hasn't!
My husband and I are avid hikers and have hiked almost all of the National Parks. One thing we have noted is that the crowds are at overlooks and other scenic areas within sight of the parking lots. We get to the trailhead at 7 AM to empty parking lots and then find very few people on the backcountry trails. If you want to avoid crowds in the parks, try the backcountry. We are in our 60's so this doesn't apply just to younger people!
Greg - I don't think anyone is saying the NPS doesn't have the power to regulate the Parks. Heck of all the powers the government excercises, it is one of the few actually granted by the Constitution. The issue here is the very statement you quoted which has multiple purposes that in many cases are in conflict.
Greg.. The reality of running a major national park is often at odds with the laws they are supposed to follow. In Yosemite for instance the rules regarding the wilderess act are MOSTLY adhered too. Mostly. But when reality gets in the way power tools like chainsaws are used to clear the trails and keep the public acccessable.
And what would be YOUR solution to the parks crowding? It seems many like the financial litmus test of recreation gov as it keeps down the crowds. But I for one dont like the fact it excludes many of the people who own that land. And yes- there is no right to visit the land. But we do have a right to no taxation without representation so they can only temporarily close access. And it has to be for a good reason held up in court.