I can agree that we're now in an era of "using" and "abusing" our parks and lands, both public and private, to death; but, I'm not so sure we're truly "loving" them to death.  In so many cases, it's more of an intoxicated, thrill seeking, one night stand than any act of real love.

In many parks, something close to the current number of visitors, if not more, could be accommodated simply by curtailing some of the more impactful activities.  Yes, there are plenty of degenerates who are convinced they're making a justified political, religious, or personal empowerment statement by leaving their mark and deliberately defacing public property.  Only seriously punitive law enforcement processes will address that sort of perversion.

But, in most places and just at the most trivial level, if visitors stayed on designated roads and trails, made any attempt at all to learn and apply Leave No Trace principles, kept their clothing properly attached, and were careful to pick up their trash and dispose of it properly, it would greatly reduce cumulative impacts.  In some areas, the worst damage is from off trail and offroad travel; discarded or lost caps, scarves, diapers, flip flops, and, yes, even underwear; and just flat dumped trash, including, but not limited to, empty bottles and containers, wrappers, chewed gum, and cigarette butts.  Leaving the dogs and cats at home or at a kennel would also help with both "litter" and the potential spread of disease, especially to the wildlife.

In the past, I've tried to explain that basic changes to the ways visitors travel to and around, stay at, and use the parks would greatly reduce both visitor impacts and infrastructure footprints at some of our most "loved" parks, only to be soundly rebuffed for my efforts.  For example, a number of serious planning studies have concluded that four story lodges are the most efficient way to house visitors.  Fewer stories increase the infrastructure footprint and more stories increase the demands on the internal building sysems, including the access and egress systems.  For example, folks feeding and housing themselves overnight in the park in roughly ten by forty foot private RVs can require four to eight times the footprint of housing them in a four story lodge, along with far more energy and water as well.  Campground use is almost, although not quite, as impactful.  Much of the additional impacts of RVs and campgrounds is associated with the footprint required for parking.

Looking at those vehicular impacts, parking is a major footprint gobbler; but, just plain gridlock and congestion on the roads is a major problem in many parks and, although EVs might reduce exhaust pollution, they won't help with gridlock and congestion.  At some parks, a better solution might be gateway parking structures, combined with large shuttle buses from there to and back from four story lodges and smaller more frequent internal shuttles for getting to and from attractions, viewpoints, and trailheads.  Yes, some folks will be shattered if they can't drive their rolling status symbols into the parks and the very thought of them getting onto a shuttle bus with other people is just so, well, Disney World; but, there's even a solution for that.  Folks like that could be allowed to bid for a limited number of personal vehicle slots at each park with bids starting at perhaps $1,000 a year, annually adjusted upward to account for inflation of course.  That would go a long way toward reducing gridlock and congestion and boost the park's budget at the same time.  As for me, I take deserving gaggles of did-their-homework-and-got-good-grades young ones to Disney World whenever I can and staying in the four story lodges, eating in the cafeterias and restaurants, and taking the shuttle buses works just fine.  I have nice vehicles to play in at home and I'm not too pretentious to be flexible for the amount of time I spend off on a trip.  Just sayin'.

Hats off to Ploughjogger!  I couldn't agree more with his thoughts.  The only way to stop the damage to our national parks is limit access. Limit access because of the damage people do who "love" the parks.  I think it's time to ignore the politically right concerns and focus on what is needed for the land and the wildlife.  After all, it won't discourage  visitors who truly care about our national parks. 

Thanks, SallyG, the way I look at it, doing the best thing for the parks really wouldn't be more than a slight inconvenience for most true park lovers.  If you're a true park lover, you really do not need to be there to show off in your vehicle, to race around the park in your vehicle, or to watch televised sports and drink in the comfort of your RV.  Those are all activities that can be done in myriad other places.

And, I learned long ago that the actual process of car camping can end up eating the bulk of the time you spend in what is supposed to be the special place you go to camp.  Unless you're backpacking into a remote site, the very act of car camping ends up dominating the experience.  It soon becomes more about hauling in the camping equipment, setting up camp in an often congested campground, trying to arrange and maintain sleeping conditions in which you can actually sleep, securing and maintaining your food, cooking in camp, cleaning up after cooking in camp, securing your camp during the leftover time in which you actually get to go out and visit the park, dismantling and repacking your camp when you leave, and cleaning the campsite afterward.  All of these activities consume your valuable time in the park and they often all add up to you not really spending as much time as you want or envisioned actually visiting the park itself.

Ultimately, all of these activities, the driving/racing around the park in the overloaded status symbol private vehicles, the exhibitionistic display of RVs, and even the righteous nimrod camping syndrome are often more about personal ego, narcissism, and self-image than about the parks.  Taking a larger shuttle bus to a room at a lodge, getting an early breakfast in a lodge cafeteria and stuffing granola bars and water into a backpack, then taking a smaller shuttle van to your trailhead for the day would better serve over ninety percent of true park lovers and do so at a small fraction of the impact to the park.  For that minority of visitors who are actually prepared for and desire a deeper experience, then a multi-day backpacking experience is still available, again by taking one of those same smaller shuttle vans to your trailhead.

How do I know?  Because I do it.  And, I sure don't worry about fancy cuisine on the trail.  Sure, a week's worth of oatmeal bars in various flavors washed down with filtered or iodined water is not a memorable culinary experience, at least not for any of the right reasons; but, many true park lovers have learned that it can be more than worth it, both for the experience and the parks. 

I second those thoughts.  It's my belief we should all take park transportation when available.  When you see dozens of vehicles parked on the edge of the road or on the shoulder and beyond, it is obvious something needs to be done.  I am not a camper by any means so don't have to prepare for this kind of trip.  As a car owner I am sick and tired of not being able to look at the scenery for the HUGE vehicles and RVs parked everywhere.  My hope for the next few years is that things will improve,  I think the Government and the National Parks need to realize it is their job to protect the parks and not bow down to demands of the "my right" people.