Curmudgeon Loc: SE Arizona

Then get out of your car and walk, take a Ranger guided backpack trip

DaveO Loc: Northeast CT

What don’t you understand about forum rules?

smiller999 Loc: Corpus Christi

Wolves, for one. It's something I read a few years ago, and my memory is fuzzy, but I think grizzlies were another. The popular ones like bison and elk are obviously doing fine, but there are many others that we don't normally see that are adversely affected by human intrusion into their ecosystems.

DaveO Loc: Northeast CT

You obtained information from NPS regarding future budget expenditures relating to a disaster in progress?

The Lamar Valley road is probably my favorite, but most visitors to the park never see it. Out of the way and you essentially have to backtrack 30 miles if you run its length. Lots of great hikes on that road!

DaveO Loc: Northeast CT

Some of your information is quite dated and researching a bit or catching some of the television programs the past couple years is quite interesting. The wolves and Bison are doing extremely well and even the moose show small increases. Some of the cold weather species are seeking higher elevations as temperatures increase, Pika for example. Elk have declined, but not due to man. The grizzly population has been about maxed out for about 25 years ( About as many as can be supported.) and even Canadian Lynx are coming back. All in all, the animals are doing quite well!

Yellowstone Park has a relatively short visitor season and unfortunately crams in about 4 million visitors annually. The traffic, coupled with animal sightings and road crossings as well as sleep accommodations can take away a lot of enjoyment, so some thought should be given as to the best times to visit. At some point traffic has to be limited, but it’s much easier to kick that can down the road.

Josephschmaeling

There are a couple serious flaws with this way of thinking. Try to consider all the senior citizens who worked hard all their lives and paid taxes to support national parks that they never had the time or money to see. When they finally retire, they finally have the time, and hopefully the money to see the parks they have spent their lives supporting. They are not capable of hiking many miles to see it but they have certainly earned the right to see it. The National Park Service has always done an excellent job balancing the conflicting goals of maintaining the wildness while providing some access for the people who have spent their lives paying for it. It is a difficult balance and they make some mistakes, but that balance is necessary and fair to all of us.

alberio Loc: Casa Grande AZ

I've done my share of hiking in Yellowstone however not everyone has the physical stamina or time or courage to hike for several days to get to (Lamar Valley then hike up Slough Creek) or any other remote locations. Sounds like you want the road to end at all the existing entrances. I agree that there are too many people in our parks, but the number of international travelers should be regulated by a lottery, thereby reducing the extreme pressure on the wildlife and environment.

smiller999 Loc: Corpus Christi

I'm not surprised it is outdated, I haven't followed this very closely, and I appreciate the update. Larger mammals ar probably more able to adapt to living with people around, and the park does avoid habitat destruction (mostly). But the overcrowding and traffic, and increasing levels of stupidity on the part of visitors makes me want to side with the animals on this.

And for the other poster, I disagree that everyone is entitled to disrupt the lives of the animals just to see water spouting out of the ground. And yes, I have been there, in the early 1980s. While it would be nice if everyone could visit in their lifetime, it is simply not feasible. There should be a balance between visitability (is that a word, lol?) and conservation, that balance must fall more on the side of conservation. And BTW, the season for Denali is actually much shorter than Yellowstone, it is fairly close to the arctic circle.

Reuss Griffiths Loc: Ravenna, Ohio

It used to be we talked about conservation. Conservation begins by acknowledging that man is part of nature not a separate entity. The goal of conservations was first and foremost, protect the resource for the future. In addition, to protecting the resource, the goals was also to develop a way to use the resource to take advantage of the benefits which included recreation, harvesting in a controlled fashion some of the resource for commercial and industrial use such as mining, forest products, ranching, oil drilling all with the ultimate goal of preserving it for future generations. These decisions were typically made locally as they were the direct beneficiaries of well developed plans. These are not mutually exclusive goals.

Today we view man as separate from nature and the primary goal is to isolate man from the resource as the primary way of preserving the resource. Very low priority is given to present day recreation or commercial or industrial use. These decisions are also made remotely by bureaucrats living typically in Washington DC. They have little experience with or understanding of the resources in question. And unfortunately the protection of the resource and access by man are, in a practical sense, mutually exclusive

alberio Loc: Casa Grande AZ

👍👍👍

RodeoMan Loc: St Joseph, Missouri

Your plan for Yellowstone, and no doubt other ones, is a good one if you want to destroy the Parks and by extension other protected lands. One reason these lands are protected is that people insist that they remain secure for the future enjoyment of everyone. And people feel that way because the National Parks have been part of their lives and they value what the parks have meant for them. When access to the parks are no longer for folks to enjoy, they will lose interest in protecting that which they no longer know. When this happens we know there will those capable and willing to move in to deplete the resources, both above and below ground, in the parks. What we once had will be destroyed and lost forever.
I agree that there are changes that need to be made in terms of how the parks are accessed. More park and ride would be a good idea. I sure there are many other beneficial changes that could be implemented. The parks need to look toward the future in another way. We are moving beyond this generation toward the millennials and younger demographics. There has also been a growing movement across the whole conservation world to invite and encourage minorities and others tradtitionally excluded by exclusion, or personal choice, to avail themselves of the natural wonders of this country that is as much theirs as it is yours. Their role in protecting the natural resources of this country will become increasingly important in the future and we should do all we can to encourage their involment in what is their inheritance as well as ours.
Personally I prefer Ken Burn's vision of the parks as belonging to all of us as to yours of "Well, I go to see them the parks and for all of you who because reasons of age, infirmities and other reasons, well thats too bad" Will this cost money. You bet but I have never regretted taxes I paid to support conservation.

Curmudgeon Loc: SE Arizona

This was from current fiscal year budget operating budget. Nothing has been said about emergency allocation (s)

Curmudgeon Loc: SE Arizona

Very well stated. I would go along with what you suggest providing the number vehicles, or number of people allowed in the park is limited. Have you ever seen Yellowstone or Yosemite in July? That is not "Experiencing" nature, that's checking off another place you have seen for 15 minutes, not experiencing anything.

DaveO Loc: Northeast CT

I realize that and that’s why I wondered how allocations for next budget could be projected with remarks of cutbacks for some in order to fund YNP. What’s interesting also is the money some of the states spend on plowing out the park entrances in the spring, Wyoming in particular. Another little puzzle on a side note is how companies obtain blocks of lodging for tour sales. Any who book via phone may not even be able to get through and online isn’t much better the first couple days they go on sale. Eating facilities are quite inadequate when the bus tours begin. Visitor quantities should be controlled.

smiller999 Loc: Corpus Christi

It is not "my plan". I have no plan, merely an opinion about how restricted access needs to be. I am also not in favor of shutting out those with disabilities or age issues. But actually experiencing nature does require enough physical ability to not get killed by what you're trying to experience. Maybe not fair, but that's life. My point was that a balance needs to be struck, and that balance needs to favor protecting nature. As Curmudgeon said, Yellowstone in mid summer is not "experiencing" anything but a traffic jam. I vaguely recall that at least one park (Zion maybe?) is restricting the number of people entering the park. And I believe Grand Canyon has at least flirted with the idea. I don't know what the state of those initiatives is, but they are a step in the right direction. But I also know I don't have the answer for the problem, just that it needs to be addressed.