clint f. Loc: Priest Lake Idaho, Spokane Wa

The “let them eat cake” moment of the day.

clint f. Loc: Priest Lake Idaho, Spokane Wa

As you may recall the former president donated his salary each year. One year it was to the NPS.

RodeoMan Loc: St Joseph, Missouri

My response was not to you, but rather to Curmudgeon, who was the original poster. If I responded directly to you, I would have used "Quote Reply". But all that aside, I think this is an important issue and I am assuming that Curmudgeon will be reading this reply as well. I stand by my statements of making all public venues more welcoming to minorities and appealing to the millennial and following generations because they will be the future stewards of our heritage. The problems facing our parks are myriad, but I believe there are two that stand at the forfront and those are too many users and not enough funds. It is a real conundrum; how we do ask people to love the parks but to show this love by spending their money on the parks without personally availing themselves of what they are they are paying for. And should we only make the parks available for the well-heeled and deny them to the less well situated. Admission to the more popular parks by lottery could be part of the solution. There are those folks who only want to check off having visited the park. That's fine. For a fee they get to ride the bus with stops at various places to be returned to their vehicles after the tour. If they plan to continue on from the park and do not intend to return the starting place, then they can pay a fee for permission to drive through the park. We all have a right to visit the parks, but do we have the right to repeat visits. Maybe after reaching the age of twenty one, when you visit Yellowstone, Grand Canyon, Acadia, Great Smokies or another over-loved park, your social security number will be recorded so that your next visit will be more costly for you. Discounts could be given to encourage people to travel to the lesser visited parks keeping a carrying capacity in mind. If people performed certain conservation beneficial activities perhaps they could earn credits toward future park visits. It is a common practice now for various non profit organizations to ask people to leave all or part of their estates to the charity. The parks could and should be doing even more of this.
The answers to these problems are not easy ones. Some will decry the increased governmental involvement. I think it is clear that the unimpeded free market approach will not work. That basically is what got the parks into the mess they are in. So what can we do to best serve the needs of the parks while being fair and equitable to all of us. I have shared some of my ideas. Others are welcome to do the same.

Reuss Griffiths Loc: Ravenna, Ohio

Rodeoman, I like your ideas and the thought you put into them. I believe that a large majority of our population will agree that primary goal is to preserve the resources for future generations but also want access so that the present generation can enjoy the same resource to the fullest. And there lies the issue of getting a plan where this can happen.

You've stated two issue. Too many people and not enough funding. Perhaps some of the funding issues could be solved by allowing parts of the resource to be developed commercially or industrially, e.g. mining, drilling, ranching, etc. One could invoke the 10th amendment here which says that if it's not specifically called out or banned in the Constitution, it is reserved to the states or the people. What I'm suggesting is that perhaps accommodations could be reached with the involvement of local people so that some development could be permitted to provide those funds that would allow greater use by the people. Again with the goal of preserving the resource for the future. An example I would cite, and admittedly I have no personal knowledge of, is Grand Staircase-Escalente national monument in southern Utah. It is twice the size of the 5 national parks surrounding it (the big five). Surely somewhere in that 1.9 million acres are parcels of land that could provide those revenues without jeopardizing the resource. Also a question of why the federal government in Washington controls the "public lands" in the western states.

Good solutions are only obtainable if all interested parties can find a compromise to the benefit of all. This includes those interested in recreation, commercial interests, ranchers, environmentalists and tribal groups who have spiritual concerns as well. Sadly some of these groups have adopted intractable positions.

DaveO Loc: Northeast CT

What has that to do with trying to cut NPS budgets?? It shows that some have no desire to maintain our park system.

Rhetorical question…not interested in a bs political discussion in this section of the forum.

smiller999 Loc: Corpus Christi

My apologies on the miscue, but I think all three of us are arguing the peripheral issues, and I think there is a lot of overlap in what we would like to see. Your description of the bus stops is very close to what they do in Denali, which is the most recent park visit for me (in 2014). It works pretty well, although they require you to stay on the same bus from stop to stop. It is more like a guided tour. The Grand Canyon has (or at least had) shuttles from point to point, which relieves most of the traffic in the interior of the park. I think some sort of combination might work at Yellowstone, but it is a very large park, so I'm not sure what would work. I have not been to Yosemite, and probably never will. I suspect that experience would be similar to standing on a Manhatten street corner. But again, I do believe that the wildlife and environment must take precedence over cramming ever more people into a given space.

xtoothdr

There was a previous administration?????

RodeoMan Loc: St Joseph, Missouri

Over forty of the them, starting with George Washington, then John Adams and up through D. Trump being the last one.

bandaidman

To go along with the wilderness aspect of Yellowstone, in 1959 when the earthquake hit there was a guy who took people on horses into the back country. He lost all of his equipment and never did find 4 of his 10 horses. He came to Washington where we lived and my dad hired him to help with the harvest. He stayed over the winter in what once was our garage. I don't think my dad charged him anything.
Now if we were to let people into Yellowstone today even with a guide the number of buffalo gorings, bear mauling and deaths as well as people dying from getting into the "hot tubs" would increase and the Darwin awards would be filled with a specific category of Park removal. Even today those things are a frequent occurrence.

Curmudgeon Loc: SE Arizona

If tourists enter the Grizz's domain we have to accept that Grizz will harvest an occasional tourist. If that bothers you don't go

bandaidman

It doesn't bother me at all as I said they would have to make a new category in the Darwin awards.
The last couple of times we have gone I've watched people who must think the animals are "tame" walk up to touching distance of Buffalo multiple times, and a mother bear and her cubs, and I guess thinking that signs don't mean them get to close to geysers. Today people don't believe rules and laws are meant for them. There is more trash in the parks today than there used to be. I remember in the 50's and 60's watching them feed the bears, and then seeing the problems that created. I have only one complaint about Yellowstone and that involves the thinking that wolves wouldn't migrate outside of the park and wouldn't cause problems to ranchers and wildlife outside of the park. All you see and hear is what the biologists who think wolves are wonderful. You don't hear the Fish and game people who see the elk calves and deer fawns half eaten and the herds in northern Idaho all the way to Utah being affected by the wolves "migrating".

DaveO Loc: Northeast CT

The 1959 earthquake caused no deaths in Yellowstone Park, nor was it centered in the park. A little reading would also clarify the numbers and reasons for death and injury.

DaveO Loc: Northeast CT

Nobody ever thought the wolves would stay within the confines of the park and they are hunted in some areas adjoining the park. The wolves were introduced back into the park in 1995 after man destroyed the population and upset the balance of nature.

gmontjr2350 Loc: Southern NJ

The problems with our NPS, and other Federal agencies for that matter, stem not so much from bureaucrats as from people inside and outside of government who have a decidedly restrictive view of governments role in running this Country.
There are many who believe that government should be limited to National Defense and Economic Opportunities. Anything more is wasteful, unjust (think taxes or takings), and interference with individual liberty.
There is a high-profile, behind-the-scenes operative in D.C. who has said that he would like to shrink the size of the Federal Government to the point where he could "drown it in a bathtub".
This viewpoint runs deeply in our culture. John Adams said that the right to vote belongs solely to those who are cultured and educated enough to understand the affairs of State.


George

gmontjr2350 Loc: Southern NJ

There's a book by Tim Cahill that deals with the wolf question very nicely - https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/22722/lost-in-my-own-backyard-by-tim-cahill/

George