Recent comments

  • National Park Quiz 25: Threatened and Endangered   5 years 47 weeks ago

    Thanks, Rick. I've been thinking about going to a once-a-month schedule for the national park quizzes beginning in January. Could you live with that? BTW, I'm always open to suggestions for themes. Guest quiz submissions, too. Would you like to try your hand at creating a quiz?

  • National Park Quiz 25: Threatened and Endangered   5 years 47 weeks ago

    Good quiz, Bob. Thanks for continuing to test our knowledge of our nation's national park areas.

    Rick Smith

  • IMBA: Not Every Park Suitable For Mountain Biking, No Interests, Currently, For Trails in Wilderness Areas   5 years 47 weeks ago

    Kurt,

    You are correct about the signage in these pictures. They were used to illustrate the point that "No Access" by any means does indeed exist in our National Parks.

  • How Will the Next Administration Deal With the Environment?   5 years 47 weeks ago

    Although, a link is provided to the full story, I have to quibble with the following characterization:
    "The Bush administration also did away with the popular National Parks Pass, a $50 gem that got you into any and all of the national park units as many times as you could squeeze into a calendar year."

    It should be noted that the National Parks Pass was only introduced in 2000 - so it only had a 7 year run. Before that time, you could only purchase a Golden Eagle Pass - which was similar to today's America the Beautiful Pass. So you can still get a single pass that will get you into "any and all of the National Park Units as many times as you could squeeze into a calendar year." Its not that they "did away with" the Pass - rather they expanded the terms of the pass and raised the price.

    Historically speaking, the price of the Golden Eagle was raised to $50 in 1997 ($68.16 in today's dollars). In 2000, the price of the Golden Eagle was raised to $65 ($82.58 in today's dollars), but the new National Parks Pass was established for $50 ($63.53 in today's dollars - or about $3.50 cheaper than what you would have paid in 1997 if you were only visiting National Parks). In 2007, we basically returned to the pre-1997 situation with a single pass for all Federal lands, at the new price of $80. The $80 this year is the same as $58.67 in 1997 dollars, so we are slowly returning back to that level.

    The price increases have obviously not been exactly in parallel with inflation, but it is worth noting that today's America the Beautiful pass is a better deal than the circa-2000 Golden Eagle when the National Parks Pass was first introduced.

  • Pruning the Parks: Mar-a-Lago National Historic Site (1972-1980) Was a Gift the National Park Service Couldn’t Afford to Keep   5 years 47 weeks ago

    According to the National Park Service, Mar-a-Lago National Historic Site never had a visible staff presence from the National Park Service and was never opened to the public. Unfortunately, the endowment left by Ms. Marjorie Merriweather Post for purposes of maintaining and operating the site proved to be insufficient for that purpose - and this was a major factor in the decision to delist this Unit. So sadly, you won't ever find a Mar-a-Lago National Historic Site NPS Brochure at a garage sale somewhere....

  • Natchez Trace Parkway – Colorful Choice for a Southern Fall Trip   5 years 47 weeks ago

    I am sure it was the people but after spending several years working at large western parks, I finished my short lived NPS career at this GEM. The folks that lived on and around this park truly knew the meaning of hospitality and the park staff were true stewards to their responsibility. The "Trace" is a great park.

  • IMBA: Not Every Park Suitable For Mountain Biking, No Interests, Currently, For Trails in Wilderness Areas   5 years 47 weeks ago

    Dapster, I might be wrong, but I believe those signs are only erected during nesting of migratory birds and have nothing to do with wilderness. I've seen similar signs at Cape Cod National Seashore to protect nesting plovers.

  • IMBA: Not Every Park Suitable For Mountain Biking, No Interests, Currently, For Trails in Wilderness Areas   5 years 47 weeks ago

    Sorry for straying, but it's still in context, sorta...

    So, when you talk about 2.58 percent of the lower 48 being designated as wilderness, is that so threatening?

    Not at all, when you look at just the percentages against the entire landmass. If that 2.58% includes 90% of your favorite area, then it makes a difference.

    And really, let's be truthful, wilderness areas are not off-limits to humans. They are off-limits to motorized and mechanical vehicles and devices, but open to those on foot, cross-country skis, canoes, kayaks, snowshoes and probably some other non-mechanical means that don't come immediately to mind.

    I can't speak for the WSA situation in Utah, as I've never been there. I will take your word at face value on that.

    What I can speak about are the signs that I now see in my favorite areas. If these areas are designated WSA’s, I’m certain the text on the signage closing them off will be strikingly similar to these:

    “No Entry”. Period.

    I don’t wish this on anyone.

    I won’t digress any further. My apologies.

  • IMBA: Not Every Park Suitable For Mountain Biking, No Interests, Currently, For Trails in Wilderness Areas   5 years 47 weeks ago

    Well, we're really starting to stray off-topic, but in a substantive way that begs a separate post of its own.

    Wilderness and wilderness study areas (WSAs) are interesting units. Some see them as protecting the last vestiges of true "wild lands" in this country, others see them as tools to thwart recreation, as Dapster fears is the case at Cape Hatteras.

    In Utah there are WSAs that seem to exist only in name, as ORVs run rampant across parts of them and county officials ignore travel restrictions, some of which were imposed to protect endangered and threatened species.

    Now, if you believe Wikipedia, "(A)pproximately 100 million acres (400,000 km²) are designated as wilderness in the United States. This accounts for 4.71% of the total land of the country; however, 54% of wilderness is in Alaska, although recreation and development in Alaskan wilderness is often less restrictive, and only 2.58% of the lower continental United States is designated as wilderness."
    So, when you talk about 2.58 percent of the lower 48 being designated as wilderness, is that so threatening?

    And really, let's be truthful, wilderness areas are not off-limits to humans. They are off-limits to motorized and mechanical vehicles and devices, but open to those on foot, cross-country skis, canoes, kayaks, snowshoes and probably some other non-mechanical means that don't come immediately to mind.

    I think the key is to keep things in perspective. I don't think wilderness designation or WSAs are going to lock humanity out of its recreational pursuits. And if they save some truly spectacular places for future generations to enjoy or simply take comfort in knowing they exist, what's wrong with that?

  • IMBA: Not Every Park Suitable For Mountain Biking, No Interests, Currently, For Trails in Wilderness Areas   5 years 47 weeks ago

    Beamis,

    Thanks for coming to my aid. Your quote below said it far more eloquently than my initial attempt:

    The truth of the matter is that the NPS has been closing areas to ANY kind of access at alarming rates over the past ten years. By taking the nebulous terms "pristine" and "wilderness" and then draping it over a particular piece of territory in a national park it can then be closed off to public access.

    A move is afoot in the CHNSRA to assign a "Wilderness Study Area" designation to some of the most beautiful and family oriented beaches on the island. These same stretches of beach have historically dismal bird nesting statistics, and the statistics are no better under the imposed Consent Decree of April 2008 and the removal of ORV’s and people for much of the summer. Such a designation will close these beaches to all humans, probably forever. These designated areas will almost certainly not decrease in size over time, and reasons for expanding them will crop up at every turn.

    So dapster isn't very far off the mark about the increasing hostility to ALL forms of usage by a militant and zealous element in public land management agencies that tend to see humanity as a scourge to be eradicated from the warm and fuzzy bosom of their sacred patch of dear Mother Earth.

    This statement mirrors my greatest fear about public land access. Once the banning gets started, it tends to gain momentum. As I have stated before, hiking could be eradicated for the exact same reasons people site for banning mountain bikes. If your chosen mode of access becomes unpopular with the wrong group, look out. A lawsuit to end it is generally the next step.

    I pray that you folks never have to hear the words “Buffer Zones” and “Wilderness Study Areas” in context to your chosen mode of access, or your favorite access sights. However, I fear we shall all hear these words and phrases ad nauseum in the years to come. These designations simply mean that humans are not welcome, for any reason, under any mode of transport.

  • IMBA: Not Every Park Suitable For Mountain Biking, No Interests, Currently, For Trails in Wilderness Areas   5 years 47 weeks ago

    Thanks for the links. Definitely some interesting reading. As to some of your other questions/points:

    >>...why does NPT challenge only certain "recreation activities"? Why not challenge driving and lodges since those high-impact activities are provided elsewhere?<<

    Well, for starters, it'd be pretty hard -- fiscally, politically, and socially -- to tear out the lodges and roads. I think one needs to look at realistic possibilities, and to lobby for the removal of these facilities would be tilting at windmills. That said, at the Traveler we have had internal discussions about how one would design the perfect national park and there was mention of locating all the lodging facilities outside the boundaries and using public transportation to minimize that footprint. We're still evolving this idea and hope to have something relatively soon.

    >>I don't think allowing mountain bikes on old fire roads in the backcountry is inappropriate; I don't think anyone's asking for new trails to be cut.<<

    We agree on that point, of opening old dirt roads, administrative roads, to mountain bikes. And considering Traveler's stance on that, I think it's unfair -- or, to use a word that seems to have caught on with some on these pages, "disingenuous" -- to say the Traveler is entirely "challenging" mountain bike use in the parks.

    As for new trails being cut, well, that's what's transpiring at Big Bend.

  • IMBA: Not Every Park Suitable For Mountain Biking, No Interests, Currently, For Trails in Wilderness Areas   5 years 47 weeks ago

    One study that found that "biking and hiking generally had similar effects on vegetation and soil." It also cites a 1994 study where the authors found that "horses made more sediment available to erosion than mountain bikes, hikers or motorcycles, which did not differ significantly from each other or from the control."

    Another study found that opinions of bikers by hikers "are found to be more positive among those walkers who had actual encounters with bikes. By contrast, more negative opinions were found among those who had no such encounters."


    Yet another study
    demonstrates "the findings from this study reinforce results from previous research that certain impacts to mountain bike trails, especially width, are comparable or less than hiking or multiple-use trails, and significantly less than impacts to equestrian or off-highway vehicle trails."

    The IMBA published summary of studies on mountain bike effects.

    Kurt asked, "But why is it necessary that all recreational activities be permitted in national parks? Put another way, must the national parks be open to any and all activities simply because there's a support group that wants access?" Well, Beamis gave the short answer. But additionally, why does NPT challenge only certain "recreation activities"? Why not challenge driving and lodges since those high-impact activities are provided elsewhere?

    I don't think allowing mountain bikes on old fire roads in the backcountry is inappropriate; I don't think anyone's asking for new trails to be cut.

    "Let the people walk. Or ride horses, bicycles, mules, wild pigs -- anything -- but keep the automobiles and the motorcycles and all their motorized relatives out."

  • IMBA: Not Every Park Suitable For Mountain Biking, No Interests, Currently, For Trails in Wilderness Areas   5 years 47 weeks ago

    Perhaps you could point out where those studies can be found, Zebulon.

  • IMBA: Not Every Park Suitable For Mountain Biking, No Interests, Currently, For Trails in Wilderness Areas   5 years 47 weeks ago

    Bikes don't cause more damage than hikers. It's been scientifically proven. On the other hand, horses do. Well designed trails last for a long time, especially, if they're closed to all use for a reasonable period of time after a rain.

  • IMBA: Not Every Park Suitable For Mountain Biking, No Interests, Currently, For Trails in Wilderness Areas   5 years 47 weeks ago

    Both bikes and horses definitely can be more damaging per user to trail tread and adjacent vegetation than hikers. Bike damage is usually incision on steeper grades. Strings of pack animals can also do this in weak soils, but their specialty is churning the flatter riparian sections to mud holes. At least bikes don't defecate, so they spread fewer weed seeds, especially with conscientious tire washing.

    Parks that allow extensive stock use end up subsidizing that very small user group with higher trail standards and more expensive bridges. Decades ago, Mount Rainier concession pack strings avoiding lingering snow banks caused most of the trail/meadow damage now blamed on hikers and skiers at Paradise. I'm not arguing for bike use, just agreeing with Beamis that the NPS has been inconsistent at best on access for various recreation types.

    Beamis correctly points out the broader context and political meddling in many access issues. See http://www.powdermag.com/onlineexclusives/crystal_110504/ for another example of the questionable NPS manipulation of "pristine" & "Wilderness" along the NE boundary of MRNP. Some in the skiing community saw this as an attempt to shakedown the USFS or its ski concessionaire to obtain a NPS concession license,

    Sometimes excluding the public or restricting an activity is just the easiest and most convenient arrow in management's quiver. Accident statistics don't rise, and there’s less chance of a hard-working Ranger having some pesky visitor emergency make him late for dinner.

  • IMBA: Not Every Park Suitable For Mountain Biking, No Interests, Currently, For Trails in Wilderness Areas   5 years 47 weeks ago

    Key words: fire truck.

    I can understand your point of view if it was a truck randomly driving around...but it's a fire truck. I'll take whatever damage fire trucks cause instead of a giant fire.

  • IMBA: Not Every Park Suitable For Mountain Biking, No Interests, Currently, For Trails in Wilderness Areas   5 years 47 weeks ago

    Richard, the box you refer to came from a page on IMBA's web site regarding frequently asked questions and wilderness areas.

  • IMBA: Not Every Park Suitable For Mountain Biking, No Interests, Currently, For Trails in Wilderness Areas   5 years 47 weeks ago

    Who wrote that grayed box that says bikes are low impact and are compatible with wild places and the intent of the Wilderness Act? Does the Park Service really believe that mtn bikes are appropriate in wilderness as long as it isn't too rugged or steep? Since when?

  • IMBA: Not Every Park Suitable For Mountain Biking, No Interests, Currently, For Trails in Wilderness Areas   5 years 47 weeks ago

    At Point Reyes Nat Seashore you can bike to a point on the Bear Valley trail, as at that point, 1/4 mile from the ocean, it becomes wilderness. I have seen a fire truck go beyond that point, on that trail that my bike cannot, and they cut trees alongside the trail so the fire truck could continue. There is no way things like that should happen. I bet that truck had the impact of thousands of bikes. One problem I have is I cannot hike very far, but I can ride much farther because of knee damage. I am not handicapped in the legal sense of the word, but I wish I could go to places I cannot hike to with my bike.

  • IMBA: Not Every Park Suitable For Mountain Biking, No Interests, Currently, For Trails in Wilderness Areas   5 years 47 weeks ago

    "And, as another pointed out, mountain bike enthusiasts are not being banned from backcountry trails in the parks. At the current time they just can't ride their bikes on them"

    This is a completely disingenuous argument, and you know it. It's been answered before, so we won't go into it again. It only shows that the opposition to cycling is visceral and not based on sound rational arguments.

  • IMBA: Not Every Park Suitable For Mountain Biking, No Interests, Currently, For Trails in Wilderness Areas   5 years 47 weeks ago

    The truth of the matter is that the NPS has been closing areas to ANY kind of access at alarming rates over the past ten years. By taking the nebulous terms "pristine" and "wilderness" and then draping it over a particular piece of territory in a national park it can then be closed off to public access. (The Goose Creek drainage in Zion National Park being an excellent example.) So dapster isn't very far off the mark about the increasing hostility to ALL forms of usage by a militant and zealous element in public land management agencies that tend to see humanity as a scourge to be eradicated from the warm and fuzzy bosom of their sacred patch of dear Mother Earth.

    As for the NPS they have a very sketchy record in terms of making decisions about appropriate uses based on their mission. Horses can be very destructive to certain terrains, again go to Zion and hike the Sand Bench Trail for a first hand look at the destruction, but because horseback riding is a "traditional" use it is allowed to continue (with absolutely no pressure from concessionaires and horse use associations). The snowmobile fiasco in Yellowstone need only be mentioned in passing as another example of a compromised "mission" and you begin to see that there is no real consistency in park policy or overall philosophy. It's just plain old politics as usual with a thinly veiled veneer of environmental sanctimony to cover the smell that no amount of frantic fanning will blow away.

    As long as the parks are part and parcel of the Washington based spoils system of political pressure, lobbying and deal making I say to the bikers go ahead and form your own pressure group and get in there and try to get everything you can. That's how it's done and as far as I can tell it ain't about to change anytime soon.

    I guarantee you this my biking friends: all those opposed to bike trails at this current time will gladly use any and all that you manage to get opened or "cut" in the future.

  • IMBA: Not Every Park Suitable For Mountain Biking, No Interests, Currently, For Trails in Wilderness Areas   5 years 47 weeks ago

    Kurt,

    Broad brush cleaned and put away. My comments were aimed at some of the other posters, and certainly not at the author. Sorry if I was unclear on that. No offense intended.

    My point is parallel to this one brought up by Zebulon:

    The truth is that there is no rational reason to keep bikers out other than made up arguments that serve the wish of a few to keep public trails to themselves. In that regard, it seems that the NPCA is a bunch of rabid bike haters like the Sierra Club.

    And counter to comments like this:

    Mountain bikes in national parks are totally inappropriate, other than on carriage roads and other wide and heavily used areas.

    It was certainly implied by other posters, on this and similar threads, that hiking is the only access they want to see in the National Parks. I think that is clearly evident. I just don't see much difference from an environmental impact standpoint between the two, and dislike seeing mountain bikes and their riders demonized.

    I also am not advocating that we start opening motocross trails and such just because there are advocacy groups for them either. I just personally think that mountain bikes are a totally acceptable mode of transportation within our National Parks, and are as environmentally benign as hiking. I agree with you that the management issue would not be easy, but should we deny this group a chance at coexistence?

    I really hope that biking can and will be accommodated within the park system, within reason and limits, and that an agreement can be reached that will make most people on both sides of the issue happy.

  • The Dune Climb at Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore Invites You to Climb, Run, Jump, Slide, Roll, Whoop, and Holler   5 years 47 weeks ago

    I agree that Sleeping Bear is a wonderful place for hiking, Anon, especially on a hot summer day when cool breezes are blowing in off Lake Michigan. Gotta say a couple of things about that, though. Walking in loose sand can be a penance, especially in steeper areas. And the wind at the top of the dune scarp ("cliff") is sometimes strong enough to whip sand into your eyes. A very small price to pay for the gorgeous view.

  • IMBA: Not Every Park Suitable For Mountain Biking, No Interests, Currently, For Trails in Wilderness Areas   5 years 47 weeks ago

    Whoa, that's an awfully big brush you're swinging, Dapster.

    I don't recall anyone saying that hiking is the only acceptable form of access to public lands. Indeed, as I've pointed out numerous times there are thousands and thousands of acres on national forests and across the BLM empire where mountain bikes are more than welcome. And, there also are more than 40 parks where there are mountain bike trails to varying degrees.

    Beyond that, I and others have pointed out that we like both activities.

    But why is it necessary that all recreational activities be permitted in national parks? Put another way, must the national parks be open to any and all activities simply because there's a support group that wants access?

    The Forest Service and BLM are multiple-use agencies. It's written in their missions that they are to manage their landscapes for different activities, whether they involve logging, mining, or recreation. The national parks are to be managed to preserve/conserve the landscape unimpaired for future generations, and for public enjoyment, but not necessarily for multiple use.

    And, as another pointed out, mountain bike enthusiasts are not being banned from backcountry trails in the parks. At the current time they just can't ride their bikes on them.

  • Pruning the Parks: Mar-a-Lago National Historic Site (1972-1980) Was a Gift the National Park Service Couldn’t Afford to Keep   5 years 47 weeks ago

    Well, Anne, you've asked some good questions, but I'm afraid I can't answer any of them to your satisfaction without doing a lot more research. I'm willing to delve more deeply into the Mar-a-Lago story (right after I get back from Alaska, that is), but perhaps there's somebody out there in Travelerland who already has the inside scoop. Can anybody out there answer Anne's questions?

    Chris, I strongly agree that National Register listing and National Historic Landmark designation are a good thing in this case. Though it turned out that Mar-a-Lago can't be a national park, it's a one-of-a-kind historic resource and a significant part of America's story.