Ken Norton wrote:
>
> George's analysis of the Yosemite situation is dead on. We all may not agree
> on various political and personal choice issues, but I feel that George spoke
> more truth on this issue than we want to think about.
> Granted, the current mode of operation isn't working very well, but the
> suggested options, which lean heavily towards "public transportation" and
> "Disneyland type of staged areas" should scare all of us into action.
> Yosemite and Yellowstone are two National Parks that are really experiencing
> overpopulation problems. However, over 900f the tourists never get out of
> the main attractions. It doesn't take too many footsteps to get away from
> others and spend some time in solitude with your Zuikos.
Many of the visitors to our NPs are from other countries. I've always
had a sense of pride as I watched them appreciate what we often take for
granted. Unfortunately, there are many competing interest groups for
these open areas. Some would like to have more trails for hiking,
others would like to fly around on off road bikes, etc. What I might
like would be dangerous for someone else or vise versa. It bothers me
most when I see logging companies or ranchers using public lands at very
little cost, yet I appreciate how these same interests have helped the
economy or kept my food prices down. It's not a black or white issue,
unfortunately.
> For those of you who think that limiting our freedom in certain national
> parks is ok, how do you feel about taking bus tours? There are advantages,
> but I'd prefer to be able to be at a nice photogenic spot for however long
> and when I'd like to be there--not for 20 minutes during midday flat light.
>
I'd prefer to take public transportation to a central drop off spot and
then roam on my own until it is time to leave. Mackinaw Is. may get
100,000 visitors a summer and then closes (ices up) for the winter
allowing the place to recuperate. Our national parks have millions of
visitors which takes a toll on the environment no matter what we do. At
the same time, the more we try to return these areas to "natural" with
the wild animals like bears, moose, elk, bison etc. the more we have to
restrict human contact.
> Ok, another flip-flop: I've visited Mackinaw Island in Michigan many dozens
> of times. You can't drive there and you must pay through the schnozz (nose)
> to get there and once there you can't drive any motorized
> vehicles. Is it a problem? No. They have sufficient number of ferry boats
> servicing the islands and you can get back to the mainland well after dark
> (great for sunset shots on the island). The main difference is that Mackinaw
> Island has always been this way and designed for personal transportation
> using bicycles, horses, or foot.
>
Actually, many years ago it had some automobiles. The decision to
remove them came before large amounts of people noticed. The
transportation to and on the island is also privately owned and
operated, but licensed by the state.
> I wish people (NPS, Sierra Club, us) would recognize that there are
> differences between the National Forests, Wilderness Areas and the National
> Parks. Each has a purpose.
>
> Ken (living too far from any NP) Norton
>
> < This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
> < For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
> < Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|