Is Camping Only for the Rich?

An on going topic:

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/21/opinion/camping-parks-access.html

What's your solution?

Tradiban wrote:

An on going topic:

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/21/opinion/camping-parks-access.html

What's your solution?

Paid articles ..

Eat the rich.

More seriously, almost every issue comes down to too many people wanting access to limited resources/space. It applies in many areas but is very obvious in outdoor activities.

All the solutions are not great. You can charge more, which is exclusionary/classist. Or you can have lottery access, which precludes any possibility for spontaneity, and comes with its own issues. Charging for lottery access sucks but making it free means people can sign up with no consequence for infinite things and then not use them. 

Go to places which are harder to reach. 

Tradiban wrote:

An on going topic:

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/21/opinion/camping-parks-access.html

What's your solution?

Go camping in the designated Wilderness Areas or on public land were camping is allowed.

It should say "campgrounds" not camping because most people in the west have full access to free camping, even within an easy hour of the valley . The NY times didn't mention anything about NY state or pretty much most of the NE where you gotta shell out close to 50.00 a night to pitch a tent (if you can get a site). 

"Fifty-four years ago, the author Edward Abbey laid out his vision for a carless national park system in his classic book “Desert Solitaire.” He believed roads and motorized vehicles, and the passive tourism they enabled, poisoned the national park experience. He wanted people to hike and bike and come into direct contact with the natural world. His ideas still hold appeal to those who want the parks to remain as unspoiled by humans as possible. But his proposals for achieving that vision, which would have made parks much less accessible to disabled people, older people and children, were wrongheaded and discriminatory.

Mr. Abbey did get something right, though. “Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit, and as vital to our lives as water and good bread,” he wrote."

 Now if your going to mention Abbey and say how wrong he is then maybe you should also say we need more parking lots in paradise, thats only fair if you want the parks to be as inclusive as Disneyland. Speaking of that, shouldn't the roller coaster rides at Disneyland be more inclusive too?

M M wrote:

It should say "campgrounds" not camping because most people in the west have full access to free camping, even within an easy hour of the valley . The NY times didn't mention anything about NY state or pretty much most of the NE where you gotta shell out close to 50.00 a night to pitch a tent (if you can get a site). 

 

"Fifty-four years ago, the author Edward Abbey laid out his vision for a carless national park system in his classic book “Desert Solitaire.” He believed roads and motorized vehicles, and the passive tourism they enabled, poisoned the national park experience. He wanted people to hike and bike and come into direct contact with the natural world. His ideas still hold appeal to those who want the parks to remain as unspoiled by humans as possible. But his proposals for achieving that vision, which would have made parks much less accessible to disabled people, older people and children, were wrongheaded and discriminatory.

Mr. Abbey did get something right, though. “Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit, and as vital to our lives as water and good bread,” he wrote."

 Now if your going to mention Abbey and say how wrong he is then maybe you should also say we need more parking lots in paradise, thats only fair if you want the parks to be as inclusive as Disneyland. Speaking of that, shouldn't the roller coaster rides at Disneyland be more inclusive too?

I'm a fan of the model where there is public transportation in the park, obviating the need for personal vehicles, as is done in Zion.  How American of the author to think inclusivity requires personal automobiles. If anything, limiting access to the parks for those with cars is discriminatory against the poor.  Now if only we had a public transit system that would actually get people to the parks so they didn't need to drive there too...

Today's youth will rediscover the tragedy of the commons all too often in the course of their connected, inclusive and shared lives. 

The faster you share it, the faster it gets consumed.

Good luck!

Tradiban wrote:

An on going topic:

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/21/opinion/camping-parks-access.html

What's your solution?

Do you identify as a NYTimes subscriber?

Tradiban wrote:

An on going topic:

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/21/opinion/camping-parks-access.html

What's your solution?

Is Paid articles only for the Rich?

Gumby King wrote:

Is Paid articles only for the Rich?

Depends on your priorities.

My dudes, hit the escape button while the page loads. It's not a hard paywall. 

Or don't, it's an opinion fluff piece. I'd guess everyone posting here has at least as much experience with BS camping regulations as the author does. 

M M wrote:

It should say "campgrounds" not camping because most people in the west have full access to free camping, even within an easy hour of the valley . The NY times didn't mention anything about NY state or pretty much most of the NE where you gotta shell out close to 50.00 a night to pitch a tent (if you can get a site). 

 

"Fifty-four years ago, the author Edward Abbey laid out his vision for a carless national park system in his classic book “Desert Solitaire.” He believed roads and motorized vehicles, and the passive tourism they enabled, poisoned the national park experience. He wanted people to hike and bike and come into direct contact with the natural world. His ideas still hold appeal to those who want the parks to remain as unspoiled by humans as possible. But his proposals for achieving that vision, which would have made parks much less accessible to disabled people, older people and children, were wrongheaded and discriminatory.

Mr. Abbey did get something right, though. “Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit, and as vital to our lives as water and good bread,” he wrote."

 Now if your going to mention Abbey and say how wrong he is then maybe you should also say we need more parking lots in paradise, thats only fair if you want the parks to be as inclusive as Disneyland. Speaking of that, shouldn't the roller coaster rides at Disneyland be more inclusive too?

I'd argue that national parks are supposed to be the 'Disneyland' of the outdoor world, where everything is extremely accessible and its easy for a family to go with everyone, young, old, whatever. There are lots of gorgeous places out there that are not in national parks, they're just less accessible so less people go there. I do both national park camping and dispersed camping. When I go with family or friends who are less experienced or have different expectations, we go to the parks or places with more facilities. The option for something more wild is always out there, but that's not the niche that national parks fill. 

Second, I really disagree that removing cars would make the parks less accessible (assuming that a transit system such as the one in Zion is implemented). Less able people (disabled, elderly, young, etc) will be going from parking lot to parking lot, and staying on paved trails for the most part anyway, which is where all the transit stops would be. If anything, I think it would allow more accessibility, as less space/time is taken up by cars and parking, and would help to preserve the wilderness experience. It obviously wouldn't work for every single person/situation, and exceptions could be made for those who need it, but the mindset of that quote assumes that private cars are the only way the less able could possibly get around, and is what's contributing to the parking issues i'm sure everyone has faced at the national parks.

anonymous coward wrote:

Eat the rich.

More seriously, almost every issue comes down to too many people wanting access to limited resources/space. It applies in many areas but is very obvious in outdoor activities.

All the solutions are not great. You can charge more, which is exclusionary/classist. Or you can have lottery access, which precludes any possibility for spontaneity, and comes with its own issues. Charging for lottery access sucks but making it free means people can sign up with no consequence for infinite things and then not use them. 

It’s shortsighted to think about outdoor rec spaces as limited to what we have now— a tremendous amount of public land is used for mining, logging, grazing, etc. Before it was flooded, Hetch Hitchy was said to be equal to Yosemite. Many of these areas are more valuable in the long run (in quantifiable terms!) for recreation than they are for industry.

One of the comments on the NYT article had a pretty good idea: right now a lot of (rich) people reserve multiple weekends in advance, and then only show up when they want to. The campground remains empty when they’re not using it. Instead, the commenter suggested to charge a deposit, something like $200, to be refunded if/when the camper shows up. 

Of course, this wouldn’t help with the overcrowding issue, but it would help improve the reservation system. 

Eli W wrote:

It’s shortsighted to think about outdoor rec spaces as limited to what we have now— a tremendous amount of public land is used for mining, logging, grazing, etc. Before it was flooded, Hetch Hitchy was said to be equal to Yosemite. Many of these areas are more valuable in the long run (in quantifiable terms!) for recreation than they are for industry.

Yet those that profit off recreation  won’t support a tax on gear etc. to maintain those lands.

hunters and fishers with their 10 % excise tax do it. Why not us?

Lumbermen and ranchers are paying as well, maybe a pittance, but more than climbers and in many cases we have access to that same land for free.

Hson P wrote:

One of the comments on the NYT article had a pretty good idea: right now a lot of (rich) people reserve multiple weekends in advance, and then only show up when they want to. The campground remains empty when they’re not using it. Instead, the commenter suggested to charge a deposit, something like $200, to be refunded if/when the camper shows up.

NYC restaurants started doing this over a decade ago - collecting a credit card at time of reservation and charging up to $100 per guest for no-shows. I encountered the same thing on last week's stay in Bar Harbor, ME.

Before it was flooded, Hetch Hitchy was said to be equal to Yosemite. Many of these areas are more valuable in the long run (in quantifiable terms!) for recreation than they are for industry.

Try selling that POV to San Francisco. 

The focus on National Parks is a bit myopic.  They're a tiny fraction of the available camping on public lands (leaving aside dispersed camping, which isn't for newbies).  Right now I can go get multiple August weekend campsites at various MN state parks, especially if you avoid the most popular ones.  While reservations systems may reduce the opportunity for "spontaneity", they also introduce the ability to plan for those who require it - I cannot show up to a FCFS campground at 7pm with 2 kids just hoping there's a site available.  The article notes that long-lead reservations can be discriminatory, which I have some sympathy for - MN state parks used open 1 year in advance; who the hell knows what you'll be doing one year from now?  Now it's 4 months, which is much more manageable - I think in general 3-4 months strikes a good balance.  

We can all agree that recreation.gov should be shot straight into the sun.  What should be a decent idea (central portal for public lands activities) is instead a private corporation tax sucking money out of the system.  $2 to book Scenic Loop entry time, or access to Cadillac Point?  GTFOH. 

Math Bert wrote:

We can all agree that recreation.gov should be shot straight into the sun.  What should be a decent idea (central portal for public lands activities) is instead a private corporation tax sucking money out of the system.  $2 to book Scenic Loop entry time, or access to Cadillac Point?  GTFOH. 

Many climbers are also programmers...  I'm waiting for someone to volunteer their time to make a program that doesn't make a profit for the park service to use.  Until then, it is what it is.