Hi! Park ranger here! I think you are missing another large aspect of the problem. The yearly federal budget for the National Park Service. Despite popularity and visitation is going up year over year… the NPS’ budget is going down year over year. Along with that mentioning the huge glaring issues resulting in understaffing for almost every national park: - Wages. Entry level park service positions with a college degree required starts at $18.09 an hour. Many employees can get hired at like a mcdonalds and be paid more. - Unreliable and inconsistent park housing. Many of which lack any form of connectivity. No cell service, no wifi. - Park housing prices being tied closely to the prices of nearby towns within a certain radius. And with the rise of Airbnb resulting in sky high prices, many park rangers are being priced out. - The hiring process is beyond convoluted and can take over a half a year to just be offered a seasonal position. - The process of gaining permanent status can take up to 4 years worth of seasonal 6-month work. This results in park rangers being without a job for 4 winters until they are even eligible to apply for permanent position that doesn’t lock you into a harsh wage cap with no upward movement available. - Remoteness of locations. Some parks are very very remote. So much so that it takes over 3+ hours one way to go get groceries. One way. I’m talking about you Old Faithful park rangers in Yellowstone. Just getting groceries is an entire day’s journey and it’s truly obnoxious. It’s the reason why I turned down positions at parks I adore such as Great Basin National Park in Nevada. Oh yeah. You also don’t get any benefits such as health care and dental care as a seasonal. And well, yeah. Having to deal with the very issues of this video in regards to sky high visitation that leads to timed entry that leads to rangers working the entrance station being harassed by ill informed visitors day after day after day. Working for the park service is so fun, but also the amount of abuse that the life of a seasonal has to go through is borderline abusive. This is the thing that nobody talks about in regards to the problem with the park service. One that I would love to see you make a video on.
Thank you for posting this and working at the parks. Rangers should not be subject to harassment and it would be great if people realized it's a privilege and not a right to visit the parks. but it is getting worse and worse in the way they treat others and it makes me wonder how they were raised as children or has adult society somehow taught them to abused workers in public facing jobs.
First off, thanks for everything you do for our National Parks. Your work does not go unnoticed and I have the utmost respect for the job you do in keeping our National Parks running. It makes me sad that you have to deal with these issues and ungrateful visitors. Unfortunately, this is not the first time I've heard these sentiments from a Ranger either, and I'm in complete agreement that the NPS needs more support across the board, particularly in its budget from Congress. I made a video not too long ago about the economic benefits that parks generate, but how that doesn't translate into more funding. This issue really makes my blood boil, and can't believe our Rangers are treated this way. I would love to highlight these plights in a video at some point, if for nothing else than to raise awareness on these issues. Thank you for your comment, thank you for your hard work, and keep fighting the good fight.
I'm sorry you have to deal with such problems and I appreciate you and your colleagues for your dedication to service. I'll bring this up with my Representative. Hope to meet you at a Park someday.
Part of the problem is we all want to go to the same place. While there are 2-hour lines and/or timed entry at one trailhead near me, I can go to another trailhead an hour away and hike in not seeing more than half dozen people.
Yup, this is part of the social media problem, which only compounds a lot of the issues discussed here. Social media promotes only a few places, which get swamped with visitors, while lesser known areas/trails are left relatively unburdened. Some of my favorite locations in National Parks are on those more off the beaten path areas, and they're just as beautiful, plus you get added solitude benefits. I'll always promote more dispersed visitation!
Even the "off-the-beaten-path" locations are becoming increasingly on-the-beaten-path lately though. Like for instance, I saw plenty of tourists at Valley of Fire State Park in Nevada (although, admittedly, it was the first day reopening after much of the park was closed for the summer season due to heat).
@NationalParkDiaries Man do I agree! I think influencer and social media is a plage to everything that is half way decent. I say go out and find it yourself and cherish it when you do.
@@AbstractEntityJ You've made a good point. I think frequentation numbers between parks are probably evaluated over a season or seasons compared to the numbers of peak days/weekends/weeks/months. Also, at least where I live (Central Florida - granted not the most consistently hiker/walker-friendly state in humid/stormy summer weather ), you don't see the same packed crowds over several days (meaning that weekdays will be considerably less crowded) as at, for example, Yellowstone or Great Smokies or Grand Canyon in the summer and fall, and where weather/mosquitoes etc. regulate frequentation/visit time (meaning people can be less inclined to be outside all day) even in winter. I realize that all seems somewhat relative. It's a complicated, multi-factorial matter to assess and find solutions for.
@@jonathanpalmer228 Totally agree with your last sentence. Social media can be a good starting place, though, and creators like this channel and other hiking channels are really helpful. I've learned about a lot of lesser-known parks here (thank you, NPD!) and that led me to get onto the hiking apps I use to find more.
Part of the reason for that is because as American we pay tax money for the parks. And for some they then pay an additional fee to get in or an annual pass so you’ve paid even more money and yeah. I mean it’s frustrating. Now granted you have National Park units that also wouldn’t know conservation if it hit them on the head (cough cough Gettysburg), but that’s a whole other issue stemming from honestly crazy people that thing the new pond around Little Round Top is preservation and that biking the tour road is more destructive than driving it among other things.
As a Park Ranger, retired, I frequently engaged visitors talking about the contradiction of NPS mission and they unanimously agreed with default to conservation, even if inconvenient. Well presented, thank you.
I think most people understand it, and are willing to accept it. There's a small minority that give everyone else a bad reputation. Thanks for watching!
If you want to conserve the parks to the point where they are very hard to access & rules are excessive you will lose alot of support. I was okay with conservation when I could access the park and rules were reasonable but now that I can rarely get into the park and their ridiculous rules like I can't pitch my tent in a flat spot in the forest or I have to have an especially expensive especially heavy bear canister/I can't used the bear canister that has worked fine for 20 years I'd rather everything was national forest.
I do as well, but it's harder to do in some places where winter conditions are not usually conducive to safe visiting or that may require seasonal closures for the benefit of the wildlife. You have to time things carefully there. But that's ok with me.
How things have changed. In the early 60s, my dad would rent a little trailer and our family would spend a couple weeks touring in the mountains. It was usually in Colorado, but we had one trip into Montana and Idaho and up into Canada. We never needed a reservation and we were never in a crowded campsite. We were never constrained by having to be at a particular place at a particular time or having to vacate on a particular day. A few years ago, while feeling nostalgic about that era, I remembered the names of a few of the campgrounds and Googled them. The videos I found showed overcrowded (by my obsolete standards) campgrounds with ATVs running up and down roads and people everywhere. Some of my most pleasant memories are helping my dad set up the trailer and then walking off to explore the area and within 10 minutes or so finding myself sitting on a big rock in the middle of a stream with nobody in sight.
I HATE this problem... Timed entry makes it almost impossible to do multiple National Parks in a road trip format. Road Trips are just as much a part of the American Experience as are the National Parks themselves. I nearly had to skip Zion, Arches, and Rocky Mountain on our last trip because of this timed entry nonsense. Supply and demand principals seem to indicate that we need more National Parks 😉
I also miss the spontaneity factor at some of these places, however I'm willing to make the sacrifice for the sake of park resources. It's an imperfect situation, but at the end of the day, like the NPS itself, I will always value conservation over public access, even to my own detriment. Thanks for sharing your point of view, I do appreciate it! (and agree on the need for more parks!!)
Or maybe we should build interstate highways directly to each park, with many acres of parking for your motorhomes. Maybe then you could bag a few more parks in one great American road trip. It's charming to hear your views from the 20th century.
@@mattslaboratory5996 Which century are you from? We did 31 National Parks over two months with a tent in the trunk of a sedan, mostly doing dispersed camping on BLM land.
I very passionately HATE reservation camping. My very favorite vacations were with the "All roads lead to roam" principle. When traveling into the unknown, how well you'll like any place and how long you'll want to stay or move on is unknown. Often, the best parts of a trip are the things you blindly stumble into, places and things you never knew about. Rigid schedules are the main thing I want to forget for those precious 2 weeks every year. The few times I couldn't get a campsite, I spent the night outside the park, then went back first thing in the morning, and signed up for as long a stay as I wanted.
Protection vs recreation! A dual, conflicting mission dating all the way back to The Organic Act 108 years ago! I did a project on this last year in school and we should be talking more about it this year in my National Parks & Protected Areas class! Definitely going to post the link to this video in our discussion posts 😂
@@NationalParkDiaries I have that class next semester! I’m an Environmental Studies major with a protected lands focus so we get some cool classes that some of the biology/WFS guys don’t get
Some American friends came to Japan this year and were shocked that there was no entry cost or lottery for probably Japans most popular national park (Chubu-Sangaku). Makes me curious about how the government here approaches park management. Surely they deal with the same balance of access and preservation…
Funny you should mention that! I visited Japan earlier this year and did a whole deep dive/breakdown video of how the Japanese National Park system works. Essentially though, Japanese National Parks operate more like living/working landscapes, with much greater degrees of human influence and involvement. I would say, on balance, they favor the "access" side of things, but having been there and visited a few parks, I can also say that these places are respected and cared for by both visitors and managers alike. Very different system to the US, but one that works for Japan!
One possible solution is as simple as spreading awareness of lesser known trails and scenic destinations. I live in southern Arizona, and there are so many beautiful mountains to summit, canyons to see, surprisingly a lot of forests to camp in. Most people only know of the Grand Canyon, Sedona, or Page. It is pretty sad to me as a local, so many missed opportunities for people who will probably never return to my beautiful state. This is a solution that we can actually try and implement as small individuals with no platforms. I joined just about every hiking page for AZ on social media, and I like to show people the lesser known, often much more beautiful spots
I think there should also be MORE protected areas declared National Parks. It makes the area more appealing and if there were more to visit it would spread out the tourists. Utah should add more parks since the Big 5 campaign was TOO SUCCESSFUL! Lesser known parks need to market better too!
I think this definitely has to be part of the solution. There are lots of lesser known areas, including within very popular National Parks, that absolutely deserve more awareness and visitation, and could take some of the pressure off our most popular sites/areas. I think we do need to be careful that the load is distributed though, rather than simply adding more crowds to sensitive areas. It's a delicate balancing act, and a very difficult problem to solve though. Appreciate you doing the hard work of educating folks!
@@NationalParkDiaries Do you really think that would work? Aren't most people who visit national parks going there to see "the can't-miss thing"? How many of the visitors to Old Faithful are repeat visitors?
@this_epic_name Good point. To an extent, no, there's nothing that can be done about the people who are there to see a particular feature, such as Old Faithful. And by all means, I think they should! It's a once-in-a-lifetime sort of sight that all people should see. I guess I'm more referring to people at the margins, who maybe aren't attracted to the "big sights," but who might still want to have a rewarding NP experience. If they can be filtered to less crowded areas, I think we can see some gains. Marginal gains, yes, but I think we have to take what we can get at this point!
I feel that way about Colorado. Everyone wants to go to Rocky Mountain national park, which is beautiful for sure, but you have the rest of the Rockies in Colorado which are equally as beautiful and satisfying to see.
Over the past decade, I've done a lot of road trips, visiting a lot of national parks & monuments on these trips. And over the same period of time, my preparation for trips has had to adapt to some new realities. People are traveling more than ever. Parks are visited more than ever. I used to be able to hop into car, drive to some city and just find a hotel room for the night. But after a couple instances of having to alter trip plans due to rooms being sold out, I always book rooms well in advance. The reality is that if you want to do a vacation to some national parks, you have to also spend a little prep time to ensure your entry to the more popular ones. I actually prefer the idea of the popular parks going to timed reservations to avoid an overcrowded park where you can never find anywhere to park and every spot is a sea of people. And I'll also likely only plan return trips to the popular parks in the shoulder or off seasons. This is a long way of saying sometimes you just have to adapt the reality of a situation.
I think this is a great approach. I take a similar one myself. There's a bit of an art to visiting a National Park nowadays, but if you spend a little bit of time prepping you can definitely still have a great time!
You should talk about the situation in Florida where the state DEC wants to turn a bunch of their state parks into disk golf courses and pickle ball courts.
When it comes to national parks and their management, I really like Abbey’s Desert Solitaire. I don’t necessarily agree with everything he says, but he poses some important questions.
People have been swamping parks--and not just the big, famous ones--ever since c0v1d became a thing. It's odd to me how it continued after the lockdowns were lifted. But even here in Tennessee all the little state and local parks and waterfalls are virtually no-go zones on summer weekends. Stupidly, while the number of visitors has skyrocketed the greedy state government has been seeing dollar signs, and has an aggressive marketing campaign going telling people in surrounding states to come visit.
The park service and environmentalists dedicated the land for tourism, then advertised it. Then they complain when people come to visit. It seems to a problem of their own making.
I've read most of the comments and many, especially the first one, show the problems, but don't offer any solutions. The more visitors, the more infrastructure and Rangers needed. That requires more money from visitors or from the Government. The more people, the more damage, the more regulators needed,it's a catch 22. I can't see a solution the way the parks are handled. Change the park mandates and restrict the visitors. Times have changed from even the 60's when I visited parks throughout the country. Perhaps a unified National Park data base can help regulate things . Cheers, Rik Spector
Personally, I don't think visitor restrictions are the answer. I think Congress should properly fund the parks so they have the staff and resources available to them to help adequately deal with the visitors that do arrive. In addition, parks that have moved to timed entry models haven't restricted the _number_ of visitors, per se, but the _times_ at which they enter the park, which disperses crowds evenly throughout the day. I've had a good experience with this during a trip to RMNP a few years ago and support more solutions like that moving forward. It's true we'll never get back to the way things were with National Park visitation, but I think we need to meet these challenges head on and adapt to changing times. Thanks for the input!
@@NationalParkDiaries you make a good point, I hope spreading the visitation s over a Balanced period of time which sounds Promising will Be effective. Funding would help, but Congress is slow to act and what Would motivate them?
I gave been to most of the parks before time tickets. I get it. Some need it. But, you can't destroy the park to make more roads and parking. However, if the people do not get to visit the parks, they will not support funding the park service. I am not going to travel 3000 mile in the hope that I can get in to visit the park. It is a double edge sword the the park service has to deal with and with pressure from politicians for either more access or less funding. As far as the lack of guidelines in the organic law, I am okay with that. No one size fits all. Yellowstone is much different than a national seashore or a presidential house.
A salient point. Support requires visitors. So far, we have not seen any associated impacts on visitation at parks with reservation systems. Polling also shows that people have been very happy with reservation systems when planning their NP vacations, providing them with measure of security if they're going to dole out large sums to visit a faraway National Park. There's a balance their, for sure though.
This is very true. I grew up spending 2-4 weeks in Rocky Mtn NP. Worked at the Alpine Store by the Visitor Center while in college. Took my kids camping when they were growing up. Been to about 30 national parks at least once. I spent an entire week in Estes Park two years ago trying to get a pass to go up Bear Lake Rd to day hike. Never got an entry for even ONE day. I’m in my 70’s. I donated regularly to the National Park Foundation, National Park Conservancy, RMNP, Grand Canyon, Yellowstone for many years. I have stopped ALL donations to any of the parks/foundations. I know this doesn’t help the parks at all, but I refuse to pay extra money to NOT be able to get to hike in a park that was like a 2nd home to me growing up and with my own children. I don’t know who gets on the RMNP site at 5pm and gets a Bear Lake Rd permit, but in 5 days I did not get any.
One way to preserve more land AND allow more visitors is to ban cars and have more buses and trains to connect parks to the rest of the country. Amtrak operates buses to access. Yosemite from the central valley train stations in California. Tearing out land for larger parking lots or more roads clearly is destroying labd to increase accesss. Also wildlife crossings NEED to be installed over busy roads in more popular parks.
No complaints from me here. I think buses/transit to the most popular areas is an excellent idea. Zion already does this with the Zion Canyon, although I haven't tried it personally so can't vouch for it's efficacy. I think areas like Old Faithful and Yosemite Valley and North Rim of Grand Canyon could benefit from similar arrangements.
Communism is great, You could further restrict access by implementing a social credit system so those with incorrect political views couldn't get on the buses.
US Citizens need to be given preference over international tourists. Lottery system for international tourists and HIGH HIGH HIGH fees on their entrance fees.
Totally agree, I’m not xenophobic and I’m all for foreigners getting to see the beauties we have but it’s definitely annoying that they are kinda overcrowding our parks when we are the ones paying for them to be maintained
Eh, if a local misses an attraction this weekend, they can easily find some time next vacation to see the national park, while someone from a different country may have a once in a lifetime opportunity to see the same thing.
I feel like Canadians should at least get precedent over people from overseas. And the same in return for Americans in our parks. I don't like lottery systems in general though. I hate the idea of leaving park admission to chance. I'd rather pay more than have to gamble.
Yes! THIS! I have nothing against foreign visitors but OUR tax dollars pay for these parks and when you go to the more popular ones, they are mostly overrun with foreign visitors. US taxpayers should have first shot at visitation before it it opened up to foreign visitors.
3 issues that have really made this problem far worse over the years: 1: The commodification of nature. Nature is now no longer really seen as something to experience, but rather something you do as a set activity, then snap some pretty pictures to post online. People want to take the most spectacular pictures, or replicate the same pictures as someone else, and they want a particular experience that's been marketed to them. This ends up leading people to the same parks over and over again, which while it diminishes the pressure on parks which are relatively obscure and don't have any super distinctive photo opportunities, absolutely increases the pressure on well known and photogenic locations 2: Overpopulation. There are over 3 times more people than there were a century ago, when the national parks were first really taking root. That's over 3 times the demand. There is just way more competition for the same amount of natural wonders, and you can't just create new natural wonders out of the blue. Pretty much all the most truly spectacular sites in the country are in national parks, and its pretty easy for people to find out where these are. 3: The internet. Information is _way_ more accessible now. Got some amazing secret spot? Well, all it takes is for one person to "discover" it, post about it online, and then boom there are massive crowds there. Even already famous hikes have now become known to basically everybody in general, as opposed to everybody who read up on national parks which is a big difference. You really don't see quite the same massive issues with overcrowding in historical discussions about national parks, I mean even 10 years ago the problem very noticeably less due to the nascent nature of social media (nature hadn't been commodified quite so much and people were just beginning to use the internet to "discover" secret spots). Unfortunately there's not really any good way to undo any of these, and it seems like more and more nature is becoming stratified by wealth. Thankfully there are plenty of still really nice locations with few or even no people, but oftentimes these are very difficult and expensive to get to.
Well said! And this issue is broader than just American national parks. Many European cities have been often negatively impacted by over-tourism due these same trends. Just substitute "nature" for "history" or "art" in #1.
@@DWNY358 Oh absolutely, can't believe I didn't immediately make that connection. Many places around the world are dealing with this. Some of the only exceptions are places people either avoid for being "scary," places people avoid due to linguistic barriers, or places that are already so difficult and/or expensive to get to that they were already exclusive destinations in the first place (or a combination of these). Anywhere that is both cool and convenient is experiencing a tourism nightmare, or if they haven't already they will someday soon.
Agreed. I'm glad I'm old enough that my family and I visited the National Parks in the 1980s and early 1990s, before these problems became serious. As noted, much of it is a result of the internet and the scourge of social media. Unfortunately, the genie can't be stuffed back into the bottle and the problems at high visitation parks will only get worse.
Excellent insight, thanks for contributing to the discourse. Agreed on all three points. I feel this especially as a creator making content about National Parks. I've talked before about my feelings regarding, what I see, as more exploitative types of content about National Parks (the commodification and social media problems you describe), which is why I very consciously have crafted my content to help raise awareness about National Park issues rather than engage in that type of content. (I think this hurts me algorithmically in a lot of cases, but that's a story for another time). The landscape of National Parks has changed drastically since their initial conception, and they face tremendous challenges in the modern world. As you say, we can't put the genie back in the bottle, so we have to figure out how to adapt National Parks to the hand they've been dealt. A difficult task, to be sure. I think it starts with funding and institutional support, particularly with regard to funding. I also think we need to reprogram our societal brain to better appreciate these places and value them for more than their social media value. Again, a tricky situation. But I think conversations like this one go a long way toward helping, so again, I thank you for contributing to the discourse.
This is why I don’t usually go to national parks anymore. There are so many national forests and local parks that are just as great and less publicized, thus less busy.
People need to learn how to pick up maps and find any of the millions of possible other beautiful places in this country with easier and free access. National Parks are over hyped and over marketed, and are such a Disneyland bubble, they are usually nightmares compared to getting a real experience in the outdoors.
I disagree with this, in part. I think it's absolutely still possible to have an incredible outdoor experience in a National Park. Many National Parks, even crowded ones, have places where you can still go have that quiet backcountry experience. The problem, in my eyes, is that crowds continuously funnel into a select few "famous" places (Yosemite Valley, North Rim of GC, Old Faithful, Angel's Landing, Bear Lake, etc) which gives the perception that the entire park is like that, which is not the case. I would also argue that those types of more "confined" experiences are still very necessary for National Parks to have, so that kids, elderly, and disabled folks still have access to America's best landscapes. These types of experiences may also inspire people to enjoy more "wild" places later on in life. Basically, we need both. Although, I do agree that we could definitely benefit by spreading out some visitation to lesser known, but still beautiful areas.
This. Different kinds of parks and conservation lands have provided some of the best hiking experiences I’ve ever had. National parks can be good if you know where to go off the beaten path, but you can basically do that anywhere lol
I stopped getting recommended your vids a year ago for some reason, but very glad this got recommended to me! I remember when we had a conversation over zoom about the Colorado River/Dams, I had a class mate doing a project on the over crowding of parks. Ended up being a really controversial project, but I think most people on the know agree that conservation of these areas needs to come first.
To add to the challenge everyone wants to visit said Parks all at the same time (primarily Summer). Going in the off season is also much more pleasurable and easier & frequently provides a very different (& again better) experience for all.
I dont go to the parks any more . They dont apeal any more to crowded .and comercialized But there are lotts of parks people dont go too .thise are the one like to see . So sad whats happened , and people think they are petting zoos . Give the animals space people .
I’d love to see every park actually enforce the entrance fees. We are hitting all 63 and have done over 20 so far in two years. I’d say maybe 5 times I’ve had to show my pass to get in. 24/7 entrance monitoring. Imagine the money they would get and the amount of people that would stay out knowing they can’t get load the system.
So out of curiosity why do you feel the need/want to visit all 63 ? What is the point ? I'll be honest, I'm not keen on 'checking a box' travelers. In regards to travel (& many others things) I believe quality, is much more important quantity.
I think a fundamental problem with this country's government, and not just in terms of national parks, is we don't expect nearly enough from it. Complacency in holding government accountable leads to people in government forgetting they are our employees, not our bosses.
10:30 Legislation is also flexible and can change over time. The difference is that one method (legislation) carries with it a stronger representation of the will of the people, while the other (bureaucratic regulation) is more technocratic in nature. In this context, I view the word "flexibility" more as "we can do what we (the bureaucrats) think is right and good, without much (if any) regard to what the people want." Having said that, I would much prefer an NPS that was able to conserve than one hamstrung by some legislated mandate to perpetually allow any and all comers to access the parks. They'd be overrun, degraded, and miserable. The NPS seems to do a decent job navigating the dual mandate, and if it (the existing framework) ain't broke, don't fix it. National parks, though, have become a big turnoff for me. I loved them in my youth (I'm in my mid-40s), and my family went all the time. Now, they're too crowded for my tastes and have too many backcountry restrictions. I understand and appreciate why, but I can't do the things I used to enjoy doing within the boundaries of national parks. National forests are my playground now.
Thanks for sharing your perspective, I appreciate the comment! I'm pretty much in agreement with regards to NPS flexibility vs legislative mandate. Is it perfect? No. But, it works, and I think it can be especially valuable nowadays with how many challenges the parks are facing. Although, several commenters have brought up the Chevron decision, which I hadn't considered before, so I'm interested to see how that goes.
Flexibility is always better than rigid bureaucracy. It’s a cycle: thing gets popular, popularity ruins thing, thing loses popularity, thing gets good again. I’m happy to explore all the unpopular beauty of America until the hot spots lose their luster.
I’ve been to Yosemite and the Grand Canyon. I think the GC does it better with one major parking lot. From there a tram bus takes guest along the north ridge. If you want to go off the less populated beaten path you can. But you’ll have to do so on your own. Yosemite didn’t have a centralized parking spot, they do have trams but it just wasn’t convenient imo.
You can still hike and not hit crowds. You just need to go a little off the beaten path. Look for local parks, town forests, state parks, national forests, etc
The key word here is "unimpaired". That means the Park Service *shall* (must) regulate access as appropriate to secure that objective. May I share this link when I sign petitions against activity development in Florida's state parks? Some of them have plenty of golf courses and accommodation nearby already and they all are needed to protect fragile ecosystems and wildlife and plants. I hope you will make a video about it. Thanks for all you do!
Ambiguity in legislation will open the NPS up to all kinds of issues now that the Chevron deference has been overturned by the supreme court. The Chevron deference said government agencies could fill in the blanks and adapt where there was ambiguity in the law. They (government agencies) are no longer allowed to do that.
My primary concern is that there may come a time when the leadership of the country appoints a NPS administrator that believes that the only way to conserve the resources of the parks is to exclude people from the park. There is nothing in either document to prevent that from happening.
@@NationalParkDiaries I would hope so, but, as you pointed out, the Management Policies document states "conservation is to be predominant. This is how the courts have consistently interpreted the Organic Act." The precedent has been set that whatever the NPS wants to do to restrict access is ok with the courts. Precedent is a very hard thing to overcome. I know this is a worst-case scenario, but that is why a law should be in place to spell out the limits to how much the NPS can limit access, how much is too much. We should not have to wait until they go too far and have to spend years fighting it out in the courts.
@@tolson57 I don't disagree, but I don't think access will ever be taken away completely. That would be completely antithetical to the National Park idea. Conservation may predominate, but I don't think access will ever be completely taken away
This is not an impossible problem, it is a development problem. For example, Glacier Park is huge and has only one major road going through it, and it has camping restrictions that even make backpacking access difficult for much of the park that is far from the road. Make more roads and more trails, and let people camp, the attractions are there people just need to know where they are and have access. Of course there is a problem when just a fraction of a percent of the park can be accessed in a reasonable day hike.
That sort of development has serious impacts on park resources, which would go against the mandate that the NPS is tasked with carrying out. Access is important, but not every place needs to be easily accessible IMO. Some places should remain hard to get to to preserve their ecological integrity.
@@NationalParkDiaries That is the exact attitude ruining national parks. Building a road, building trails, and allowing camping is how you use natural resources, they might as well not exist if you aren't willing to make those tiny changes to actually access them. There just isn't any merit to covering .0001% of the land with road being a detriment to ecological integrity.
@@AbstractEntityJ That would help, but the trails are pretty crowded if you need buses for the road to keep up. More roads means more dispersal of visitors to more locations, better public transport doesn't accomplish that.
Edward Abbey was right about the doom that designating a place as a National Park brings: Commodification, upgraded paved highways, concessionaires, etc.; but obviously could not foresee the damaging impact of social media and the trumpeting by influencers of Fear of Missing Out. There is an example in my own Southern California backyard that is Joshua Tree National Park. Growing up in the 50's and 60's it was an overall obscure National Monument drawing most of its interest from users local to the area and lacked mobs of people and regimented access. Promoted to a National Park it was instantly subjected to the usual onslaught of maximized for profit development draped in the cachet of "must see" or miss out that earlier ensued at Arches and Canyonlands upon their "upgraded designation". I will always mourn the loss of the Joshua Tree of my youth. Hardly recognize the place now.
It's a double edged sword for me. Abbey was right in a lot of ways, but I also see the sentiment of "keeping parks how they used to be" as inherently gatekeeper-y. The redesignations of parks like Canyonlands, Arches, and JT, along with the increased visitation that they brought, doesn't change the spectacular scenery, landscapes, and ecosystems that those parks protect. I don't think it's fair to expect people not to come and see these wonderful places, and then get upset when it's not the same as it used to be. That all being said, there's definitely a danger to overtourism and hypercommodification of National Parks and other protected areas, especially today with social media, cheap travel, and ease of access. It's a real problem, and it's part of the reason I made this video and make the videos I do. If we want these places to remain intact well into the future, it's my belief that we, as a society, need a fundamental value change when it comes to our National Parks and protected areas. We need to learn to value them, appreciate them, and treat them with respect, so that large quantities of visitors, managed properly, don't impact the landscape as heavily. It's a tricky situation, but I appreciate your perspective - thanks for engaging!
So this applies to some parks well but not others. Gettysburg comes to mind as one that in the past few years the NPS seems to ignore their core principles. There’s a lake at the foot of Little Round top that nothing will be done about because it’s part of the land and ecosystem so needs to be preserved, but it wasn’t there in 1863. It actually makes no sense because soldiers wouldn’t risk getting their weapons or cartridges wet while storming up the hill. And they just finished a ton of work on little round top but nothing was done about the lake. Then you have them banning regimental tours. So what I mean by that is the legacy regiments will occasionally come up and give tours of the area where their regiments fought. These people are often descendants are would be very respectful of the land as they try and educate people. But not to the NPS; some of these people monuments are actually not even accessible under the new rules, which I get you want to protect the land but Gettysburg isn’t Glacier or Yosemite. People died and it was made a park to preserve the memory of those who died and educate future generations and it’s failing both missions. It’s not just Gettysburg because I also kind of saw this at Stonewall Jackson’s death site. I felt like the park was trying to avoid that topic. The house wasn’t set up right. The room he passed in wasn’t preserved at all. I felt like I had wasted my time, and it was sad because I had wanted to see it. I wouldn’t be surprised if the NPS sold that land just to wash their hands of it, but the American Battlefield Trust would do at better job at preserving that site even with their even more limited resources. I get not everything can be preserved like the view the Georgians at Burnside bridge is gone because trees grew up. I get that people vandalize the historical parks a lot and the parks can’t keep up with the maintenance (have you seen the Illinois monument at Vicksburg for example). But when it feels like disrespect to the site being preserved by the NPS then I am kind of frustrated.
Add an Instagram tax to offset overcrowding at the flagship parks. I jest, but honestly, going to a dynamic pricing model would help with the crowds and improve revenue at the same time i feel.
Interesting solution! I have never heard this discussed in the context of National Parks, but I do wonder if it has come up in non-public meetings. Don't really know enough about it to form an opinion at this time, but that's definitely some outside of the box thinking!
@@NationalParkDiaries some state DNRs have implemented it with campsite reservations and entries into their state parks. Definitely concerns of equity and access and there should be programs offered for those who would be dissuaded by a full fare dynamic price, but worth discussing in the realm of parks management for sure.
@dog-qf2lp The Adirondacks is the largest state park in America. There’s tons of huge areas of nature in the east. The white mountains of NH, almost all of northern Maine, a large portion of Vermont, eastern Massachusetts. I could go on
This. There are millions more places in the outdoors to go than overcrowded national parks. And you don’t even have to hike that far to get to great spots in a lot of cases. Just do your research.
The challenge of such a minimal mandate statement is that there has been a trend, enabled by activist judges and venue shopping, against deferring to executive agencies when legislation is ambiguous. There have been a number of cases where courts have said regulation making authority must be explicitly and clearly delegated to the executive. This is a deeply problematic interpretation of the law when the NPS Organic Act is so vague.
Yes, this is a great point in light of the Chevron decision, and one I hadn't considered. Thanks for bringing it to light and contributing it to the discussion. I'll be following this very closely in regards to NPS and public lands agencies.
Very much agreed! Great topic suggestion and I do plan to get to it eventually. I have no idea when that might be, but I do save all of y'alls suggestions, so they don't go unnoticed!
I worked as a concessionaire for the National Park Service at Grand Canyon National Park for 2 years and while there I became appalled at how predatory the park services (Rangers in particular) were to the general public. Like most police forces they have become corrupt to the point of embarrassment.
As with all police forces, this is case by case. Don't throw GRCA's problems on all other parks. FLETSI is much more consistent on a national scale than the vast majority of police academies.
I’m much more appalled at the general public’s lack of respect. You are embarrassing. Just had a guy killed with a stolen Kia. The “Kid” 19 had a full wrap sheet. The 13yr old is already out. Welcome to NY. This anti police and really authority has leaked all the way down to park rangers. Good grief. I wish there was a society where people like you could freely move too and live out your wet dream. As a bonus attendance would plummet at our national parks. I’ll see myself out.
Simple reality is that people would not enjoy giving tax money to national parks without public access and use. So it is a balancing act to try and do both which part gets more emphasis depends on the folks running the park service. Sadly they don't always achieve a reasonable balance between the 2 missions. Then add in congress and its control of funding and ability to just say do this or that which doesn't always help the goal. And the park service has struggled for years with the simple costs of maintaining things. There have been times when parks service got tons of money to build facilities for public use. But they often then have periods of congress not fully funding the service many years they have had to pick and choose what didn't fix this year. Because it is a question of how much is left after doing the things that must be done.
Yep, the funding dilemma is a whole different issue entirely, but very relevant as you describe. I made a video on it a while back, when the last government shutdown was looming, and it always amazes me how much financial return the parks get for how little they are supported. I'm of the opinion that that shouldn't be the _only_ consideration, but politicians love that and it boggles the mind that they don't give parks more resources.
It seems to me that the mandate is primarily to conserve the nature of the parks over access to them. I think the simplicity of the legislation makes it easy to identify its priority, which is conservation, and makes it easy to act. I believe that in order to maintain the parks unimpaired for future generations, crowds must be limited. The entire park experience is seriously impaired by the massive crowds. The trick is how to limit crowds in a manner that all classes of people have equal access (not guaranteed access, but an equal opportunity to be granted access). A reservation or lottery system seems like it could do that but seeing miles long lines of cars trying to enter the parks tells me that it isn't perfect yet. For overvisited parks like Yosemite or Bryce Canyon, only people with reservations will be allowed access. Signs 10-20 miles down the road should clearly post that fact, urging people without reservations to turn around. It's a shame because when I was a kid in the 70s, driving up to Yosemite was something we could do on a whim, but I can only imagine that the massive crowds are causing serious damage. I do believe that there is a significant number of people who aren't visiting the parks to experience them or learn about them, but instead are visiting them just to get the Instagram snapshot. These people often put themselves in dangerous situations for an outrageous pictures that end up taxing park resources even more. I saw a TH-cam video of a couple at Denali NP, miles from any help, walking out onto an ice shelf over a river during the thaw and then proceeding onto a trail that was closed. With so many visitors, the chances of vandalism increase exponentially, like the guys recently arrested for deliberately toppling ancient rock formations at Lake Mead NRA and filmed the video to post on their Instagram page. Joshua Tree NP was also the victim of serious vandalism. To protect the parks, people must be strictly limited.
There's also a staffing shortage. No one to enforce what trails are closed and to inform visitors on why they shouldn't litter or feed squirrels. I remember visiting Bryce Canyon and was appalled that people thought the squirrels could be fed. But some people don't know better and need to be informed.
Thanks for the comment. I think we are starting to see parks reckon with the consequences of overcrowding in a very real way now with the broader uptake of reservation systems and timed entry. As you say, it's not perfect, and there's a long way to go, but this does signal to me that parks recognize the problem and are taking steps to begin addressing it. Personally, I very much enjoyed my experience with reservations at RMNP a few years ago, even for the Bear Lake corridor. I am sad that the spontaneity factor has been taken away at some of these locations, but I'm happy to make that sacrifice for the protection of park resources, and I also recognize that there are LOTS of other great places out there to visit where I can still have a spontaneous adventure.
Everyone wants to see the parks, but no one wants to admit that everyone can’t. By going to see these places in masses we are in essence destroying what makes them pristine and idealistic landscapes to get away.
That was interesting and informative -- thank you. I wonder if the Supreme Court's recent overturning of the Chevron Doctrine will have an impact on park management? I hope not.
Interesting problem alright. Good video. I'd agree that conservation should trump public access, if the latter is endangering the former; and that the mandate should be flexible enough to allow restricted public access depending on the situation.
No, it's not impossible. The two mandates are not inherently mutually exclusive. It simply takes intelligent planning and management. So, after a minute or so of that false dichotomy, I'm moving on.
and let them fine visitors if they touch the wildlife. i dont remember the national park service fining ppl for going off trail / disturbing wildlife. lmk if they do
It's not "impossible" at all. The parks are managing it pretty well now. And if Republicans would pony up the money needed for maintenance and sufficient staffing (and better wages for you guys), then this would be solvable for a long time.
I've heard this sentiment a lot! I think people like the certainty it provides. I personally had a great experience at RMNP with them, but haven't tried them in other locations yet. It seems like parks are learning more as they use them more, and I think they'll only continue to improve as time goes on.
There is a simple solution to this problem build more roads, visitors centers and trails as the population increases. I know the environmentalists won't like this but the reality is that the parks have so much wild space you could build another road or two and there would still be a good amount of wild space and it would be better for the environment because people would be more spread out. I'm very disappointed in the park service because they don't seem to be upgrading their infrastructure/few new trails have been built since the depression and I'm very disappointed in the environmental movement because they don't recognize that you have to build a little more when the population goes up. I realize the park service has a very limited budget but punishing everyone for you're lack of funding doesn't help the problem. News flash congress doesn't listen to the tax payer they only listen to their big donors. When the park tells the tax payer get us more funding or we are going to treat you badly it just makes the taxpayer angry and less likely to support the park in the future. I'm a big nature fan. I used to support the park service but not anymore because I don't like how rather than hire a few more rangers to properly enforce the parks more sensible rules they punish everyone with ridiculous over the top rules, I don't like how hard it is to access the park, and I don't like that fees have gone up alot in recent years but we haven't really got anything for it. There recently was a vote to expand Olympic National Park and I voted against it, I'd rather the area remain national forest because its alot easier to access the national forest and there is much less red tape to worry about.
Um... We should consider the alternative situation which is that the parks are not protected and people destroy them anyway. I say the current system is way better.
I think they need to split the responsibilities of the Secretary of the Interior. We should elevate an experienced, non politically motivated, NP Ranger to a new cabinet level position focused entirely on national parks. I'm sure my surface level understanding has me missing critical factors, but It seems to me that the onus of protecting and funding national parks heavily falls on the National Parks Foundation and private donations. It just feels like there is not anyone who has real authority giving the proper attention and advocacy that National Parks deserve.
There is actually a school of thought that proposes removing the NPS from the Interior Department and making it its own independent agency, akin to the FCC or Federal Reserve.
I am grateful to all the you tubers out there taking us to places some of us will never see with our own eyes but they take us with them ... and you don't have all that congestion. Some of us prefer that anyway. I feel the day will come when only the wealthy will have the privilege of going in person anyway. May as well get used to that idea. Film as much as possible. Use drones. 🤣
Can automobiles be prohibited from visiting these parks? That would solve many of these dilemmas. Automobiles bring most of the willful polluters to the park.
Some parks, like Zion, already do this with a shuttle system into the Canyon. I would argue that it should be more broadly implemented at especially busy locations (Old Faithful, Yosemite Valley, etc). Denali also has its famous bus system, and personal vehicles are prohibited past mile 15 on the park road. So, there is precedent for it.
@@NationalParkDiaries Grand Canyon also does this in the summer with the shuttles on the route to Hermits Rest. I actually found this to be ideal so I didn't need to fight for parking spots at each overlook as well as doing some of the shorter walks between viewpoints.
More parks is an idea with good points, but as another commentator pointed out, we can't create new natural wonders; we can't conjure up another Arches or another Bryce Canyon. The most spectacular places are in the existing parks. Part of the solution is to raise awareness of other aspects of nature. The video about Congaree was an example -- an underrated park because it doesn't have the scenery people expect, but a rich, vibrant ecosystem for those whose eyes have been opened to it.
@@jasonhernandez619 Some existing parks are definitely under-utilized though. Canyon de Chelly is a perfect example. It should be promoted more, but access to various parts of the park needs to be improved. One of the main overlooks is now closed for no real reason.
While I don't think the Organic Act is broken, I do think the National Park System is reaching a breaking point in terms of visitation and lack of funding. I'm on board with the fundamental mission the Dual Mandate lays out, it's just we need leaders who will provide the NPS (and all public lands) with the support they deserve.
Balance is key, and sadly reservations are easiest way to balance access and protection, lotteries could be done, but I feel lower income peoples odds should be better, not saying higher income shouldn't have chance, they can just afford to travel more so shouldn't have same odds
There are just too many people in the world. Overpopulation is the fundamental cause of all environmental, ecological, and often other social and political problems in the world. Unfortunately, people only want to complain about the symptoms, but no one seems interested in addressing the problem of overpopulation openly or directly. Overpopulation and global warming were big issues in the 1960s and 70s, but somehow, they got swept under the rug in the 1980s and the mainstream decided “let’s not talk about it anymore”. Now the consequences of becoming apparent.
No, national parks should be for everyone’s mental health, education, and enjoyment. To restrict access to Native Americans would be doing the whole country a great disservice.
I'm going to have to give this issue, more serious and lengthy thought . . . In the meantime, for Yosemite NP, driving the CA-120, as a literal DRIVE-THROUGH, just with the purpose in mind to reach US Highways 395 & 6 (Hint: The 6 takes you ALL THE WAY to Cape Cod!) & Death Valley, presented the EXCURSIONARY motorist with no problems--easy come, easy go, even if you still had to pay that nominal "Parks Use" fee, even just for "passing-through". Today, though, "Policy & Protocols", DEMANDS that the Visitor MUST have at the minimum (Show your PROOF, to the Admitting Ranger at the kiosk.), one overnight stay in one of the hostelries and/or campgrounds, and that you must declare an Itinerary of the attractions therein the park, that you will see (And, you had better show up at those, at your planned times, kind of like an "appointment".), I tell ya, it's all progressing towards Lotteries within Lotteries!! Yet, all of these "restrictions"--for now--applies in Yosemite NP, only between 6AM-6PM, the rest of the time I'm told, the HodgdonTioga kiosks, remain unmanned, and you still have to pay the Parks Use Entrance Fee (On the Honor System?), with a Credit/Debit Card scan, getting a windshield sticker. Then, it's easy-come, easy-go. So, starting at Hodgdon Portal after 6PM, that should get you into Lee Vining for a late supper there, with lodging, or you can stretch it more, if you'd rather stop at Bridgeport/Mammoth/Benton, later on. Conversely, being at Tioga Portal after 6PM, may get you to Groveland/Big Oak Flat by, say, 8. You want to go all the way to Oakdale? That awaits you at about 9:30PM.
Hi! Park ranger here! I think you are missing another large aspect of the problem.
The yearly federal budget for the National Park Service.
Despite popularity and visitation is going up year over year… the NPS’ budget is going down year over year.
Along with that mentioning the huge glaring issues resulting in understaffing for almost every national park:
- Wages. Entry level park service positions with a college degree required starts at $18.09 an hour. Many employees can get hired at like a mcdonalds and be paid more.
- Unreliable and inconsistent park housing. Many of which lack any form of connectivity. No cell service, no wifi.
- Park housing prices being tied closely to the prices of nearby towns within a certain radius. And with the rise of Airbnb resulting in sky high prices, many park rangers are being priced out.
- The hiring process is beyond convoluted and can take over a half a year to just be offered a seasonal position.
- The process of gaining permanent status can take up to 4 years worth of seasonal 6-month work. This results in park rangers being without a job for 4 winters until they are even eligible to apply for permanent position that doesn’t lock you into a harsh wage cap with no upward movement available.
- Remoteness of locations. Some parks are very very remote. So much so that it takes over 3+ hours one way to go get groceries. One way. I’m talking about you Old Faithful park rangers in Yellowstone. Just getting groceries is an entire day’s journey and it’s truly obnoxious. It’s the reason why I turned down positions at parks I adore such as Great Basin National Park in Nevada.
Oh yeah. You also don’t get any benefits such as health care and dental care as a seasonal.
And well, yeah. Having to deal with the very issues of this video in regards to sky high visitation that leads to timed entry that leads to rangers working the entrance station being harassed by ill informed visitors day after day after day.
Working for the park service is so fun, but also the amount of abuse that the life of a seasonal has to go through is borderline abusive. This is the thing that nobody talks about in regards to the problem with the park service. One that I would love to see you make a video on.
Thank you for posting this and working at the parks. Rangers should not be subject to harassment and it would be great if people realized it's a privilege and not a right to visit the parks. but it is getting worse and worse in the way they treat others and it makes me wonder how they were raised as children or has adult society somehow taught them to abused workers in public facing jobs.
Thanks for the input!
First off, thanks for everything you do for our National Parks. Your work does not go unnoticed and I have the utmost respect for the job you do in keeping our National Parks running. It makes me sad that you have to deal with these issues and ungrateful visitors. Unfortunately, this is not the first time I've heard these sentiments from a Ranger either, and I'm in complete agreement that the NPS needs more support across the board, particularly in its budget from Congress. I made a video not too long ago about the economic benefits that parks generate, but how that doesn't translate into more funding. This issue really makes my blood boil, and can't believe our Rangers are treated this way. I would love to highlight these plights in a video at some point, if for nothing else than to raise awareness on these issues. Thank you for your comment, thank you for your hard work, and keep fighting the good fight.
I'm sorry you have to deal with such problems and I appreciate you and your colleagues for your dedication to service. I'll bring this up with my Representative. Hope to meet you at a Park someday.
They don’t even have dental 🫡
Part of the problem is we all want to go to the same place. While there are 2-hour lines and/or timed entry at one trailhead near me, I can go to another trailhead an hour away and hike in not seeing more than half dozen people.
Yup, this is part of the social media problem, which only compounds a lot of the issues discussed here. Social media promotes only a few places, which get swamped with visitors, while lesser known areas/trails are left relatively unburdened. Some of my favorite locations in National Parks are on those more off the beaten path areas, and they're just as beautiful, plus you get added solitude benefits. I'll always promote more dispersed visitation!
Even the "off-the-beaten-path" locations are becoming increasingly on-the-beaten-path lately though. Like for instance, I saw plenty of tourists at Valley of Fire State Park in Nevada (although, admittedly, it was the first day reopening after much of the park was closed for the summer season due to heat).
@NationalParkDiaries Man do I agree! I think influencer and social media is a plage to everything that is half way decent. I say go out and find it yourself and cherish it when you do.
@@AbstractEntityJ You've made a good point. I think frequentation numbers between parks are probably evaluated over a season or seasons compared to the numbers of peak days/weekends/weeks/months. Also, at least where I live (Central Florida - granted not the most consistently hiker/walker-friendly state in humid/stormy summer weather ), you don't see the same packed crowds over several days (meaning that weekdays will be considerably less crowded) as at, for example, Yellowstone or Great Smokies or Grand Canyon in the summer and fall, and where weather/mosquitoes etc. regulate frequentation/visit time (meaning people can be less inclined to be outside all day) even in winter. I realize that all seems somewhat relative. It's a complicated, multi-factorial matter to assess and find solutions for.
@@jonathanpalmer228 Totally agree with your last sentence. Social media can be a good starting place, though, and creators like this channel and other hiking channels are really helpful. I've learned about a lot of lesser-known parks here (thank you, NPD!) and that led me to get onto the hiking apps I use to find more.
The problem with crowds is that no one thinks they’re part of the problem with crowds. I deserve to be here, no one else does.
Haha, yes. Same with traffic!
It reminds me of a parody of a motivational poster, titled "responsibility": "No single drop of water thinks it's responsible for the flood."
I'd be cool with getting a day slot to go in and enjoy the park without over tapping the resources.
i walk so im not part of traffic
Part of the reason for that is because as American we pay tax money for the parks. And for some they then pay an additional fee to get in or an annual pass so you’ve paid even more money and yeah. I mean it’s frustrating.
Now granted you have National Park units that also wouldn’t know conservation if it hit them on the head (cough cough Gettysburg), but that’s a whole other issue stemming from honestly crazy people that thing the new pond around Little Round Top is preservation and that biking the tour road is more destructive than driving it among other things.
As a Park Ranger, retired, I frequently engaged visitors talking about the contradiction of NPS mission and they unanimously agreed with default to conservation, even if inconvenient. Well presented, thank you.
I think most people understand it, and are willing to accept it. There's a small minority that give everyone else a bad reputation. Thanks for watching!
If you want to conserve the parks to the point where they are very hard to access & rules are excessive you will lose alot of support. I was okay with conservation when I could access the park and rules were reasonable but now that I can rarely get into the park and their ridiculous rules like I can't pitch my tent in a flat spot in the forest or I have to have an especially expensive especially heavy bear canister/I can't used the bear canister that has worked fine for 20 years I'd rather everything was national forest.
@Weathernerd27 yeah, national parks should be available and open, not closed off areas
I’ve started going to every park during the off season. So much less stress.
I do as well, but it's harder to do in some places where winter conditions are not usually conducive to safe visiting or that may require seasonal closures for the benefit of the wildlife. You have to time things carefully there. But that's ok with me.
How things have changed. In the early 60s, my dad would rent a little trailer and our family would spend a couple weeks touring in the mountains. It was usually in Colorado, but we had one trip into Montana and Idaho and up into Canada. We never needed a reservation and we were never in a crowded campsite. We were never constrained by having to be at a particular place at a particular time or having to vacate on a particular day. A few years ago, while feeling nostalgic about that era, I remembered the names of a few of the campgrounds and Googled them. The videos I found showed overcrowded (by my obsolete standards) campgrounds with ATVs running up and down roads and people everywhere. Some of my most pleasant memories are helping my dad set up the trailer and then walking off to explore the area and within 10 minutes or so finding myself sitting on a big rock in the middle of a stream with nobody in sight.
Hart-Celler 1965
Thanks boomers
I HATE this problem... Timed entry makes it almost impossible to do multiple National Parks in a road trip format. Road Trips are just as much a part of the American Experience as are the National Parks themselves. I nearly had to skip Zion, Arches, and Rocky Mountain on our last trip because of this timed entry nonsense. Supply and demand principals seem to indicate that we need more National Parks 😉
I also miss the spontaneity factor at some of these places, however I'm willing to make the sacrifice for the sake of park resources. It's an imperfect situation, but at the end of the day, like the NPS itself, I will always value conservation over public access, even to my own detriment. Thanks for sharing your point of view, I do appreciate it! (and agree on the need for more parks!!)
Or maybe we should build interstate highways directly to each park, with many acres of parking for your motorhomes. Maybe then you could bag a few more parks in one great American road trip. It's charming to hear your views from the 20th century.
@@mattslaboratory5996 Which century are you from? We did 31 National Parks over two months with a tent in the trunk of a sedan, mostly doing dispersed camping on BLM land.
I very passionately HATE reservation camping. My very favorite vacations were with the "All roads lead to roam" principle. When traveling into the unknown, how well you'll like any place and how long you'll want to stay or move on is unknown. Often, the best parts of a trip are the things you blindly stumble into, places and things you never knew about. Rigid schedules are the main thing I want to forget for those precious 2 weeks every year. The few times I couldn't get a campsite, I spent the night outside the park, then went back first thing in the morning, and signed up for as long a stay as I wanted.
Surely you should build more asked bigger national parks with bigger car parks and bigger trails;
Protection vs recreation! A dual, conflicting mission dating all the way back to The Organic Act 108 years ago!
I did a project on this last year in school and we should be talking more about it this year in my National Parks & Protected Areas class! Definitely going to post the link to this video in our discussion posts 😂
That sounds like a class I would have loved to take 👀
@@NationalParkDiaries bro you could teach it! We have a great professor who’s a retired NPS LE Ranger. Dudes great :)
I'm so jealous. I never even had a class like that offered! And I majored in Conservation Biology!
@@NationalParkDiaries I have that class next semester! I’m an Environmental Studies major with a protected lands focus so we get some cool classes that some of the biology/WFS guys don’t get
Some American friends came to Japan this year and were shocked that there was no entry cost or lottery for probably Japans most popular national park (Chubu-Sangaku). Makes me curious about how the government here approaches park management. Surely they deal with the same balance of access and preservation…
Funny you should mention that! I visited Japan earlier this year and did a whole deep dive/breakdown video of how the Japanese National Park system works. Essentially though, Japanese National Parks operate more like living/working landscapes, with much greater degrees of human influence and involvement. I would say, on balance, they favor the "access" side of things, but having been there and visited a few parks, I can also say that these places are respected and cared for by both visitors and managers alike. Very different system to the US, but one that works for Japan!
That’s awesome! I need to watch that.
Social media fallout, simple as that. The marketing was too successful.
One possible solution is as simple as spreading awareness of lesser known trails and scenic destinations. I live in southern Arizona, and there are so many beautiful mountains to summit, canyons to see, surprisingly a lot of forests to camp in. Most people only know of the Grand Canyon, Sedona, or Page. It is pretty sad to me as a local, so many missed opportunities for people who will probably never return to my beautiful state. This is a solution that we can actually try and implement as small individuals with no platforms. I joined just about every hiking page for AZ on social media, and I like to show people the lesser known, often much more beautiful spots
I think there should also be MORE protected areas declared National Parks. It makes the area more appealing and if there were more to visit it would spread out the tourists. Utah should add more parks since the Big 5 campaign was TOO SUCCESSFUL! Lesser known parks need to market better too!
I think this definitely has to be part of the solution. There are lots of lesser known areas, including within very popular National Parks, that absolutely deserve more awareness and visitation, and could take some of the pressure off our most popular sites/areas. I think we do need to be careful that the load is distributed though, rather than simply adding more crowds to sensitive areas. It's a delicate balancing act, and a very difficult problem to solve though. Appreciate you doing the hard work of educating folks!
@@NationalParkDiaries Do you really think that would work? Aren't most people who visit national parks going there to see "the can't-miss thing"? How many of the visitors to Old Faithful are repeat visitors?
@this_epic_name Good point. To an extent, no, there's nothing that can be done about the people who are there to see a particular feature, such as Old Faithful. And by all means, I think they should! It's a once-in-a-lifetime sort of sight that all people should see. I guess I'm more referring to people at the margins, who maybe aren't attracted to the "big sights," but who might still want to have a rewarding NP experience. If they can be filtered to less crowded areas, I think we can see some gains. Marginal gains, yes, but I think we have to take what we can get at this point!
I feel that way about Colorado. Everyone wants to go to Rocky Mountain national park, which is beautiful for sure, but you have the rest of the Rockies in Colorado which are equally as beautiful and satisfying to see.
Over the past decade, I've done a lot of road trips, visiting a lot of national parks & monuments on these trips. And over the same period of time, my preparation for trips has had to adapt to some new realities. People are traveling more than ever. Parks are visited more than ever. I used to be able to hop into car, drive to some city and just find a hotel room for the night. But after a couple instances of having to alter trip plans due to rooms being sold out, I always book rooms well in advance. The reality is that if you want to do a vacation to some national parks, you have to also spend a little prep time to ensure your entry to the more popular ones.
I actually prefer the idea of the popular parks going to timed reservations to avoid an overcrowded park where you can never find anywhere to park and every spot is a sea of people. And I'll also likely only plan return trips to the popular parks in the shoulder or off seasons.
This is a long way of saying sometimes you just have to adapt the reality of a situation.
I think this is a great approach. I take a similar one myself. There's a bit of an art to visiting a National Park nowadays, but if you spend a little bit of time prepping you can definitely still have a great time!
You should talk about the situation in Florida where the state DEC wants to turn a bunch of their state parks into disk golf courses and pickle ball courts.
I hope he will. The pushback has been successful so far but when money is involved...
I've got my eye on that. Thanks for the suggestion!
When it comes to national parks and their management, I really like Abbey’s Desert Solitaire. I don’t necessarily agree with everything he says, but he poses some important questions.
Very much ahead of his time, Ed Abbey. He'd be rolling in his grave seeing how our parks are treated now.
@@NationalParkDiaries
Yep, he’d have taken monkey wrenching to a whole new level…….
People have been swamping parks--and not just the big, famous ones--ever since c0v1d became a thing. It's odd to me how it continued after the lockdowns were lifted. But even here in Tennessee all the little state and local parks and waterfalls are virtually no-go zones on summer weekends. Stupidly, while the number of visitors has skyrocketed the greedy state government has been seeing dollar signs, and has an aggressive marketing campaign going telling people in surrounding states to come visit.
The park service and environmentalists dedicated the land for tourism, then advertised it. Then they complain when people come to visit. It seems to a problem of their own making.
I've read most of the comments and many, especially the first one, show the
problems, but don't offer any solutions.
The more visitors, the more infrastructure and Rangers needed.
That requires more money from visitors or from the Government.
The more people, the more damage, the more regulators needed,it's a catch 22.
I can't see a solution the way the parks are handled.
Change the park mandates and restrict the visitors.
Times have changed from even the 60's when I visited parks throughout the country.
Perhaps a unified National Park data base can help regulate things .
Cheers,
Rik Spector
Personally, I don't think visitor restrictions are the answer. I think Congress should properly fund the parks so they have the staff and resources available to them to help adequately deal with the visitors that do arrive. In addition, parks that have moved to timed entry models haven't restricted the _number_ of visitors, per se, but the _times_ at which they enter the park, which disperses crowds evenly throughout the day. I've had a good experience with this during a trip to RMNP a few years ago and support more solutions like that moving forward. It's true we'll never get back to the way things were with National Park visitation, but I think we need to meet these challenges head on and adapt to changing times. Thanks for the input!
@@NationalParkDiaries you make a good point, I hope spreading the visitation s over a
Balanced period of time which sounds
Promising will Be effective.
Funding would help, but Congress is slow to act and what
Would motivate them?
We are 'loving our parks to death' - restrictions are almost required at this point. we are fortunate to have so many options in the US.
Parks are overcrowded with cars, not people. We need smart and bold leadership able to design solutions that go beyond cars.
I gave been to most of the parks before time tickets. I get it. Some need it. But, you can't destroy the park to make more roads and parking. However, if the people do not get to visit the parks, they will not support funding the park service. I am not going to travel 3000 mile in the hope that I can get in to visit the park. It is a double edge sword the the park service has to deal with and with pressure from politicians for either more access or less funding.
As far as the lack of guidelines in the organic law, I am okay with that. No one size fits all. Yellowstone is much different than a national seashore or a presidential house.
A salient point. Support requires visitors. So far, we have not seen any associated impacts on visitation at parks with reservation systems. Polling also shows that people have been very happy with reservation systems when planning their NP vacations, providing them with measure of security if they're going to dole out large sums to visit a faraway National Park. There's a balance their, for sure though.
This is very true. I grew up spending 2-4 weeks in Rocky Mtn NP. Worked at the Alpine Store by the Visitor Center while in college. Took my kids camping when they were growing up. Been to about 30 national parks at least once. I spent an entire week in Estes Park two years ago trying to get a pass to go up Bear Lake Rd to day hike. Never got an entry for even ONE day. I’m in my 70’s. I donated regularly to the National Park Foundation, National Park Conservancy, RMNP, Grand Canyon, Yellowstone for many years. I have stopped ALL donations to any of the parks/foundations. I know this doesn’t help the parks at all, but I refuse to pay extra money to NOT be able to get to hike in a park that was like a 2nd home to me growing up and with my own children. I don’t know who gets on the RMNP site at 5pm and gets a Bear Lake Rd permit, but in 5 days I did not get any.
Thank you! I've been a lot of these places! Thank you for breaking this down in a way that I can understand
Thanks for watching!
The crowds would decrease by 50% if there was no Instagram to display selfies on trips likely paid for with student loan money.
One way to preserve more land AND allow more visitors is to ban cars and have more buses and trains to connect parks to the rest of the country. Amtrak operates buses to access. Yosemite from the central valley train stations in California.
Tearing out land for larger parking lots or more roads clearly is destroying labd to increase accesss.
Also wildlife crossings NEED to be installed over busy roads in more popular parks.
No complaints from me here. I think buses/transit to the most popular areas is an excellent idea. Zion already does this with the Zion Canyon, although I haven't tried it personally so can't vouch for it's efficacy. I think areas like Old Faithful and Yosemite Valley and North Rim of Grand Canyon could benefit from similar arrangements.
It's a great idea. They just need to have better hours for the buses. Even at Zion, the bus service ends far too early in the evening.
Communism is great, You could further restrict access by implementing a social credit system so those with incorrect political views couldn't get on the buses.
US Citizens need to be given preference over international tourists. Lottery system for international tourists and HIGH HIGH HIGH fees on their entrance fees.
Totally agree, I’m not xenophobic and I’m all for foreigners getting to see the beauties we have but it’s definitely annoying that they are kinda overcrowding our parks when we are the ones paying for them to be maintained
Eh, if a local misses an attraction this weekend, they can easily find some time next vacation to see the national park, while someone from a different country may have a once in a lifetime opportunity to see the same thing.
I feel like Canadians should at least get precedent over people from overseas. And the same in return for Americans in our parks.
I don't like lottery systems in general though. I hate the idea of leaving park admission to chance. I'd rather pay more than have to gamble.
Hospitality to travelers is sacred.
Yes! THIS! I have nothing against foreign visitors but OUR tax dollars pay for these parks and when you go to the more popular ones, they are mostly overrun with foreign visitors. US taxpayers should have first shot at visitation before it it opened up to foreign visitors.
3 issues that have really made this problem far worse over the years:
1: The commodification of nature. Nature is now no longer really seen as something to experience, but rather something you do as a set activity, then snap some pretty pictures to post online. People want to take the most spectacular pictures, or replicate the same pictures as someone else, and they want a particular experience that's been marketed to them. This ends up leading people to the same parks over and over again, which while it diminishes the pressure on parks which are relatively obscure and don't have any super distinctive photo opportunities, absolutely increases the pressure on well known and photogenic locations
2: Overpopulation. There are over 3 times more people than there were a century ago, when the national parks were first really taking root. That's over 3 times the demand. There is just way more competition for the same amount of natural wonders, and you can't just create new natural wonders out of the blue. Pretty much all the most truly spectacular sites in the country are in national parks, and its pretty easy for people to find out where these are.
3: The internet. Information is _way_ more accessible now. Got some amazing secret spot? Well, all it takes is for one person to "discover" it, post about it online, and then boom there are massive crowds there. Even already famous hikes have now become known to basically everybody in general, as opposed to everybody who read up on national parks which is a big difference.
You really don't see quite the same massive issues with overcrowding in historical discussions about national parks, I mean even 10 years ago the problem very noticeably less due to the nascent nature of social media (nature hadn't been commodified quite so much and people were just beginning to use the internet to "discover" secret spots). Unfortunately there's not really any good way to undo any of these, and it seems like more and more nature is becoming stratified by wealth. Thankfully there are plenty of still really nice locations with few or even no people, but oftentimes these are very difficult and expensive to get to.
Well said! And this issue is broader than just American national parks. Many European cities have been often negatively impacted by over-tourism due these same trends. Just substitute "nature" for "history" or "art" in #1.
@@DWNY358 Oh absolutely, can't believe I didn't immediately make that connection. Many places around the world are dealing with this. Some of the only exceptions are places people either avoid for being "scary," places people avoid due to linguistic barriers, or places that are already so difficult and/or expensive to get to that they were already exclusive destinations in the first place (or a combination of these). Anywhere that is both cool and convenient is experiencing a tourism nightmare, or if they haven't already they will someday soon.
Agreed. I'm glad I'm old enough that my family and I visited the National Parks in the 1980s and early 1990s, before these problems became serious. As noted, much of it is a result of the internet and the scourge of social media. Unfortunately, the genie can't be stuffed back into the bottle and the problems at high visitation parks will only get worse.
Excellent insight, thanks for contributing to the discourse. Agreed on all three points. I feel this especially as a creator making content about National Parks. I've talked before about my feelings regarding, what I see, as more exploitative types of content about National Parks (the commodification and social media problems you describe), which is why I very consciously have crafted my content to help raise awareness about National Park issues rather than engage in that type of content. (I think this hurts me algorithmically in a lot of cases, but that's a story for another time).
The landscape of National Parks has changed drastically since their initial conception, and they face tremendous challenges in the modern world. As you say, we can't put the genie back in the bottle, so we have to figure out how to adapt National Parks to the hand they've been dealt. A difficult task, to be sure. I think it starts with funding and institutional support, particularly with regard to funding. I also think we need to reprogram our societal brain to better appreciate these places and value them for more than their social media value. Again, a tricky situation. But I think conversations like this one go a long way toward helping, so again, I thank you for contributing to the discourse.
Global population trends may eventually undo the overpopulation issue. But that is still at least 50 or even 100 years away, most likely.
This is why I don’t usually go to national parks anymore. There are so many national forests and local parks that are just as great and less publicized, thus less busy.
Thanks for the awesome content and all the amazing videos!!!
Thanks, as always, for watching!
People need to learn how to pick up maps and find any of the millions of possible other beautiful places in this country with easier and free access. National Parks are over hyped and over marketed, and are such a Disneyland bubble, they are usually nightmares compared to getting a real experience in the outdoors.
I disagree with this, in part. I think it's absolutely still possible to have an incredible outdoor experience in a National Park. Many National Parks, even crowded ones, have places where you can still go have that quiet backcountry experience. The problem, in my eyes, is that crowds continuously funnel into a select few "famous" places (Yosemite Valley, North Rim of GC, Old Faithful, Angel's Landing, Bear Lake, etc) which gives the perception that the entire park is like that, which is not the case. I would also argue that those types of more "confined" experiences are still very necessary for National Parks to have, so that kids, elderly, and disabled folks still have access to America's best landscapes. These types of experiences may also inspire people to enjoy more "wild" places later on in life. Basically, we need both. Although, I do agree that we could definitely benefit by spreading out some visitation to lesser known, but still beautiful areas.
This. Different kinds of parks and conservation lands have provided some of the best hiking experiences I’ve ever had. National parks can be good if you know where to go off the beaten path, but you can basically do that anywhere lol
I stopped getting recommended your vids a year ago for some reason, but very glad this got recommended to me! I remember when we had a conversation over zoom about the Colorado River/Dams, I had a class mate doing a project on the over crowding of parks. Ended up being a really controversial project, but I think most people on the know agree that conservation of these areas needs to come first.
Glad to have you back!
To add to the challenge everyone wants to visit said Parks all at the same time (primarily Summer). Going in the off season is also much more pleasurable and easier & frequently provides a very different (& again better) experience for all.
I dont go to the parks any more . They dont apeal any more to crowded .and comercialized
But there are lotts of parks people dont go too .thise are the one like to see .
So sad whats happened , and people think they are petting zoos . Give the animals space people .
I’d love to see every park actually enforce the entrance fees. We are hitting all 63 and have done over 20 so far in two years. I’d say maybe 5 times I’ve had to show my pass to get in. 24/7 entrance monitoring. Imagine the money they would get and the amount of people that would stay out knowing they can’t get load the system.
An interesting conundrum. I wonder if the NPS keeps data on how much money they lose to uncollected entrance fees?
So out of curiosity why do you feel the need/want to visit all 63 ? What is the point ? I'll be honest, I'm not keen on 'checking a box' travelers. In regards to travel (& many others things) I believe quality, is much more important quantity.
You are expecting WAY to much from politicians my friend .
That may be true but if we just throw up our hands and leave it nothing will move forward, either.
I think a fundamental problem with this country's government, and not just in terms of national parks, is we don't expect nearly enough from it. Complacency in holding government accountable leads to people in government forgetting they are our employees, not our bosses.
10:30 Legislation is also flexible and can change over time. The difference is that one method (legislation) carries with it a stronger representation of the will of the people, while the other (bureaucratic regulation) is more technocratic in nature. In this context, I view the word "flexibility" more as "we can do what we (the bureaucrats) think is right and good, without much (if any) regard to what the people want."
Having said that, I would much prefer an NPS that was able to conserve than one hamstrung by some legislated mandate to perpetually allow any and all comers to access the parks. They'd be overrun, degraded, and miserable. The NPS seems to do a decent job navigating the dual mandate, and if it (the existing framework) ain't broke, don't fix it.
National parks, though, have become a big turnoff for me. I loved them in my youth (I'm in my mid-40s), and my family went all the time. Now, they're too crowded for my tastes and have too many backcountry restrictions. I understand and appreciate why, but I can't do the things I used to enjoy doing within the boundaries of national parks. National forests are my playground now.
Thanks for sharing your perspective, I appreciate the comment! I'm pretty much in agreement with regards to NPS flexibility vs legislative mandate. Is it perfect? No. But, it works, and I think it can be especially valuable nowadays with how many challenges the parks are facing. Although, several commenters have brought up the Chevron decision, which I hadn't considered before, so I'm interested to see how that goes.
Flexibility is always better than rigid bureaucracy. It’s a cycle: thing gets popular, popularity ruins thing, thing loses popularity, thing gets good again. I’m happy to explore all the unpopular beauty of America until the hot spots lose their luster.
I find a lot of value in the lesser known places as well! Some of my favorites!
Yeah, NRA v. Potter established that the primary mandate of the NPS was preservation, not access, at least in the form of hunting.
I’ve been to Yosemite and the Grand Canyon. I think the GC does it better with one major parking lot. From there a tram bus takes guest along the north ridge. If you want to go off the less populated beaten path you can. But you’ll have to do so on your own. Yosemite didn’t have a centralized parking spot, they do have trams but it just wasn’t convenient imo.
This is why I quit hiking after the pandemic. It was never the same.
Amen. The Covid summer of 2020 killed the outdoors as we knew it.
You can still hike and not hit crowds. You just need to go a little off the beaten path. Look for local parks, town forests, state parks, national forests, etc
The key word here is "unimpaired". That means the Park Service *shall* (must) regulate access as appropriate to secure that objective.
May I share this link when I sign petitions against activity development in Florida's state parks? Some of them have plenty of golf courses and accommodation nearby already and they all are needed to protect fragile ecosystems and wildlife and plants. I hope you will make a video about it. Thanks for all you do!
I'm keeping my eye on that situation, it may be a good video topic, yes. And yes you are happy to share the video!
Ambiguity in legislation will open the NPS up to all kinds of issues now that the Chevron deference has been overturned by the supreme court. The Chevron deference said government agencies could fill in the blanks and adapt where there was ambiguity in the law. They (government agencies) are no longer allowed to do that.
Excellent point, and one I hadn't considered. Very curious to see how this goes moving forward and will be keeping a close eye on it.
As they shouldn't; government agencies are supposed to enforce the law, not write it. But it does mean that the law needs to be made less ambiguous.
My primary concern is that there may come a time when the leadership of the country appoints a NPS administrator that believes that the only way to conserve the resources of the parks is to exclude people from the park. There is nothing in either document to prevent that from happening.
I think the "provide for the enjoyment" language would certainly prevent that...
@@NationalParkDiaries I would hope so, but, as you pointed out, the Management Policies document states "conservation is to be predominant. This is how the courts have consistently interpreted the Organic Act." The precedent has been set that whatever the NPS wants to do to restrict access is ok with the courts. Precedent is a very hard thing to overcome.
I know this is a worst-case scenario, but that is why a law should be in place to spell out the limits to how much the NPS can limit access, how much is too much. We should not have to wait until they go too far and have to spend years fighting it out in the courts.
@@tolson57 I don't disagree, but I don't think access will ever be taken away completely. That would be completely antithetical to the National Park idea. Conservation may predominate, but I don't think access will ever be completely taken away
Thank you for using my pictures of angel’s landing
This is not an impossible problem, it is a development problem. For example, Glacier Park is huge and has only one major road going through it, and it has camping restrictions that even make backpacking access difficult for much of the park that is far from the road. Make more roads and more trails, and let people camp, the attractions are there people just need to know where they are and have access. Of course there is a problem when just a fraction of a percent of the park can be accessed in a reasonable day hike.
That sort of development has serious impacts on park resources, which would go against the mandate that the NPS is tasked with carrying out. Access is important, but not every place needs to be easily accessible IMO. Some places should remain hard to get to to preserve their ecological integrity.
@@NationalParkDiaries That is the exact attitude ruining national parks. Building a road, building trails, and allowing camping is how you use natural resources, they might as well not exist if you aren't willing to make those tiny changes to actually access them. There just isn't any merit to covering .0001% of the land with road being a detriment to ecological integrity.
What Glacier needs is more buses and more capacity in their buses.
@@AbstractEntityJ That would help, but the trails are pretty crowded if you need buses for the road to keep up. More roads means more dispersal of visitors to more locations, better public transport doesn't accomplish that.
@@idwtgymn So, destroy more land with roads to prevent the trails from being damaged by too much foot traffic? Idk, seems counter intuitive
Edward Abbey was right about the doom that designating a place as a National Park brings: Commodification, upgraded paved highways, concessionaires, etc.; but obviously could not foresee the damaging impact of social media and the trumpeting by influencers of Fear of Missing Out. There is an example in my own Southern California backyard that is Joshua Tree National Park. Growing up in the 50's and 60's it was an overall obscure National Monument drawing most of its interest from users local to the area and lacked mobs of people and regimented access. Promoted to a National Park it was instantly subjected to the usual onslaught of maximized for profit development draped in the cachet of "must see" or miss out that earlier ensued at Arches and Canyonlands upon their "upgraded designation". I will always mourn the loss of the Joshua Tree of my youth. Hardly recognize the place now.
It's a double edged sword for me. Abbey was right in a lot of ways, but I also see the sentiment of "keeping parks how they used to be" as inherently gatekeeper-y. The redesignations of parks like Canyonlands, Arches, and JT, along with the increased visitation that they brought, doesn't change the spectacular scenery, landscapes, and ecosystems that those parks protect. I don't think it's fair to expect people not to come and see these wonderful places, and then get upset when it's not the same as it used to be. That all being said, there's definitely a danger to overtourism and hypercommodification of National Parks and other protected areas, especially today with social media, cheap travel, and ease of access. It's a real problem, and it's part of the reason I made this video and make the videos I do. If we want these places to remain intact well into the future, it's my belief that we, as a society, need a fundamental value change when it comes to our National Parks and protected areas. We need to learn to value them, appreciate them, and treat them with respect, so that large quantities of visitors, managed properly, don't impact the landscape as heavily. It's a tricky situation, but I appreciate your perspective - thanks for engaging!
So this applies to some parks well but not others.
Gettysburg comes to mind as one that in the past few years the NPS seems to ignore their core principles. There’s a lake at the foot of Little Round top that nothing will be done about because it’s part of the land and ecosystem so needs to be preserved, but it wasn’t there in 1863. It actually makes no sense because soldiers wouldn’t risk getting their weapons or cartridges wet while storming up the hill. And they just finished a ton of work on little round top but nothing was done about the lake.
Then you have them banning regimental tours. So what I mean by that is the legacy regiments will occasionally come up and give tours of the area where their regiments fought. These people are often descendants are would be very respectful of the land as they try and educate people. But not to the NPS; some of these people monuments are actually not even accessible under the new rules, which I get you want to protect the land but Gettysburg isn’t Glacier or Yosemite. People died and it was made a park to preserve the memory of those who died and educate future generations and it’s failing both missions.
It’s not just Gettysburg because I also kind of saw this at Stonewall Jackson’s death site. I felt like the park was trying to avoid that topic. The house wasn’t set up right. The room he passed in wasn’t preserved at all. I felt like I had wasted my time, and it was sad because I had wanted to see it. I wouldn’t be surprised if the NPS sold that land just to wash their hands of it, but the American Battlefield Trust would do at better job at preserving that site even with their even more limited resources.
I get not everything can be preserved like the view the Georgians at Burnside bridge is gone because trees grew up. I get that people vandalize the historical parks a lot and the parks can’t keep up with the maintenance (have you seen the Illinois monument at Vicksburg for example). But when it feels like disrespect to the site being preserved by the NPS then I am kind of frustrated.
Shut all the parks down for a few years
Add an Instagram tax to offset overcrowding at the flagship parks.
I jest, but honestly, going to a dynamic pricing model would help with the crowds and improve revenue at the same time i feel.
Interesting solution! I have never heard this discussed in the context of National Parks, but I do wonder if it has come up in non-public meetings. Don't really know enough about it to form an opinion at this time, but that's definitely some outside of the box thinking!
@@NationalParkDiaries some state DNRs have implemented it with campsite reservations and entries into their state parks. Definitely concerns of equity and access and there should be programs offered for those who would be dissuaded by a full fare dynamic price, but worth discussing in the realm of parks management for sure.
Very interesting, thanks for bringing this to my attention!
While a very interesting and innovative solution, I feel like it would be difficult to enforce.
Simple, create more national parks especially in the Midwest and east.
East coast has been largely industrialized, and whats left isnt all worth the money preserving it
@@dog-qf2lp Oh I’d say there’s a lot of stuff, just gotta know where to look. Mount Washington and the Adirondacks come to mind.
just have to think of a way to get those people to alaska
@dog-qf2lp The Adirondacks is the largest state park in America. There’s tons of huge areas of nature in the east. The white mountains of NH, almost all of northern Maine, a large portion of Vermont, eastern Massachusetts. I could go on
@@jaykay1899red river gorge Kentucky could easily be a national park
Tourist spots are full of tourists! Find somewhere off the beaten path. Or go off season.
This. There are millions more places in the outdoors to go than overcrowded national parks. And you don’t even have to hike that far to get to great spots in a lot of cases. Just do your research.
The challenge of such a minimal mandate statement is that there has been a trend, enabled by activist judges and venue shopping, against deferring to executive agencies when legislation is ambiguous. There have been a number of cases where courts have said regulation making authority must be explicitly and clearly delegated to the executive. This is a deeply problematic interpretation of the law when the NPS Organic Act is so vague.
Yes, this is a great point in light of the Chevron decision, and one I hadn't considered. Thanks for bringing it to light and contributing it to the discussion. I'll be following this very closely in regards to NPS and public lands agencies.
We need an Inventoried Roadless Areas video!
Very much agreed! Great topic suggestion and I do plan to get to it eventually. I have no idea when that might be, but I do save all of y'alls suggestions, so they don't go unnoticed!
The management job of the department of the interior is to manage. If that means slashing access to protect it for our future, then do it already!
I worked as a concessionaire for the National Park Service at Grand Canyon National Park for 2 years and while there I became appalled at how predatory the park services (Rangers in particular) were to the general public. Like most police forces they have become corrupt to the point of embarrassment.
How so ?
As with all police forces, this is case by case. Don't throw GRCA's problems on all other parks. FLETSI is much more consistent on a national scale than the vast majority of police academies.
I’m much more appalled at the general public’s lack of respect.
You are embarrassing. Just had a guy killed with a stolen Kia. The “Kid” 19 had a full wrap sheet. The 13yr old is already out. Welcome to NY. This anti police and really authority has leaked all the way down to park rangers. Good grief.
I wish there was a society where people like you could freely move too and live out your wet dream. As a bonus attendance would plummet at our national parks.
I’ll see myself out.
The Grand Canyon, to be fair, is a lot less restrictive toward visitors than many of the other most-visited national parks.
Simple reality is that people would not enjoy giving tax money to national parks without public access and use. So it is a balancing act to try and do both which part gets more emphasis depends on the folks running the park service. Sadly they don't always achieve a reasonable balance between the 2 missions. Then add in congress and its control of funding and ability to just say do this or that which doesn't always help the goal.
And the park service has struggled for years with the simple costs of maintaining things. There have been times when parks service got tons of money to build facilities for public use. But they often then have periods of congress not fully funding the service many years they have had to pick and choose what didn't fix this year. Because it is a question of how much is left after doing the things that must be done.
Yep, the funding dilemma is a whole different issue entirely, but very relevant as you describe. I made a video on it a while back, when the last government shutdown was looming, and it always amazes me how much financial return the parks get for how little they are supported. I'm of the opinion that that shouldn't be the _only_ consideration, but politicians love that and it boggles the mind that they don't give parks more resources.
Nice to include your own merch in the video of Shenandoah at 5:42
Haha, not really merch! That's not commercially available, just some stuff my friends made for me. Glad you like it though!
*Skips video and goes straight to youtube solution section*
It’s an educational video, giving history and context, why u here if u just want the solution when u can just look it up💀
It seems to me that the mandate is primarily to conserve the nature of the parks over access to them. I think the simplicity of the legislation makes it easy to identify its priority, which is conservation, and makes it easy to act.
I believe that in order to maintain the parks unimpaired for future generations, crowds must be limited. The entire park experience is seriously impaired by the massive crowds. The trick is how to limit crowds in a manner that all classes of people have equal access (not guaranteed access, but an equal opportunity to be granted access). A reservation or lottery system seems like it could do that but seeing miles long lines of cars trying to enter the parks tells me that it isn't perfect yet. For overvisited parks like Yosemite or Bryce Canyon, only people with reservations will be allowed access. Signs 10-20 miles down the road should clearly post that fact, urging people without reservations to turn around. It's a shame because when I was a kid in the 70s, driving up to Yosemite was something we could do on a whim, but I can only imagine that the massive crowds are causing serious damage.
I do believe that there is a significant number of people who aren't visiting the parks to experience them or learn about them, but instead are visiting them just to get the Instagram snapshot. These people often put themselves in dangerous situations for an outrageous pictures that end up taxing park resources even more. I saw a TH-cam video of a couple at Denali NP, miles from any help, walking out onto an ice shelf over a river during the thaw and then proceeding onto a trail that was closed. With so many visitors, the chances of vandalism increase exponentially, like the guys recently arrested for deliberately toppling ancient rock formations at Lake Mead NRA and filmed the video to post on their Instagram page. Joshua Tree NP was also the victim of serious vandalism. To protect the parks, people must be strictly limited.
There's also a staffing shortage. No one to enforce what trails are closed and to inform visitors on why they shouldn't litter or feed squirrels.
I remember visiting Bryce Canyon and was appalled that people thought the squirrels could be fed. But some people don't know better and need to be informed.
Thanks for the comment. I think we are starting to see parks reckon with the consequences of overcrowding in a very real way now with the broader uptake of reservation systems and timed entry. As you say, it's not perfect, and there's a long way to go, but this does signal to me that parks recognize the problem and are taking steps to begin addressing it. Personally, I very much enjoyed my experience with reservations at RMNP a few years ago, even for the Bear Lake corridor. I am sad that the spontaneity factor has been taken away at some of these locations, but I'm happy to make that sacrifice for the protection of park resources, and I also recognize that there are LOTS of other great places out there to visit where I can still have a spontaneous adventure.
Why am I getting a black screen? No pictures just sound
Are you using a cracked TH-cam app? If so that's probably why
Perhaps you're wearing a hat 3 sizes too big.
Everyone wants to see the parks, but no one wants to admit that everyone can’t.
By going to see these places in masses we are in essence destroying what makes them pristine and idealistic landscapes to get away.
I've seen all these sites...through a ViewMaster...circa mid 1960's. ...
not gonna fight the crowds to see in person.
The Park Service is all about promoting and advertizing. They want growth, but growth just wrecks nature. It's stupid.
They’ve been usurped by the capitalist ideology
That was interesting and informative -- thank you. I wonder if the Supreme Court's recent overturning of the Chevron Doctrine will have an impact on park management? I hope not.
I'm very interested to see how the Chevron decision will impact park management. That's a great piece of insight I hadn't considered. Thank you!
Same here in Canada...sadly.
I tend to go off season, look for less popular parks and state parks
Same!
Actually Hot springs national Park is the first federally protected Park not Yellowstone.
Bro 💀 for the thumbnail I’d rather have reality it looks nice
Unelected bureaucrats shouldn't have the power to make so many decisions on their whim. If it was up to them nobody would be allowed in.
You have some serious fangs
Haha you’re referring to his canines?
I think overpopulation on a global scale is the core problem here and the elephant in the room that nobody wants to address.
Don't go on weekends!
Interesting problem alright. Good video. I'd agree that conservation should trump public access, if the latter is endangering the former; and that the mandate should be flexible enough to allow restricted public access depending on the situation.
Appreciate it, thanks for the input and for watching!
No, it's not impossible. The two mandates are not inherently mutually exclusive. It simply takes intelligent planning and management. So, after a minute or so of that false dichotomy, I'm moving on.
and let them fine visitors if they touch the wildlife. i dont remember the national park service fining ppl for going off trail / disturbing wildlife. lmk if they do
It's not "impossible" at all. The parks are managing it pretty well now. And if Republicans would pony up the money needed for maintenance and sufficient staffing (and better wages for you guys), then this would be solvable for a long time.
the core problem is there are too many people. the US population has doubled in my lifetime.
I have had the privilege of being able to experience many of our Nation Parks and I am 100% in favor of entrance reservations.
I've heard this sentiment a lot! I think people like the certainty it provides. I personally had a great experience at RMNP with them, but haven't tried them in other locations yet. It seems like parks are learning more as they use them more, and I think they'll only continue to improve as time goes on.
@@NationalParkDiaries And maybe have everyone take a class & test, so they know how to act around wildlife.
There is a simple solution to this problem build more roads, visitors centers and trails as the population increases. I know the environmentalists won't like this but the reality is that the parks have so much wild space you could build another road or two and there would still be a good amount of wild space and it would be better for the environment because people would be more spread out. I'm very disappointed in the park service because they don't seem to be upgrading their infrastructure/few new trails have been built since the depression and I'm very disappointed in the environmental movement because they don't recognize that you have to build a little more when the population goes up. I realize the park service has a very limited budget but punishing everyone for you're lack of funding doesn't help the problem. News flash congress doesn't listen to the tax payer they only listen to their big donors. When the park tells the tax payer get us more funding or we are going to treat you badly it just makes the taxpayer angry and less likely to support the park in the future. I'm a big nature fan. I used to support the park service but not anymore because I don't like how rather than hire a few more rangers to properly enforce the parks more sensible rules they punish everyone with ridiculous over the top rules, I don't like how hard it is to access the park, and I don't like that fees have gone up alot in recent years but we haven't really got anything for it. There recently was a vote to expand Olympic National Park and I voted against it, I'd rather the area remain national forest because its alot easier to access the national forest and there is much less red tape to worry about.
Um... We should consider the alternative situation which is that the parks are not protected and people destroy them anyway. I say the current system is way better.
NOTHING IS IMPOSSIBLE
I think they need to split the responsibilities of the Secretary of the Interior. We should elevate an experienced, non politically motivated, NP Ranger to a new cabinet level position focused entirely on national parks. I'm sure my surface level understanding has me missing critical factors, but It seems to me that the onus of protecting and funding national parks heavily falls on the National Parks Foundation and private donations. It just feels like there is not anyone who has real authority giving the proper attention and advocacy that National Parks deserve.
Good point.
There is actually a school of thought that proposes removing the NPS from the Interior Department and making it its own independent agency, akin to the FCC or Federal Reserve.
I am grateful to all the you tubers out there taking us to places some of us will never see with our own eyes but they take us with them ... and you don't have all that congestion. Some of us prefer that anyway. I feel the day will come when only the wealthy will have the privilege of going in person anyway. May as well get used to that idea. Film as much as possible. Use drones. 🤣
No, don't use drones. They're super annoying to everyone else.
Can automobiles be prohibited from visiting these parks? That would solve many of these dilemmas. Automobiles bring most of the willful polluters to the park.
Some parks, like Zion, already do this with a shuttle system into the Canyon. I would argue that it should be more broadly implemented at especially busy locations (Old Faithful, Yosemite Valley, etc). Denali also has its famous bus system, and personal vehicles are prohibited past mile 15 on the park road. So, there is precedent for it.
@@NationalParkDiaries Grand Canyon also does this in the summer with the shuttles on the route to Hermits Rest. I actually found this to be ideal so I didn't need to fight for parking spots at each overlook as well as doing some of the shorter walks between viewpoints.
Build more parks to acomadate more people
As long as we provide adequate funding for those parks!!
More parks is an idea with good points, but as another commentator pointed out, we can't create new natural wonders; we can't conjure up another Arches or another Bryce Canyon. The most spectacular places are in the existing parks.
Part of the solution is to raise awareness of other aspects of nature. The video about Congaree was an example -- an underrated park because it doesn't have the scenery people expect, but a rich, vibrant ecosystem for those whose eyes have been opened to it.
@@jasonhernandez619 Some existing parks are definitely under-utilized though. Canyon de Chelly is a perfect example. It should be promoted more, but access to various parts of the park needs to be improved. One of the main overlooks is now closed for no real reason.
@@jasonhernandez619this is blatantly wrong. There are tons of amazing landscapes that are not currently located within national parks lol
I say don’t fix it unless it’s broken 😂
While I don't think the Organic Act is broken, I do think the National Park System is reaching a breaking point in terms of visitation and lack of funding. I'm on board with the fundamental mission the Dual Mandate lays out, it's just we need leaders who will provide the NPS (and all public lands) with the support they deserve.
I don't where you're going with this, but i like it.
Trains might help
Balance is key, and sadly reservations are easiest way to balance access and protection, lotteries could be done, but I feel lower income peoples odds should be better, not saying higher income shouldn't have chance, they can just afford to travel more so shouldn't have same odds
I don't like the idea of leaving it to chance though. Having to gamble to see a national park feels wrong.
Means testing is not a great idea
There are just too many people in the world. Overpopulation is the fundamental cause of all environmental, ecological, and often other social and political problems in the world. Unfortunately, people only want to complain about the symptoms, but no one seems interested in addressing the problem of overpopulation openly or directly. Overpopulation and global warming were big issues in the 1960s and 70s, but somehow, they got swept under the rug in the 1980s and the mainstream decided “let’s not talk about it anymore”. Now the consequences of becoming apparent.
National parks should be given as reparations for the first peoples
No, national parks should be for everyone’s mental health, education, and enjoyment. To restrict access to Native Americans would be doing the whole country a great disservice.
I'm going to have to give this issue, more serious and lengthy thought . . . In the meantime, for Yosemite NP, driving the CA-120, as a literal DRIVE-THROUGH, just with the purpose in mind to reach US Highways 395 & 6 (Hint: The 6 takes you ALL THE WAY to Cape Cod!) & Death Valley, presented the EXCURSIONARY motorist with no problems--easy come, easy go, even if you still had to pay that nominal "Parks Use" fee, even just for "passing-through".
Today, though, "Policy & Protocols", DEMANDS that the Visitor MUST have at the minimum (Show your PROOF, to the Admitting Ranger at the kiosk.), one overnight stay in one of the hostelries and/or campgrounds, and that you must declare an Itinerary of the attractions therein the park, that you will see (And, you had better show up at those, at your planned times, kind of like an "appointment".), I tell ya, it's all progressing towards Lotteries within Lotteries!! Yet, all of these "restrictions"--for now--applies in Yosemite NP, only between 6AM-6PM, the rest of the time I'm told, the HodgdonTioga kiosks, remain unmanned, and you still have to pay the Parks Use Entrance Fee (On the Honor System?), with a Credit/Debit Card scan, getting a windshield sticker. Then, it's easy-come, easy-go. So, starting at Hodgdon Portal after 6PM, that should get you into Lee Vining for a late supper there, with lodging, or you can stretch it more, if you'd rather stop at Bridgeport/Mammoth/Benton, later on. Conversely, being at Tioga Portal after 6PM, may get you to Groveland/Big Oak Flat by, say, 8. You want to go all the way to Oakdale? That awaits you at about 9:30PM.