National Parks Access
The cluster focuses on debates about access, management, crowding, and rules in US national parks and public lands, contrasting strict protections with desires for greater freedom like 'freedom to roam' in other countries.
Activity Over Time
Top Contributors
Keywords
Sample Comments
Not everyone has the privilege of being near a nature park or the equivalent.
There is very much a place for both. National Parks have that designation for a reason, and they attract huge numbers of people. Management of areas with high visitation has to be much more strict to protect those areas. But we're fortunate to have vast amounts of public land we can disperse across, so those who want more freedom to explore and recreate without permits or requirements to camp in very specific places can do so.
You're not the only one. In the US they're banned from most national parks.
There are people living in some national parks or amusement parks. It's not that weird if done right.
I live on the outskirts between Yellowstone and Grand Teton national parks. While myself and locals access the (truly wild) back country regularly (it's generally why we live here), it's also really important that the 4+ million tourists from urban and suburban environments have visitor centers, boardwalks, signs, rangers, and guides. That middle ground is necessary for their safety as well as area around it. Yes, they will mess it up (or themselves) if allowed to roam freely - there&#
I think this goes against the initial concept of the US National Parks. It's owned by the people, and meant to be seen and experienced at any time.There are days that I needed to be recharged emotionally and could drive to Yosemite Valley and sit on a rock and listen to the wind. Yes, there we lots of people, but the quiet and calm was respected and maintained.Perhaps a better solution would be stronger consequences to those who violate trash, light, and sound pollution or those who d
This generalization is very misleading. Many national parks are massive, with vast tracts that can only be reached by days of hiking or an off road vehicle or an aircraft. This is true even of extremely popular parks like the Grand Canyon, Yosemite, Zion, Joshua tree, Smokey Mountains, and Denali.The Yosemite valley in summer for example can feel like Disney in terms of crowds, but that is just a small area of the park’s land. The entire eastern part of the park is far less busy even along th
In some countries, it's not a problem: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_to_roam
It is not all nondescript and empty. There is plenty of random public land, including BLM, that is gorgeous despite not being a National Park or a Wilderness Area, or which provides access into otherwise inaccessible public land areas. Something doesn't have to be a National Park to be worthy of visiting. National Parks are beautiful—and crowded. There are many people who like to go to more remote areas where they can be alone in peace.
Too many public lands in the US are managed like amusement parks instead of nature parks. These places would be less crowded and there would be less need for lotteries and permits if visitors had to make more of an effort to get there and use them. You don't even need to pack a picnic when you can count on a cafe and restaurant in the park. Once you are there and tying up a precious parking spot, you don't have to hike to see the scenery -- you can go into the air conditioned theatre a