Is this the ideal "national park experience"? In 2017, Zion National Park staff said the line to hike to the top of Angels Landing at times had 1,200 people in it/NPS file
What, to you, is the ideal national park experience? We ask that question in the wake of word that nearly 300 million people visited the National Park System last year, with half of that total going to just 25 national parks.
Were you among those who headed to one of those 25? If so, what "national park experience" where you expecting, and what did you actually experience?
And if you avoided the top 25, did you do so knowing they would be crowded and so headed somewhere less crowded to attain what you consider to be the "national park experience"?
Tell us readers, what is the ideal "national park experience" in your opinion?
And in addition, where did you have your best national park experience, and why, and where did you have your worst, and why?
Comments
For me the national park experience lies in taking in the natural wonders snd beauty that nature and man have bestowed upon this world.
From fishing crystal clear mountain streams too camping in majestic forests . Hiking the many trails available throughout the country breathing fresh, crisp mountain air, sking on clean freshly fallen snow.
viewing mans contribution to our world as we know it. architecture both modern and ancient.
To be able to enjoy the richness of nature and man's contribution's too take in all that surrounds us with a sense of awe and wonder.
But to do so in a world that is quiet, without crowds , cars, and human
destraction and noise- is the ultimate goal.
a goal, that these days is harder snd harder to be able to obtain.
many years ago , you could venture to Parks, Monuments, historical sites and surround yourself with nature in a more tranquil and serene setting. Today's same trips from years gone by are filled with cars, dogs, RV's ? people( crowds ), pollution and noise.
The rich experiences that one could find in days past are still there,but are much harder to find.
i have been fortunate to see many of today's popular parks many years ago when they were much less crowded and you had the ability to take in the moment with piece, quiet and even solitude(at times)
one must venture to many of the less" popular " parks, monuments etc to find those same feelings . These -less popular - areas have opened up my world. There is so much richness snd diversity to enjoy if one just travels beyond what is popular.
one of my best experiences was to Chaco National cultural site.
to walk amongst buildings a thousand years old in an area that was so far of the beaten path. no crowds.to walk on trails with absolute piece and quiet was a rich experience.
another great trip was to Mount Reiner National park. Late September.
the beauty and bounty of this park caught me of guard. So much to see snd take in. The trails, glaciers,snow cap peaks, waterfalls and overall experience was so much more than I had expected.
The best of the best was Having the Sunrise visitor area open . it had been closed due to wildfires. I was told it was closed that morning. But I drove to that area to " see the sites" And found the toad open to the center. When I got there there a total of 3 cars and stunning scenery.
could walk the trails and take in the world around me in a quiet , surreal atmosphere.
worst Experience was last October at Zion National park. Had never been and wanted to cross it off the bucket list. Figuring that this would be a good time for less crowding, I was totally wrong.
getting there at 9:30 in morning , found the crowd was overwhelming. From the time I parked, to the time I left ( 6:30 pm ) it was a mass of humanity. The buses snd trails were just people everywhere.
It was so overcrowded that the experience underwhelming yo say the least. I doubt wheather I will ever go back.
I visited one of the top 25, Great Smoky Mountains National Park, this last summer. It was more crowded than ever, but with planning were were able to generally navigate around the crowds. It was still a great park experience.
It is also true that there are numerous National Park System units that have wonders as great as full-fledged National Parks and are often less crowded. Many of them could be expanded and re-designated as full National Parks, such as Big Thicket, Dinosaur, Chaco Culture, and Craters of the Moon.
That said, I have been to many places across the country that are not in the National Park System, but where I had a near "national park" experience. That is, beautiful scenery, diverse wildlife, and outstanding recreational opportunities. Few of these areas were crowded and in many there was no one else there.
Most of these areas were existing national forest, BLM, national wildlife refuge, or state forest lands.
These areas were almost invariably lacking the excellent interpretation, educational programs, and recreational amenities that comes with national park status. More important, most of these lands were open to logging, intensive habitat manipulation, livestock grazing, mining, drilling, intensive recreational uses, or other industrial exploitation. So their national park-like values are likely to be lost in the future.
Hundreds of "near national park" public lands would qualify for national park designation. Expanding the National Park System would offer a national park experience in new places and relieve pressure on existing parks. It would also protect these values in perpetuity.
For example, the park I recently visited -- Great Smoky Mountains (GSMNP) -- could be quadrupled in size to 2 million acres, incorporating lands from the existing Cherokee, Nantahala, and Pisgah national forests. These forests have many natural features that rival or even surpass those of GSMNP. (See https://www.pnas.org/content/112/16/5081) Yet most of these national forest lands are being degraded by logging and other harmful uses. Adding these forests to the park would offer a host of new places to visit while keeping these lands unimpaired for future generations -- all within a much bigger GSMNP.
Another example is Yellowstone National Park. The park is big -- 2.2 million acres -- and one of the most intact ecosystems in the United States. But it is not big enough. The park experienced a record-breaking 4.8 million visitors in 2021. (See https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/wyoming/articles/2022-01-23/yell...). Meanwhile millions of acres of public lands that surround the park are under siege. These lands are being logged, fracked for oil and gas, mined, and criss-crossed with roads. Wolves, grizzlies, bison, and pronghorn that leave the park are being killed. An expanded, 15-million-acre Greater Yellowstone National Park, incorporating all the public lands in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, would save endangered wildlife, and highlight numerous outstanding alternative places for visitors to explore.
It makes no sense that national parks are crowded while millions of acres of other superlative public lands continue to be devastated by resource exploitation for short-term private profit. Let's make them national parks for the climate, biodiversity, and people.
I think the current problems underscore a long-term contradiction in the purpose of public lands. Is it to preserve lands in as near to their original state as possible? Is it to safeguard plants, animals, natural features, archaeological sites? Or is it to provide recreation and resources? Often, you can't have both. And recreation is just as harmful as other industries when you consider the impact of roads, buildings, parking and other infrastructure as well as just the human presence. We need to not be so selfish as to prioritize the human experience over the destruction of the natural world.
Do you remember the first time you visited Yosemite National Park? I do, and it changed my life. It was the early 2000s. My mom and dad woke my two brothers and me up early to leave from the Bay Area to arrive in Yosemite Valley. It was horribly crowded - just as it is these days when the parking lots fill up - but that was fine because the experience of visiting on that crowded day changed my life.
I've gone on to celebrate my grandmother's 90th birthday amongst these public lands, climbed half dome twice, and spent nearly all of my adult summer weekends in the high peaks of the park. I've visited the park in times of joy and last-minute day trips deep into the wilderness along Tioga road have provided relief and mental well-being during hard times. If I was a child today, I wouldn't have this experience as my parents would have been turned away at the gate for not having a reservation.
Reservations don't end crowding, they just reduce overall access. Let's be real, 99.9% of visitors stay in Yosemite Valley and don't venture beyond the overlooks. I'm tired of the lie that parks are getting loved to death. What is being loved a lot right now are highly developed influencer spots, and the answer to this problem is promoting LNT.
Access and preservation aren't opposing forces. If we're worried about LNT - as I am - then there should be a "Leave No Trace" test that folks have to take every 5-10 years. But limiting access carte blanche is inequitable. All of the increased lotteries/reservations/limitations won't decrease the problems of crowding and bad visitors, it just punishes the vast majority of good travelers.
Let's think about ways to build more trails, fund the parks, and increase front country parking/trams. We shouldn't limit access due to crowding. We're all on the same team. We love these parks.
Your comment is cathartic. It sounds like I am a bit older than this commenter but I share their concerns. Them "front country" parts of Parks were crowded back when I was a kid in the 80s. They have become more crowded but I just arrive early and have no problems with the crowds.
I think the park experience should be open to everyone. Calls to restrict tourism scares me. Are my grandkids going to learn about parks in textbooks because they can no longer drive out on their own and go because they did not get a lottery or reservation to visit months in advance?
Rob
My ideal National Parks experience is one where I can leave for the parks for a last minute trip. Crowds are annoying but I haven't had any problems getting away from the hustle and bustle by trekking a few miles beyond the visitor center.
The hoops we have to jump through simply to visit some parks these days are far worse than crowds. I would rather have a park experience where I can wake up early and miss the crowds then one where I need to pay an additional fee to reserve a entry slot many weeks in advanced.
When I lived in DC, the rule was April to October belongs to the tourists, October to April is for the residents. I apply the same to visiting all tourist attraction - including the National Parks. Best to visit them in the fall - late September through early November.
My favorite is Sequoia Kings Canyon. Does not get the traffic of Yosemite. Not as popular. One of the reasons I enjoy the park. I love being in the big trees. While I no longer can manage the back trails, there are many other trails to enjoy being in nature.
Like others I worry about reservations. As the State of California has bought beach front propert, removed residents, and supposedly opened the parks to all. I used to be able to find an inexpensive rental, park by the lodging and have a few days on a quiet, beautiful beach. Since the state took over it is impossible to rent even a small part of a cabin. The beach houses have been divided into small rentals sharing kitchens and sometimes bathrooms. Reservations are open only on the first of the month and are usually gone within an hour. I tried for months and could not get a reservation. Although there are parking areas by the houses, even if you rent you must park in the lot on the other side of Pacific Coast Highway. You and your luggage can either take a shuttle to the entrance or walk using a tunnel under the highway. Day visitors pay about $10 to park. Once I could park elsewhere for free and walk.
The once quiet and beautiful beach now has a restaurant, a gift shop and the artist's home is an art gallery. The beach is over crowded even in the winter. The State of California is raking in money The average person can no longer enjoy the beach.
I worry about the cost of visiting a National Park. Out of reach of the majority of people. While my family can afford to visit at least right now, I think of all the little children who will never visit our parks.
Hi Jenny,
I totally agree. But recreation does not even come close to logging, livestock grazing, fracking, mining, and the hundreds of thousands of miles of roads built to enable these uses. This is the case on the vast majority of national forest, BLM, and state forest lands.
More than 90% of National Park System lands are roadless, undeveloped backcountry. 52.1% of national park lands are designated as wilderness -- 40% of all federal wilderness -- and most of the rest is recommended for wilderness designation. In contrast, wilderness comprises only 18.7% of national forests, 14% of national wildlife refuges, and 3.6% of BLM lands. Virtually no state lands are designated as wilderness.
In reality, the most intensive recreation in national parks -- with the roads, buildings, parking, and other infrastructure you mention -- is very localized. Yosemite Valley is very developed, but 89% of Yosemite National Park is unroaded and undeveloped wilderness
Moreover, the millions of people who recreate in national parks are strong advocates for keeping them safe from the kind of resource extraction that is degrading other public lands. Of course, recreation needs to be managed, or else it can result in serious damage on a local level. But on a landscape scale, recreation has a far lower impact than resource extraction.