Kirby Adams said: "When the next President wants to sell parcels of national parks for mineral extraction, we'll be squarely on the same side, I think."
Exactly right! And thank you for the well-considered post.
The basic problem is too many; Two many trails, too many mountain bikers, too many hikers, too many dirt bikers and ATV's, too many rude people, and last but not least too many people for the world to support. We might all be able to get along if there were far fewer of us.
Like Lee, many (most?) of my interactions with bicycles in multi-use areas have been negative. And I'm not talking about whether they disturbed my commune with nature - a purely subjective view that would be irrelevant to this argument. I label them as negative because I feel like if I hadn't been at peak attentiveness my saftey would be compromised.
Volknitter — so gratifying to read your comment! With a considered, reasonable approach I'm hopeful we can find a path (preferably singletrack) forward.
Thanks for the thought-provoking piece. Like many, my first reaction is I don't want mountain bikes on the trails in my favorite National Park - the Smokies. I can see them in some other parks, but not "in my backyard." After all, the Smokies are surrounded by National Forests with ample mountain biking opportunities, right? Then I paused to consider the many individaul trails in the Smokies.
Absolutely, Lee. IMBA's philosophy is that mountain biking benefits from good management. Many trails and park areas are not suitable for mountain bike access. But there are also lots of great opportunities to add our activity to national parks.
I know that my perspective on this is very limited, because the only interactions I've had with cyclists on trails have been locally in the mountains around Ogden, Utah. Many -- perhaps even most -- of my encounters with bikes on trails have not been good ones. But that may be because the people riding on these trails are city folks. Many of the worst seem to be teenagers.
Thanks for the well written opinion. I cherish our National Parks, and I very much enjoy mountain biking. The two are not inherently incompatible. The key is to fit the trail to the park, not the other way around. Done right, mountain bike trails are a plus to the park. Done wrong, they detract from the experience of others.
Thanks for the well written opinion. I cherish our National Parks, and I very much enjoy mountain biking. The two are not inherently incompatible. The key is to fit the trail to the park, not the other way around. Done right, mountain bike trails are a plus to the park. Done wrong, they detract from the experience of others.
Excellent perspective on the whole story! I really feel strongly as well about getting children in the wild outdoors...on foot, on bike, in a canoe.....the more ways we can teach our children to be stewards the better chance Mother Earth will have!
The Republican Party has turned into an extremist organization. The vast majority of federal land is already open to hunting and off-road motor vehicles. There is no reason to ruin that small percentage of our country that has been set aside as national parks and wilderness areas.
Honestly, I don't see how this creates any change in National Parks. Isn't the allowance or prohibition of hunting, fishing and trapping already at the discretion of the Park Service on a park by park basis?
I don't understand the purpose behind this bill. Are hunting, fishing and recreational shooting are on the decline due to a lack of access? I don't think this is the case, so I don't see how opening more land to these activities will even address the stated problem.
Thanks, Kurt. I wish I had the time to read everything. My guess is that the bill isn't going to get past the Senate and/or President Obama in its current form, so I can't make reading the documents a priority. But I certainly appreciate your making them available.
From the article, it's hard to judge whether the bill is a practical threat to current NPS no-hunting rules or instead something that the NPCA has seized on as a bogeyman for fundraising purposes.
imtnbke, we insert links in stories to pertinent docs with hopes folks would read them for further details;-) Here's the verbiage, with appropriate modifiers, you seek re ORVs:
You've nailed it, Hailsham. That makes three. There are some new or very infrequently seen names here. That's great, of course, but where are the regulars?
I just had a friend telling me about seeing two grizzlies in Dinosaur N.M., Colorado side. Honestly I did not think there were any grizzlies in or around that area. I think thats great !
Nothing to worry about. Certain segments of our politicians are telling us that once the Affordable Health Care Act kicks in and Sarah's death panels go to work, there won't be any old rangers or old anyones to inhabit a place like this.
PJ!
As always, a great idea. Have to say, the idea of living with a bunch of toothless retired rangers gumming their oatmeal in the morning is not high on my list. Still, as a seasonal with no retirement, it might be the way to go.
I think that's an excellent idea. It's one that my bicycle-oriented friends and I have bandied about, particularly those of us who don't have kids who might (in theory, and probably in our wishful thinking only) look after us, i.e., those of us who run a higher risk of being alone in old age.
You know, this has been talked about for years by many of us. My wife and I, back when we were both seasonals and had nothing other than a Datsun pickup that would hold everything we owned, thought we should buy up land and build yurts or other nice, seasonal type housing (we decided against the 30 year-old, all-ready condemned, travel trailers).
Actually, Bob, in the mid-1990s I rented a mountain bike from a bike shop in Fairbanks, Alaska. When I asked what the two metal hooks on the handlebars were for, the shop employee explained that that was my gunrack. Bears, you know. He was entirely matter-of-fact about it.
I certainly hope the NPS will renew the license for DBOC at Pt Reyes for the next 1000 years. This area has been a fishing and farming community for over 100 years and there is no indication, environmental or otherwise that the activiies of man cannot coexist with nature.
Strengths: Crystal clear image, quick focus, ergonomic feel, light weight
Weaknesses: I haven't found any weaknesses to these binoculars, yet. But I am still trying.
Anonymous, the public is a "victim" and Congress has confused them and diminshed the support for parks because of the naming system? Are you joking? I think the public is smart enough to know the difference and they choose to visit parks based on personal preferences.
On the contrary - it is writing a book on "58 national parks" that denigrates every park that does not have that title. I was not denigrating Cuyahoga Valley, I was making the point that the title designations are meaningless. Cuyahoga is no more or less the park it was when it was a National Recreation Area.
It's sad when people have to denigrate other Parks to try to make thier point, as "Anonymous" has. Cuyahoga Valley National Park is an important park for the NPS because of it's location between 2 urban areas: Cleveland and Akron. Cuyahoga Valley provides the NPS and other park with a best practices model for how to mitigate urban pressures on a natrual ecosystem.
All Recent Comments
Guest Column: IMBA Is A "Strong Partner" For The National Park Service
NPCA Worried That House Legislation Would Open National Park System To Hunting
National Park Mystery Spot 43: The January Sky
Park History: Dinosaur National Monument
A View From The Overlook: A Home For Endangered Rangers
Guest Column: Has The National Park Service Found Itself Straddling The Fence On Mountain Biking?
Scrutiny On National Park Service and Drakes Bay Oyster Co. Ramps Up
Marine Sciences Group Renovating Historic Fort Hancock Building at Gateway National Recreation Area for HQ
Birding In the Parks: Reviewing Binoculars from Vanguard
Your Guide To The National Parks: The Complete Guide To All 58 National Parks
Arizona Memorial Turns 50: Effort Underway To Preserve A Not-to-be-Missed National Monument