I've been to many of the national parks. Views in Grand Teton are breathtaking. Meteor crater (private control now) is sobering. Grand Canyon is spectacular...etc
My favorite...A tough call, but I really enjoy caves. So I will go with Carlsbad Caverns, although Mammoth caves are impressive too.
One of the big National Park Service scandals is the creation of Grand Teton. The Interior Department wanted to take it over but ran into massive opposition from local people and the state of Montana. Laurence Rockefeller set up phony front organizations to buy up most of the land without local people realizing it, then "donated" it to the Interior Dept, trapping and surrounding inholders who didn't want to sell. They couldn't get a National Park approved by Congress so FDR decreed it to be a National Monument under the Antiquities Act. Years later they finally rammed the National Park designation through Congress, but only with the provision, unique in the US, that the President can no longer decree National Monuments in Montana. Rockefeller retained the right to build and keep a plush resort inside the park.
Yes, sorry. Substitute Wyoming for Montana. Yellowstone is in Wyoming, Montana and Idaho. Grand Teton is next to Yellowstone to the south and the Interior Dept wanted to expand down there. It's Wyoming, not Montana, that is safe from Presidential National Monument decrees now. Thanks for correcting it.
I have some cognitive dissonance about the "founding" of Teton Park. Regardless of the process, it saved that place from development which would have turned it into a very expensive housing development. The fact that the town (Jackson Hole) is crammed into the south end of the valley is what makes (keeps) the rest of the valley so spectacular. If it were in private hands, there would be another 30,000 houses over there. I live in Riverton, 150 miles from Jackson
Land does not need "saving" from the homes of people who own the land and want to enjoy living on it. The Rockefeller ploy was intended to block private ownership on the lowland seen while looking at the mountains in the distance. There was already a small National Park in the mountains and a large National Forest nearby. NPS rhetoric is filled with contempt for private ownership, the "commercial" and "development", yet crony Rockefeller wound up with a plush resort inside the park.
If someone wants to preserve land he can buy it himself without exploiting the power of the Federal government, with or without the chicanery of the political insiders and cronies. The end does not justify the means. National Park fanatics driven by their emotions over scenery don't acknowledge that.
I would like to see more of the parks privately managed, if not privately owned. I see no reason at all why places as beautiful as Yellowstone lose money. A sensible private manager (given the concessions plus the power to charge entry fees) would make money.
A private owner would do that and also keep the place in better shape (because he stands to lose if the park becomes less attractive to tourists). In addition, a private owner would find ways to exploit resources like oil and timber without messing up the landscape.
The first step should be to eliminate the NPS police state powers to control people and take private property. Instead we see just the opposite. The viros are trying to expand the National Park System and turn the Land and Water Conservation Fund into a permanent entitlement to acquire land immune from Congressional appropriations and with no restrictions on condemnation. Ken Burns says he wants to double the National Park System.
The National Parks Conservation Association, the private lobby arm of NPS, wants NPS to become an independent agency free of what it calls "political interference" from Congress and the Executive -- a "private" political fiefdom with Federal police state powers and a permanent inflow of taxpayer money with no accountability to anyone. They also want to allow NPS to accept money from the non-profit foundations immune from Congressional appropriations -- buying government power. That is their idea of "privatization": a private government with unlimited powers.
They also want the power to control private property and industry outside of the National Parks in what they call "buffer zones" and the "viewshed" -- that has at different times passed the Senate or House but not yet both. In the late 1970s a national land control bill nearly passed Congres, after a big fight, that would have given NPS the power to impose greenline controls over private property as your friendly national "zoning" board.
The idea of privately run parks as private property, not a private government, is a long, long way from political trends.
The dissonance is an emotional conflict. Do you understand the principles?
The NPS fanatics who still believe that the mass condemnations of private owners were necessary sacrifices don't understand it and don't want to. They put their emotional nature worship ahead of human rights.
I have encountered some preservationists who when learning of the forced population displacements don't like it, but are very limited in what they are willing to do about it. They have no sympathy for private owners other than homeowners, and still want to "experiment" with restrictions in new parks like greenlining and only limitations on eminent domain. These schemes have been imposed over and over with the same abusive injustices under phony promises of "this time it's different". Their misanthropic nature worship religion emotionally attached to scenery is very deep.
Of course I understand the root of cognitive dissonance and at my age, 72, I allow myself those necessary fictions that keep me from murdering some a**holes. I also allow myself a lot more slack on crap that 5, 10, 40 years ago burdened me. Nevertheless, the "process," regardless of how corrupt, yielded a "product" (Jackson Hole, that valley) that is a joy to behold.
I don't know what you mean by 'necessary fictions', etc.
The corrupt process leads to nothing good. The National Park Service does not create scenery, it takes over. Corrupt processes are very damaging to real people.
My favorite place is a non-park -- our own property on the Maine coast that the National Park Service and its lobby tried to take in back room chicanery that is best described as racketeering. The threat constantly looms.
Capitol Reef and HWY 12 between Bryce and CR. Zion is a close second. Yosemite is simply breathtaking. You pop out of the tunnel and enter heaven. I literally wept...but there are ENTIRELY TOO MANY PEOPLE!
agree, Teri. . I have been to Yosemite 3 times, the first in 1966 when we camped on the river in the valley and I tried to hear skip radio from my tent ... scarce! ... and then 1981 with my first wife, and then 2009 with my second. . the crowds have gotten pretty bad. unless you head for glacier point at sunset....... -- j
Big Bend in TX but I also enjoy Great Sandunes in Colorado. Some of the larger parks like Yellowstone or Glacier I 'd like better if they weren 't so police-y. That gets annoying
I do wish they were in private hands, they sure would be a lot more cleaner. I have had the good fortune to have spent many months in Yosemite. For many years I would spend a few weeks each year hiking and climbing around the valley walls, then up into Tuolumne, and off into the surrounding Sierra Nevada. So yea Yosemite is a nice place. My "bucket list" is to visit every national park in North America. Have fun, iSank
There is a lot more to it than how clean they are. Every time you walk into a National Park ask yourself how they got the land and what they have done to prevent people from using it.
How far have you gotten on seeing all the parks? do you have a percentage, or x out of 388 visited to date? Other than Yosemite, any other favorites? I'm always planning "the next trip" and appreciate any input!
My pursuit is not that formalized yet. Of the 58 I have been to
Yosemite, the article talks about Hetch Hetchy and most just consider just the Valley but the wilderness areas of Yos is immense, beautiful and not easy to access. I've gone days up there without seeing another person. Yellowstone, an amazing place but I struggled to get away from the crowds. Denali, an incredible place, going back for sure and will take the bus the full 100 miles to the end of the road. Everglades Adirondack Grand Canyon, will do the hike across some day. Zion multiple times, very peaceful in the off season, and only a few hours from Vegas Glacier Grand Tetons. Another favorite, the hiking here can get exciting. Haleakala, most visits on a bike Hawaii volcanoes MT Rainer, will return Sequoia And Acadia
When we cut back on work, we will be a bit more aggressive in our NP visits. On principle I may choose to Not visit the Theodore roosevelt NP. Aloha, iSank
The comments in the article are amusing. One raises the question of the idea of public parks with a libertarian critique. The Government is making us taxpayers work to pay for a park that most of us will never visit.
Interesting point about public parks. My wife and I visited a privately-owned park earlier this year - Dismals Canyon in north Alabama. It doesn't compare to the size and scope of a Yosemite or Yellowstone, but the experience was roughly equivalent to experiences at national parks in terms of facilities. We took a night tour and the guide was very knowledgeable and was able to answer all questions posed to him. I would put him on par with guides we had at Mesa Verde the first time we visited (and better than the last guides we had at MV).
My other comment is, hey, you're paying for them whether you want to or not, you should go enjoy them if you get a chance. It's kinda like social security in that regard ... I may not agree with it in principle, but I don't get a choice of whether they tax me for it. My only choice is whether to take the benefit derived from those taxes.
If you're not close enough to enjoy Yosemite, on the other side of the continent are the Blue Ridge Parkway, Smokey Mountains, or Acadia in Maine (I haven't been to Acadia yet, but my brother gives it high marks)..
The early big National Parks in the east -- Shenandoah (Blue Ridge), Smoky Mountains and Acadia -- were all established by land takings and political corruption and all are dishonestly promoted under the myth as being "gifts" from the wealthy. Worse, is that this practice has been continued across the country ever since, and the National Park Service and its lobby make no apologies for it. When they acknowledge it at all they regard it as a necessary sacrifice. They know very well that normal people are appalled by it when they find out, and do what they can to evade it, including through outright dishonest denial. It can be "interesting" to confront National Park Service rangers over this, though there are many who work for the agency who don't like it either.
I used to think that in the range of government waste and abuse that National Parks were the least to worry about. How much damage could they do 'managing' wilderness and picnic tables? It turns out that it ranks down at the bottom along with 'asset forfeiture' and the IRS. Yet the National Park Service is consistently ranked very high with the general public because they don't know: They are reacting to images of scenery and Smoky the Bear and know nothing about the land condemnation, restrictions, expansionist mentality, bureaucratic corruption and mission mentality, cronyism with the concessions permitted inside while trying to drive everything out for wilderness preservation, and the $11 billion deficit in maintenance and restoration.
The National Park Service is a very dangerous agency hiding its corruption behind the scenery. This has been fueled by the modern viro movement with its misanthropic nihilistic nature worship and its influence within government today. Most people enjoy scenery but don't go berserk using it as an excuse for dictatorship. Not so the viros and NPS.
The additional aspect about National Parks is that they are entirely unconstitutional within a State. Not enumerated under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17.
So does Congress have the power to designate National Parks in a Territory?
If so, this leaves the question of what happens when a Park was created when the area was a Territory - such as Yellowstone when reaching statehood. Should the boundaries of the States of Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho have been drawn around the Park? There would have been no "Park County" in Wyoming. Otherwise, since the federal government has no authority to "own" a Park within a State, does it revert to the State to do with as it pleases? The State could retain it as a State Park or open it to private disposal to the people. What a concept!
Of course this is all raising the hypothetical sentiment that the Constitution could have been followed in the past when creating new States, let alone these days when a president can grab land at the "stroke of a pen".
States may cede territory to the Federal government with approval of the state legislature but there is no constitutional authority to run National Parks at all. Politically it doesn't make any difference.
Indeed politically today, and apparently at worsening stages in the past, it makes no difference. It is just interesting to explore the hypothetical constitutional proceedings should we ever have the chance again.
The States may cede territory to the feds, but the feds can only accept them for the purposes enumerated in the enclave clause - Art 1, Sec 8, cl 17.
When you go to Acadia it's best to bring your own horses and carriage. The carriage roads are exactly that, well constructed for carriage and horse, and without cars.
If you do not have horses, or do but you and the horses have not learned driving, well, there's your opportunity! "Gotta get horses. Gotta learn driving. It's off to Acadia in five years!!"
There is a road to the top of Cadillac Mountain and other park and local roads through the park. But cars are being replaced by mass transportation in buses.
The carriage roads -- a "gift from Rockefeller" -- were turned over to the National Park because Rockefeller had a dispute with the local town in which he didn't want other people driving cars near his mansion. His connection with the National Park Service is how he resolved the dispute.
Cars were banned on most of Mt. Desert Island (where Acadia is and connected to the mainland by a single road) so the big shot "rusticators" weren't disturbed by them in their summer "cottages" (mansions). A massive fire swept the island in the 1940s and burned a large portion of the buildings to the ground because there was no way for fire engines to get in. That was also the end of the romantic enforcement of the roadless policy.
You really cannot see the roads well without enough time to travel the roads, and that is best done from your own horse-drawn carriage. You might do anywhere between 3 or 4 miles an hour at the walk, to 12 at the trot. Bicycles are limited to perhaps 10 or 15 miles per hour, so it was quite a bit of excitement to find a father and son coming downhill at us, at perhaps 50 MPH, only stopping underneath our team of four horses. The horses were good enough to refrain from stepping on them. Our driving trainer, who was the driver at that moment, said, "Going a bit fast, weren't you!"
When driving horses it is incredibly easy to change drivers. You hand the reins to the other person. Alternatively, if you do not trust the driver's ability, you grab the reins out of his hands. This is called "grabbing the reins" and is also used, usually pejoratively, as a figurative expression.
!!!!! We need to "grab the reins" in Washington, our State Capitols, and our Counties.......don't trust the drivers!
I remember a geology field trip from University of New Hampshire to Acadia. We were looking at an unusual variant of granites known as Rapakivi granites. Rapakivi texture is where orthoclase feldspar crystals are rimmed with oligoclase feldspar. This is the potassium rich feldspar rimmed by the sodium-calcium feldspar.
On the field trip we camped on the island, got pizza and beer in Bar Harbor, then roamed the streets as the most dangerous Rapakivi gang - a bunch of drunken geologists - watch out!
Up until just a few years ago, I had been to Yosemite every year (save 3) since I was a teenager - from hiking the Grand Canyon of the Tuolumne to sneaking a tent (on a motorcycle, nonetheless!) into a grove on the valley floor and spending a long weekend unseen (and unbothered) with a few friends. It is, by far, one of my favorites, and has been for a while, but it's become so overrun with tourists it's not as it once was...
My current favorite is Lassen Volcanic - most of the visitors are either from overseas or from the local area (and there are few of either, usually!), the beauty of the park itself and the surrounding area is breathtaking, and the vistas are spectacular.
Then again, living 10 miles from the gate, I just might be a little biased...
Yosemite is great but I have not been there since I left California in 1986. I was stationed out there in the early 80's and enjoyed the mountains as I lived in Colorado before that. I spent many weekends in that area. The parks are a sore subject, yes, our taxes are used to support these parks, sometimes poorly but they are gems worth preserving. We don't always have a say in what our taxes are spent on but I believe that if you have the time or are located close to any of the parks, do it, take the time and visit these wonderful places.
Last time I was in Yosemite was in 1988. Came over from the east side of the Sierra for a day and went back. The traffic was terrible. Since then, we have always called it Yocramite.
I have lived within 3 hours of the park for about 40 years of my life and I've never been. Hard to believe. I go to the mountains regularly - different spots to kick back and fish, mainly. I hate crowds, so I hope to go to Yosemite in the fall months sometime.
One day when I was living in San Diego, my son and I on a lark, decided to take off for Yosemite. Awesome and breathtaking. I always thought that the Ansel Adams pics of the Park were impressive, but that can't be compared to the real thing. Since the park is booked way in advance, we stayed at a Motel outside the park. There were a few good restaurants there except one. All I can say about it is never eat at an Italian restaurant where the waiter wears cowboy boots. In national parks, my favorite is The Grand Canyon, because we took a raft trip down the Colorado River through the canyon. I Highly recommend it, but take the whole trip from Lake Powell to Lake Mead. It usually takes 7 days and you camp in the midst of wonder and going over the rapids is better than Disney. And if you like contrast, Las Vegas is just up the road.
I got to raft the Ocoee river here in east TN once, and the rapids were stupendous! . made Disney's and Dollywood's rides fade to insignificance. -- j .
I've been to many of the national parks. Views in Grand Teton are breathtaking. Meteor crater (private control now) is sobering. Grand Canyon is spectacular...etc
My favorite...A tough call, but I really enjoy caves. So I will go with Carlsbad Caverns, although Mammoth caves are impressive too.
If someone wants to preserve land he can buy it himself without exploiting the power of the Federal government, with or without the chicanery of the political insiders and cronies. The end does not justify the means. National Park fanatics driven by their emotions over scenery don't acknowledge that.
A private owner would do that and also keep the place in better shape (because he stands to lose if the park becomes less attractive to tourists). In addition, a private owner would find ways to exploit resources like oil and timber without messing up the landscape.
The National Parks Conservation Association, the private lobby arm of NPS, wants NPS to become an independent agency free of what it calls "political interference" from Congress and the Executive -- a "private" political fiefdom with Federal police state powers and a permanent inflow of taxpayer money with no accountability to anyone. They also want to allow NPS to accept money from the non-profit foundations immune from Congressional appropriations -- buying government power. That is their idea of "privatization": a private government with unlimited powers.
They also want the power to control private property and industry outside of the National Parks in what they call "buffer zones" and the "viewshed" -- that has at different times passed the Senate or House but not yet both. In the late 1970s a national land control bill nearly passed Congres, after a big fight, that would have given NPS the power to impose greenline controls over private property as your friendly national "zoning" board.
The idea of privately run parks as private property, not a private government, is a long, long way from political trends.
The NPS fanatics who still believe that the mass condemnations of private owners were necessary sacrifices don't understand it and don't want to. They put their emotional nature worship ahead of human rights.
I have encountered some preservationists who when learning of the forced population displacements don't like it, but are very limited in what they are willing to do about it. They have no sympathy for private owners other than homeowners, and still want to "experiment" with restrictions in new parks like greenlining and only limitations on eminent domain. These schemes have been imposed over and over with the same abusive injustices under phony promises of "this time it's different". Their misanthropic nature worship religion emotionally attached to scenery is very deep.
The corrupt process leads to nothing good. The National Park Service does not create scenery, it takes over. Corrupt processes are very damaging to real people.
.
Texas has many parks - National and State - each with their own beauty; but I find myself most often on its rivers and streams.
Zion is a close second.
Yosemite is simply breathtaking. You pop out of the tunnel and enter heaven. I literally wept...but there are ENTIRELY TOO MANY PEOPLE!
we camped on the river in the valley and I tried to hear skip radio
from my tent ... scarce! ... and then 1981 with my first wife, and
then 2009 with my second. . the crowds have gotten pretty bad.
unless you head for glacier point at sunset....... -- j
http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=g...
.
My "bucket list" is to visit every national park in North America.
Have fun,
iSank
How far have you gotten on seeing all the parks? do you have a percentage, or x out of 388 visited to date? Other than Yosemite, any other favorites? I'm always planning "the next trip" and appreciate any input!
Yosemite, the article talks about Hetch Hetchy and most just consider just the Valley but the wilderness areas of Yos is immense, beautiful and not easy to access. I've gone days up there without seeing another person.
Yellowstone, an amazing place but I struggled to get away from the crowds.
Denali, an incredible place, going back for sure and will take the bus the full 100 miles to the end of the road.
Everglades
Adirondack
Grand Canyon, will do the hike across some day.
Zion multiple times, very peaceful in the off season, and only a few hours from Vegas
Glacier
Grand Tetons. Another favorite, the hiking here can get exciting.
Haleakala, most visits on a bike
Hawaii volcanoes
MT Rainer, will return
Sequoia
And Acadia
When we cut back on work, we will be a bit more aggressive in our NP visits. On principle I may choose to Not visit the Theodore roosevelt NP.
Aloha,
iSank
My other comment is, hey, you're paying for them whether you want to or not, you should go enjoy them if you get a chance. It's kinda like social security in that regard ... I may not agree with it in principle, but I don't get a choice of whether they tax me for it. My only choice is whether to take the benefit derived from those taxes.
If you're not close enough to enjoy Yosemite, on the other side of the continent are the Blue Ridge Parkway, Smokey Mountains, or Acadia in Maine (I haven't been to Acadia yet, but my brother gives it high marks)..
I used to think that in the range of government waste and abuse that National Parks were the least to worry about. How much damage could they do 'managing' wilderness and picnic tables? It turns out that it ranks down at the bottom along with 'asset forfeiture' and the IRS. Yet the National Park Service is consistently ranked very high with the general public because they don't know: They are reacting to images of scenery and Smoky the Bear and know nothing about the land condemnation, restrictions, expansionist mentality, bureaucratic corruption and mission mentality, cronyism with the concessions permitted inside while trying to drive everything out for wilderness preservation, and the $11 billion deficit in maintenance and restoration.
The National Park Service is a very dangerous agency hiding its corruption behind the scenery. This has been fueled by the modern viro movement with its misanthropic nihilistic nature worship and its influence within government today. Most people enjoy scenery but don't go berserk using it as an excuse for dictatorship. Not so the viros and NPS.
So does Congress have the power to designate National Parks in a Territory?
If so, this leaves the question of what happens when a Park was created when the area was a Territory - such as Yellowstone when reaching statehood. Should the boundaries of the States of Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho have been drawn around the Park? There would have been no "Park County" in Wyoming. Otherwise, since the federal government has no authority to "own" a Park within a State, does it revert to the State to do with as it pleases? The State could retain it as a State Park or open it to private disposal to the people. What a concept!
Of course this is all raising the hypothetical sentiment that the Constitution could have been followed in the past when creating new States, let alone these days when a president can grab land at the "stroke of a pen".
The States may cede territory to the feds, but the feds can only accept them for the purposes enumerated in the enclave clause - Art 1, Sec 8, cl 17.
If you do not have horses, or do but you and the horses have not learned driving, well, there's your opportunity! "Gotta get horses. Gotta learn driving. It's off to Acadia in five years!!"
The carriage roads -- a "gift from Rockefeller" -- were turned over to the National Park because Rockefeller had a dispute with the local town in which he didn't want other people driving cars near his mansion. His connection with the National Park Service is how he resolved the dispute.
Cars were banned on most of Mt. Desert Island (where Acadia is and connected to the mainland by a single road) so the big shot "rusticators" weren't disturbed by them in their summer "cottages" (mansions). A massive fire swept the island in the 1940s and burned a large portion of the buildings to the ground because there was no way for fire engines to get in. That was also the end of the romantic enforcement of the roadless policy.
http://www.acadiamagic.com/carriage-r...
You really cannot see the roads well without enough time to travel the roads, and that is best done from your own horse-drawn carriage. You might do anywhere between 3 or 4 miles an hour at the walk, to 12 at the trot. Bicycles are limited to perhaps 10 or 15 miles per hour, so it was quite a bit of excitement to find a father and son coming downhill at us, at perhaps 50 MPH, only stopping underneath our team of four horses. The horses were good enough to refrain from stepping on them. Our driving trainer, who was the driver at that moment, said, "Going a bit fast, weren't you!"
When driving horses it is incredibly easy to change drivers. You hand the reins to the other person. Alternatively, if you do not trust the driver's ability, you grab the reins out of his hands. This is called "grabbing the reins" and is also used, usually pejoratively, as a figurative expression.
I remember a geology field trip from University of New Hampshire to Acadia. We were looking at an unusual variant of granites known as Rapakivi granites. Rapakivi texture is where orthoclase feldspar crystals are rimmed with oligoclase feldspar. This is the potassium rich feldspar rimmed by the sodium-calcium feldspar.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapakiv...
On the field trip we camped on the island, got pizza and beer in Bar Harbor, then roamed the streets as the most dangerous Rapakivi gang - a bunch of drunken geologists - watch out!
.
My current favorite is Lassen Volcanic - most of the visitors are either from overseas or from the local area (and there are few of either, usually!), the beauty of the park itself and the surrounding area is breathtaking, and the vistas are spectacular.
Then again, living 10 miles from the gate, I just might be a little biased...
There were a few good restaurants there except one. All I can say about it is never eat at an Italian restaurant where the waiter wears cowboy boots.
In national parks, my favorite is The Grand Canyon, because we took a raft trip down the Colorado River through the canyon. I Highly recommend it, but take the whole trip from Lake Powell to Lake Mead. It usually takes 7 days and you camp in the midst of wonder and going over the rapids is better than Disney. And if you like contrast, Las Vegas is just up the road.
were stupendous! . made Disney's and Dollywood's rides fade to insignificance. -- j
.