tandempower

I agree, and when I go to otherwise-wonderful natural preserves and see all the cars parked and all the people walking as if they're at an amusement park, it bothers me; but when I think about what it would be like if there was a train line or direct bus connection, I think it might get even worse. Compare US national parks with touristy parts of, say, Switzerland, where there are trains and cable lifts, etc. Gatlinburg and Pidgeon Forge are touristy, and it's certainly understandable to have some touristy areas like that, but given the way humans behave when they all flock to just about any destination, I wonder if making such places transit accessible isn't even worse than having them easily accessible by driving. I don't know if it's possible to entrust the transit-using public with responsible stewardship of natural areas if they get car-free access to them.

cooker

Again, he chose to post in the LCF forum and challenged people to explain how he could do his trip car-free, and people politely responded and explained that he would have to do a different trip or at least do things a little differently. And of course he is free to ignore these comments. Where are you seeing all this fanaticism and senselessness? Are you sure you just aren't distorting things through some kind of lens of preconception that people here must be some kind of hard-core zealots, and reading that into perfectly sensible comments?

Except for 3alarmer, of course

Maelochs

Yeah , ... and for every place there is a guy on a computer, there is a mountain in West Virginia without a top and a bunch of valleys with rivers full of coal ash.

cooker

I edited my post to say "our" cars since I don't claim to be somehow outside the system. However "we" can do a lot to reduce our impact, and reducing driving would be a huge step. If people routinely went to National parks by train instead of car, a lot more nature would be preserved along the route, and a lot less of the park itself would be paved.

cooker

if you barred car access and only allowed train access, and designed pedestrian friendly gondolas and monorails etc, instead of roads to get people to widely scattered sites inside the park, the park could handle a lot more visitors than it can if they come by car, and drive around inside the park. Some interior roads could be reinvented as hiking trails where appropriate, with the right of way narrowed from 50 feet to 6 feet or 3 feet, or whatever, and trees replacing asphalt.

If visitors to a park started to exceed capacity, it would be up to the park stewards to figure out how to limit access while maintaining fairness. by perhaps rationing permits or whatever. That way more people could enjoy the park without the park necessarily sustaining more stress or feeling more crowded. People take up a lot less space than cars.

tandempower

I'd be open to replacing car access with car-free access, but I don't think car-access will get banned any time soon, unfortunately.

It's ironic, considering that even amusement parks require guests to park outside the park and take transit to get in and access attractions.

cooker

I assume larger national parks do have lots of people come by tour bus in groups or even solo by Greyhound etc. in some cases, but there are probably a lot of smaller state parks etc. where private car is the only choice, and it's a bit of a class issue where people who can't afford cars miss out on a shared resource. So I hope in future there is more equitable access, and I'm sure the park managers will find various ways to ensure they aren't damaged by overuse.

3alarmer 

...

Teamprovicycle

Car free means no car at all no cheating , you get there by bike , the vacation becomes the journey , riding 100 plus miles a day .

tandempower

There is a deeper problem, which is what happens when hordes of people show up with frisbees and balls and turn a park into a playground. Then there are the vendors and park managers who use them to turn the park into a business that generates more revenue. There is fundamental bias against having parks be nature sanctuaries where people can hike/bike, camp, and live in a more primitive, small-footprint, way because most people just don't want to be humbled by nature, i.e. because humility in the face of nature feels like humiliation to them.

Machka 

The horror! All those hordes of people having fun in a park! Imagine!

tandempower

I like having fun, too; but people should respect that plants and animals living in the park set the tone of the park and humans should quiet down and observe. There can be recreational areas, but people shouldn't turn natural areas into recreational areas. Those are for observing nature and hiking/biking/camping in a way that is harmonious with it. It really comes down to not being too noisy, not trampling on plants, and not littering (take only pictures and leave only footprints).

Machka 

You've never run along a beach and screamed into the howling wind and crash of the waves?

Sometimes nature is the ideal place to be noisy.

cooker

Parks are versatile and diverse. They can have areas that are cleared and modified for specific activities like cricket or lawnbowling, others that are cleared for generic purposes and other parts that are left in their natural state. Again, the space we clear for recreational purposes is drastically overshadowed by the massive space we clear for transportation corridors. Let's cut back on the latter before we try to ostracize the frisbee players or mountain bikers who want space to play in parks.

cooker

All recreational areas used to be natural areas. Even a 3 foot wide biking or hiking trail is a recreational area that is no longer fully "natural'. If it goes on for miles, it disturbs more nature than a baseball field. Why do your recreational choices take priority over baseball?

Maelochs

Have any hard questions?

cooker

So your "people" or "peple" [sic] is one person? Here I thought you were referencing hordes of fanatics overrunning the forum, like locusts swarming over a rice field, destroying everything, or emulating the reavers in Firefly.

tandempower

That's not what I'm talking about and hopefully you understand that. If so, you're just being cheeky and if not, I probably can't explain it to you.

tandempower

Actually, let's stop the zero-sum logic that it's ok to deforest some areas if we protect and preserve forests in others. The CO2 balance is kept by keeping ecosystems rooted in soils. Human activities should be part of that, not a replacement of it. Once we have learned to humble ourselves and fully respect the critical functions of ecological life, then we can start thinking about allowing some clearing. Right now, we need to get over ourselves so that we can get down to the business of letting nature do the work it does for us and the rest of life on this planet.

tandempower

Humans started out as part of nature, but they started competing with nature for space at some point instead of fitting their activities into it. Many species modify and clear away natural growth, but they don't have the ability to analyze the long term effects of their actions and modify them accordingly. Humans do.

Maelochs

You are another one ... though I must say, the strength of your African river could power many cities if it could be used for hydroelectric.

3alarmer 

...you people !!

McBTC

who are... pretty much anyone who survives complaints to the moderator by essentially, two posters.

badger1

No, let's not. More specifically, let's not take any advice from you. "We" don't need to follow anything you suggest, and it is highly unlikely that anything good would come of doing so.

Finally, no -- "we" do not need "to get over ourselves". If there is one person on this sub-forum who needs to get over him- or herself, and to "humble" him- or herself -- that is, demonstrate just a little less arrogance -- it is you.

I-Like-To-Bike

One person could be sufficient to wreak such havoc if so motivated.