National Park Centennial Initiative: US's Listening Sessions

Donkeykong · **Posted:** Mon Mar 26, 2007 10:06 pm

National Park Centennial Initiative: US's Listening Sessions

Alright, I will follow up with some more as I just got home from a meeting (I was there with my local MTB club, but I threw down for all of us OHV trail users)

Basically the national park service is holding forums where YOU can speak what is on your mind and what you would like to see at the parks.

Our group was trying to gain Mountain Biking access in our local national park, and we showed up in numbers, discussed what we would like to see the parks do to get more people to come in and use the resources.

I will post links shortly, but do some research, and maybe we can make a difference, and gain some OHV access in our national parks and monuments.

More to follow...

Donkeykong · **Posted:** Tue Mar 27, 2007 8:28 am

Wow, no responses?

Alright, the initiative is to get more people coming into the national parks, after all, they are your park system.

http://parkplanning.nps.gov/projectHome.cfm?parkID=442&projectId=17892

There are three questions that they are

Topic Questions:
1) Imagine you, your children, or future generations enjoying national parks in 2016 and beyond. What are your hopes and expectations?

2) What role do you think national parks should play in the lives of Americans and visitors from around the world?

3) What are the signature projects and programs that you think should be highlighted for completion over the next 10 years?

Basically, get on the site (before april 2nd) speak your mind and let's see what happens over the next 10 or so years.
-Mark

sleeve84028 · **Posted:** Tue Mar 27, 2007 8:41 am

Thanks for the link! I'll check it out tonight while my wife watches American Idol and I fumble around on the laptop instead of watching the show.

I am an avid user of my local parks in the metro Detroit area [Metro Beach or Stony Creek anyone?] to gain access for day sailing on lake St. Clair, picnicing & to use the bike paths. I haven't gone camping in about 5 years - but who knows what the future will hold.

chetos · **Posted:** Tue Mar 27, 2007 10:14 am

Holy Cow!! I can say I know someone who knows of someone who watches AI? Not Allen Iverson.

Back to topic. How serious will they take these issues or are they just 'listening' to appease? That would be great if that happened. I never had a problem mtn biking in the Black Hill of SD but we always went off of the beaten path and avoided campers and such.

BVCRD · **Posted:** Tue Mar 27, 2007 10:31 am

I would like the NP system to be non-mechanized travel off roads. Just like the wilderness areas are. Basically, foot and horse travel.

65thKJ · **Posted:** Tue Mar 27, 2007 4:26 pm

I would like them to allow ATV riding on National parks. Or at least state parks in NJ.

tommudd · **Posted:** Tue Mar 27, 2007 6:57 pm

There should be a good mixture for everyone. There are thousands of acres of land in southeastern and southern Ohio that no one can use due to stupid regulations. I know that there are other areas across the US thats just the same. They do have some ATV trails but not enough, they have horse and hiking trails in some of it but there is still alot that could be done to open more up for everyones enjoyment, after all we bought it all, didnt we?? The $$$$ that could be generated in any community would do wonders in some areas.

BVCRD · **Posted:** Tue Mar 27, 2007 10:30 pm

But they are wildernes areas. Chewing them up with mechanized travel would take away from it. If you want to see the backcountry, get off and walk. That way, you will see the wildlife instead of scaring them away.

alpnst · **Posted:** Tue Mar 27, 2007 10:45 pm

I don't want to walk, I want to see it on my mountain bike. I do no more damage then a hiker, unless it is muddy, then I don't ride.

Donkeykong · **Posted:** Wed Mar 28, 2007 7:31 am

BVCRD wrote:

But they are wildernes areas. Chewing them up with mechanized travel would take away from it. If you want to see the backcountry, get off and walk. That way, you will see the wildlife instead of scaring them away.

Sorry to contradict you BVCRD, but cyclists have equal or less of a chance to cause animals flight than hikers or equestrians. I can cite some studies such as Papouchis, Singer, and Sloan who would actually say that hikers have the greatest impact on bighorn sheep, where the authors of the study observed 1,029 bighorn sheep/human interactions in two areas: a high use one and a low use area, both of Canyonlands National Park in Utah, in 1993 and 1994. They found that hikers caused the animals to fluch 61% of the time, followed by vehicles (17%) and cyclists (6%). The report was released in 2001 on "Responses of Desert Bighorn Sheep to Human Interaction" In the Journal of Wildlife Management.

Herrero and Herrero report that cyclists are more likely to suddenly encounter bears because they travel quickly and quietly.

Robin Spahr's 1990 thesis at Boise State Univeristy concludes that Hikers have a greater impact on bald eagles than cyclists:
Again 46% of Walkers (hikers) caused the eagles along the Boise river to flush, followed by Fishermen (34%) Cyclists (15%) Joggers(13%) and vehicles at 6%)

I can go on all day long, but that wouldn't be condusive to a logical discussion. (and most people wouldn't read that far anyway)

I don't know if you are an equestrian (horse rider) or just prefer to walk, but I'm all about the parks being for everyone. Each usergroup can point to something that another group does and come up with 100 reasons why the park should only be available to that one group, but when it comes down to it, we are all paying for these parks to be there, how come we can't all enjoy them as we each see fit? A county park located across the street from my parents house is a shining example of how 5 usergroups (Hikers, Joggers, Equestrians and Mountainbikers and XC Skiiers) can all share a resource and get along. I have been riding in this park for 4 years now and have encountered plenty of the other usergroups (with the exception of the XC skiiers) and have always ended up with positive interactions. Some of the equestrians were rude telling me that I wasn't allowed there, but I explained that the same rules apply for the horses as the bikes: Only allowed on the trail when no snow is present.... and I would end up taking a moment to introduce myself, IMBA (International Mountain Bike Association), CAMBA (Cleveland Area Mountain Bike Association) and explain how it it up to me to set an example of how to approach horses to the published guidelines and it would work positivley each time.

I'll get off my soapbox now, but when it comes down to it, my Wife, Mom and Sister will agree: horses do more damage to trails than hikers and bikers. (They each own horses)
-Mark

BVCRD · **Posted:** Wed Mar 28, 2007 8:54 am

Donkeykong wrote:

BVCRD wrote:

But they are wildernes areas. Chewing them up with mechanized travel would take away from it. If you want to see the backcountry, get off and walk. That way, you will see the wildlife instead of scaring them away.

Sorry to contradict you BVCRD, but cyclists have equal or less of a chance to cause animals flight than hikers or equestrians. I can cite some studies such as Papouchis, Singer, and Sloan who would actually say that hikers have the greatest impact on bighorn sheep, where the authors of the study observed 1,029 bighorn sheep/human interactions in two areas: a high use one and a low use area, both of Canyonlands National Park in Utah, in 1993 and 1994. They found that hikers caused the animals to fluch 61% of the time, followed by vehicles (17%) and cyclists (6%). The report was released in 2001 on "Responses of Desert Bighorn Sheep to Human Interaction" In the Journal of Wildlife Management.

Herrero and Herrero report that cyclists are more likely to suddenly encounter bears because they travel quickly and quietly.

Robin Spahr's 1990 thesis at Boise State Univeristy concludes that Hikers have a greater impact on bald eagles than cyclists:
Again 46% of Walkers (hikers) caused the eagles along the Boise river to flush, followed by Fishermen (34%) Cyclists (15%) Joggers(13%) and vehicles at 6%)

I can go on all day long, but that wouldn't be condusive to a logical discussion. (and most people wouldn't read that far anyway)

I don't know if you are an equestrian (horse rider) or just prefer to walk, but I'm all about the parks being for everyone. Each usergroup can point to something that another group does and come up with 100 reasons why the park should only be available to that one group, but when it comes down to it, we are all paying for these parks to be there, how come we can't all enjoy them as we each see fit? A county park located across the street from my parents house is a shining example of how 5 usergroups (Hikers, Joggers, Equestrians and Mountainbikers and XC Skiiers) can all share a resource and get along. I have been riding in this park for 4 years now and have encountered plenty of the other usergroups (with the exception of the XC skiiers) and have always ended up with positive interactions. Some of the equestrians were rude telling me that I wasn't allowed there, but I explained that the same rules apply for the horses as the bikes: Only allowed on the trail when no snow is present.... and I would end up taking a moment to introduce myself, IMBA (International Mountain Bike Association), CAMBA (Cleveland Area Mountain Bike Association) and explain how it it up to me to set an example of how to approach horses to the published guidelines and it would work positivley each time.

I'll get off my soapbox now, but when it comes down to it, my Wife, Mom and Sister will agree: horses do more damage to trails than hikers and bikers. (They each own horses)
-Mark

I was mainly speaking about Yellowstone and Glacier. I can see where mountain bikes with their nobby tread would chew up a trail pretty good. I can see where a biker is moving faster than a hiker and gets into game quicker because of the speed and the quietness of them. Hikers usually talk, scuff their feet, wear bear bells etc. I don't ride horses anymore. I just lollygag around on foot. I walked up on a 500# black bear in Glacier once and stopped 50 feet from him. He saw me and just moved off the trail. If I were on a bike, I would have smoked right into him and there would have been trouble with me coming out the loser. I just think wilderness should remain wild. If you open the door to one group, then the next group wants in.

moose · **Posted:** Wed Mar 28, 2007 8:55 am

You can't have been to Yellowstone and call it wilderness; however, after backcounty camping in Yellowstone and other NPs, I would say that there is a great deal of scenic beauty that goes unseen. I have no problem with NP's opening up some hiking trails to bikers because it's low impact. I'm also for a few 4x4 roads in the parks, such as what we have in Dinosaur, Canyonlands and Arches; however I dont' think wee should turn the NPS into off road park. One or two well placed roads that would be 3+ or 4 to keep the traffic down would allow remote access to the elderly and infirm. The highlight example of this, IMHO, is Chesler Park in the Needles District of Canyonlands. It is possible for Joe minivan driver to backpack into this wonder from the 2WD trailhead. It is also possible to Jeep (3.5 trail) over Elephant hill and SOB hill to get to a very short trail that would allow all but wheel chair access. This successful approach could be adopted in other NPs to add access, without having the Yellowstone commercial look and feel (blacktop to the now less than scenic scene).

BVCRD · **Posted:** Wed Mar 28, 2007 8:58 am

moose wrote:

You can't have been to Yellowstone and call it wilderness; however, after backcounty camping in Yellowstone and other NPs, I would say that there is a great deal of scenic beauty that goes unseen. I have no problem with NP's opening up some hiking trails to bikers because it's low impact. I'm also for a few 4x4 roads in the parks, such as what we have in Dinosaur, Canyonlands and Arches; however I dont' think wee should turn the NPS into off road park. One or two well placed roads that would be 3+ or 4 to keep the traffic down would allow remote access to the elderly and infirm. The highlight example of this, IMHO, is Chesler Park in the Needles District of Canyonlands. It is possible for Joe minivan driver to backpack into this wonder from the 2WD trailhead. It is also possible to Jeep (3.5 trail) over Elephant hill and SOB hill to get to a very short trail that would allow all but wheel chair access. This successful approach could be adopted in other NPs to add access, without having the Yellowstone commercial look and feel (blacktop to the now less than scenic scene).

I was speaking about the backcountry. When I go there, I usually go in a canoe up to Shashone Lake. It sure is wilderness back there. 10 miles off the road by foot, and 8 by water.

Jeger · **Posted:** Wed Mar 28, 2007 9:38 am

I wouldnt mind them opening up some areas to more types of users. But I would like to see the wilderness areas we have now stay that way. It is nice to pack in 2days one way, stay for a week and not see another group the whole trip. It it going to be harder and harder to hold on to backcountry areas as the population grows, so you have to draw the line somewhere. There are some areas though that just arent big enough to be a wilderness area, perhaps these are the places where usage should be expanded to a point.

Donkeykong · **Posted:** Thu Mar 29, 2007 10:25 pm

Good point Jeger, we do not want natural area open to everyone, but in the same breath, I would hate to see all these natural areas pretty much sitting there with no one able to appreciate it....

Anyway, if you have your own houghts or opinion, get on the NPS website and voice your opinion. That was the intention of this thread, think about those three questions and throw in your $.02

I have attended my local meeting, and have voiced my opinions online. I wanted to invite all of the LOST members (who probablyh love the outdoors as much as I do) to weigh in on this discussion (which hasn;t received much publicity)
-Mark

dieselenthusiast · **Posted:** Fri Mar 30, 2007 5:53 am

This is an excellent thread start, thanks DonkeyKong for bringing this to our attention. :wink:

When living in New Mexico, we spent a lot of time in the National Parks, Monuments, and Forests. New Mexico, in general, is pretty liberal on their off-roading laws in most parts of the State.

Mining roads, logging roads, and other man made forest roads are plentiful and challenge the Jeepsters as well as the ATV adventure seekers. Most of the Parks and Monuments in New Mexico are protecting Anasazi Ruins and the hidden story they left behind. Pottery shards, tools, arrowheads, adobe walls, and many other artifacts are laying topically. So I can understand and support the significance of keeping off-road vehicles limited to off-road freedom in these historical areas. However, I think National Forests and other National Wilderness Lands could open up more designated areas for off-roading enthusiasts. As a matter of fact; some of the coolest caves, hidden ruins, and other unique finds were all accessible from off-roading. If it wasn’t for Jeep trails and ATV trails, most of these “off the grid and off the map” places that I’ve mapped with a GPS would literally take days and days to get to. I’ve spent a lot of time in the backcountry and living out of a backpack, so I do understand both sides of the story. I value solitude and the ethics behind “Leave No Trace.” But I think there is a time and place for each hobbyist including the backpacker, the day hiker, the biker, the ATV riders, horseback riders, and of course us Jeepters.

Some of the best off-roading I’ve experienced in New Mexico is on the Reservations.

BVCRD · **Posted:** Sun Apr 01, 2007 9:17 pm

dieselenthusiast wrote:

This is an excellent thread start, thanks DonkeyKong for bringing this to our attention. :wink:

When living in New Mexico, we spent a lot of time in the National Parks, Monuments, and Forests. New Mexico, in general, is pretty liberal on their off-roading laws in most parts of the State.

Mining roads, logging roads, and other man made forest roads are plentiful and challenge the Jeepsters as well as the ATV adventure seekers. Most of the Parks and Monuments in New Mexico are protecting Anasazi Ruins and the hidden story they left behind. Pottery shards, tools, arrowheads, adobe walls, and many other artifacts are laying topically. So I can understand and support the significance of keeping off-road vehicles limited to off-road freedom in these historical areas. However, I think National Forests and other National Wilderness Lands could open up more designated areas for off-roading enthusiasts. As a matter of fact; some of the coolest caves, hidden ruins, and other unique finds were all accessible from off-roading. If it wasn’t for Jeep trails and ATV trails, most of these “off the grid and off the map” places that I’ve mapped with a GPS would literally take days and days to get to. I’ve spent a lot of time in the backcountry and living out of a backpack, so I do understand both sides of the story. I value solitude and the ethics behind “Leave No Trace.” But I think there is a time and place for each hobbyist including the backpacker, the day hiker, the biker, the ATV riders, horseback riders, and of course us Jeepters.

Some of the best off-roading I’ve experienced in New Mexico is on the Reservations.

I lived in Crownpoint for 2 years. Where you been?

dieselenthusiast · **Posted:** Mon Apr 02, 2007 12:27 am

[/quote]I lived in Crownpoint for 2 years. Where you been?[/quote]

When did you live in Crownpoint?

BVCRD · **Posted:** Mon Apr 02, 2007 5:19 pm

dieselenthusiast wrote:

I lived in Crownpoint for 2 years. Where you been?[/quote]

When did you live in Crownpoint?[/quote]

1994-1996. My wife taught at the BIA school there.

National Park Centennial Initiative: US's Listening Sessions

Who is online