I do have to disagree on charging more to limit the masses though, as it disproportionately affects those with limited economic means to pay the increased fee. Limiting the number of entrances per day (like Rocky Mountain National Park is currently doing) seems an apt approach.
As far as the 'selfie' people being any worse than the 'people who know what they're doing', my experience has been that the latter group--even though fewer in number--is a much bigger pain in the arse, as they take much longer, have a larger footprint, and often act entitled. I pretty much avoid most of the National Parks in favor of BLM and National Forest land, both of which are plentiful around these parts. Was just in Crested Butte this weekend, and it is currently overrun with Texans... lol
DSC01 wrote:
Scott,
All the craziness aside.. your images are beautiful and the comps are spot on. I love the Canadian Rockies but don't get a chance to see as often as I would like so thanks for brining this into my life. Great job on these as usual Stay sane and safe regards, Dean
Glad you enjoyed the Canadian Rockies photos. Alberta is pretty safe relative to just about anywhere else - we will see what the fall will bring. I have 3 children in Texas (Architect, Accountant and Baylor Accounting Student) and its a little nerve wracking.
I do have to disagree on charging more to limit the masses though, as it disproportionately affects those with limited economic means to pay the increased fee. Limiting the number of entrances per day (like Rocky Mountain National Park is currently doing) seems an apt approach.
As far as the 'selfie' people being any worse than the 'people who know what they're doing', my experience has been that the latter group--even though fewer in number--is a much bigger pain in the arse, as they take much longer, have a larger footprint, and often act entitled. I pretty much avoid most of the National Parks in favor of BLM and National Forest land, both of which are plentiful around these parts. Was just in Crested Butte this weekend, and it is currently overrun with Texans... lol...Show more →
Glad you like the images - much appreciated.
I don't care how they do it - quota's or control or highest bidder - but trampling the wilds is not a good thing. I hiked 50 km several weeks ago after driving 70km into the bush and 4000' elevation gain and there were about 20 people on the trail. And we had to wade across a raging creek. This weekend I walked 18km and 1800' early morning and the parking lot was 3x full with large groups heading up as I came down. People are desperate to get out but the wilds need supervision - they need to charge more and get supervision out. It costs people $70 to get the trail head - they can pay for some supervision.
Fine work on these, Scott. Lots of good observations so far. The only one I want to comment on is the notion that fees should not be increased because it's not fair to those who are economically disadvantaged.I can't disagree with that but from my many experiences in the US National Parks I'd say that the majority of visitors have already spent thousands of dollars on air fares, hotels, dining, RV rentals, guides, etc. Asking them to pay a higher entrance fee seems reasonable to me.
psharvic wrote:
Fine work on these, Scott. Lots of good observations so far. The only one I want to comment on is the notion that fees should not be increased because it's not fair to those who are economically disadvantaged.I can't disagree with that but from my many experiences in the US National Parks I'd say that the majority of visitors have already spent thousands of dollars on air fares, hotels, dining, RV rentals, guides, etc. Asking them to pay a higher entrance fee seems reasonable to me.
Right...but what about those that don't have that disposable income...are they left out? Visiting national parks in both the USA and Canada is one of the most affordable holidays, especially if you camp and cook your own meals. It would be a shame to make it unaffordable to the not so well off.
I still like a quota system ( free but limited ) to control the parks. What I saw at Morraine Lake a couple Septembers ago is not an enjoyable outing for anyone. Limiting the people by having a quota is the way to go, not by putting a high cost to the entrance.
I also like the bus system to Lake Ohara where for the 1/2 hour trip in, you get educated on the place so you understand why the vegetation and animals need to be protected. At least it's at the front of people's mind when they set out on their hikes.
Scott Stoness wrote:
I agree with you - my pictures are not more important - but they are getting in front of each other and trampling the forest. They are ruining paradise and it requires adding parks people to control it or quota.
First off, thank you very much for your adult response.
I get it. There needs to be some type of control or quota system. I've thought for a long time that the fees should be doubled or even tripled. Our National Parks are very special places and deserve to be treated as such. People have no problem paying out thousands to spend time in the cesspools that are Disney Land-world, Universal, or whatever and a trip to a National Park should be treated with the same amount of forethought and investment.
"On my 70th birthday I was asked how I felt about mankind's prospects. This is my reply: We are behaving like yeasts in a brewer's vat, multiplying mindlessly while greedily consuming the substance of a finite world. If we continue to imitate the yeasts, we will perish as they perish, having exhausted our resources and poisoned ourselves in a lethal brew of our own wastes. unlike the yeasts, we have a choice. what will it be ?"
Farley Mowat
Water level in the lake is higher than the last time I was there a few years ago when I could see a rocky shoreline where the boats are shown. And more recently, bridal parties were seen being photographed on those rocky shoreline (maybe even photos appeared on FM)
chez wrote:
I still like a quota system ( free but limited ) to control the parks. What I saw at Morraine Lake a couple Septembers ago is not an enjoyable outing for anyone. Limiting the people by having a quota is the way to go, not by putting a high cost to the entrance.
While that may seem like a better idea, at first, I imagine the impact of that policy is essentially the same. You specifically mention that the parks make for affordable vacations. Again, the cost of getting to a park and staying for any amount of time isn't completely negligible. A person who can't afford a different vacation also can't afford to show up at the park only to be turned away. Only people with disposable income can really afford that kind of flexibility, or budget enough time and resources to try to enter over several days. No one is going to risk their only free time and money only to have their only chance at a vacation ruined due to a quota.
The end result would be that the not-so-well-off will just avoid busy parks, altogether. Meanwhile, those with economic advantages will have pretty much free reign over the, now, less crowded park.
amacal1 wrote:
While that may seem like a better idea, at first, I imagine the impact of that policy is essentially the same. You specifically mention that the parks make for affordable vacations. Again, the cost of getting to a park and staying for any amount of time isn't completely negligible. A person who can't afford a different vacation also can't afford to show up at the park only to be turned away. Only people with disposable income can really afford that kind of flexibility, or budget enough time and resources to try to enter over several days. No one is going to risk their only free time and money only to have their only chance at a vacation ruined due to a quota.
The end result would be that the not-so-well-off will just avoid busy parks, altogether. Meanwhile, those with economic advantages will have pretty much free reign over the, now, less crowded park. ...Show more →
Why would they be turned away if they had one of the quotas for that day? I don't understand this. It's like getting a reservation for the camp site. Once you have the reservation, you show up and have a campsite...you don't get turned away.
Yes it's not free to drive to a national park and camp there for a week while visiting the park...but it's a lot cheaper than flying off to Hawaii and staying at $300 / night rooms. Camping is still one of the most affordable holiday alternatives.
p.2 #10 · Moraine Lake (too busy) and Herbert Lake
Giving people "that don't want to work $2000 a month" - yeah, that must be it, people are just lazy freeloaders. It's not like the economy sucks and jobs are hard to come by during a global pandemic or anything.
p.2 #11 · Moraine Lake (too busy) and Herbert Lake
DonP, I know your comment was well-meaning, but you are missing A LOT of context. It is known that the program, called CERB (Canada Emergency Response Benefit), has paid out $8.9B CDN to nearly a quarter of a million people who aren't actually eligible (keep in mind that our population is about 1/10 yours). Those numbers are about a month old so probably higher now. Our unemployment rate was/is the highest in decades (perhaps as far back as the great depression) and yet businesses cannot hire people because they don't want to work. I personally know of a few people that have passed on work opportunities so they can enjoy their summer since they are pulling $2k for doing nothing. So yes, there are a lot of people that don't want to work because of CERB. This isn't free money, or government money. It is taxpayer money.
It is a double whammy. CERB has cost our federal government $71B CDN and the total pandemic response is at $500B CDN (remember, Canada is 36M people). Because of the pandemic, some businesses are no longer in business. BUT, because of CERB, those that are still in business are having a very hard time attracting staff. Loss of businesses and businesses not turning profits hurt income tax collection. Massively increased government costs with substantial reduction of revenue coming in. Double whammy. Just wanted you to understand that the comment was nowhere near as callous as you took it to be and in fact was quite factual.
We now return to our regular photographic programming...
p.2 #12 · Moraine Lake (too busy) and Herbert Lake
Yeah, people don't want to work at minimum wage as cashiers or in other jobs with heavy exposure to the public while putting their lives at risk during a global pandemic, and I don't blame them. The guy who was complaining about them in the OP is also upset because he has to deal with the disgusting masses when he goes to scenic national parks, which are one of the few luxuries that are designed for everybody to be able to enjoy. His solution is to raise user fees high to put them out of reach for some of the riff raff so he can enjoy them more. I understood the context perfectly.
p.2 #13 · Moraine Lake (too busy) and Herbert Lake
DonP, no you did not understand the context; perfectly or otherwise. The canadian government has a top up program for lower paid ‘front line workers’ for EXACTLY the reason you site. Some people are simply choosing not to work during the summer. - paid vacation. No more and no less.
You seem to have a bee in your bonnet; both with the OP and this topic. That’s your prerogative but then it becomes important to have a good grasp of the nuances of the programs and issues, as well as the general Covid political landscape here in canada.
p.2 #14 · Moraine Lake (too busy) and Herbert Lake
These are spectacular images regardless of the crowds. But you point is well taken...I started a nonprofit Friends group to support some wildlife refuges in the central valley of CA...and I can tell you that the attendance there is much higher than I've ever seen before. Of course there are more people not following the rules, it is unfortunately unavoidable.
Stay sane and safe regards, Dean
