Thanks for your commentary Jim. Having completed a two-month cross-country trip last fall, the reservation system was pretty much essential to making such a trip even feasible-- otherwise we no doubt would have been left stranded many times (even in the desert!). We'd likely have ended up sleeping in the truck on the side of the road somewhere, even as tent campers just looking for a patch of ground.
Also, based on our experience at Yosemite just as one example-- crowded even midweek in October-- I can only imagine the chaos of situating thousands of campers per day on a first-come first-serve basis. (Although at other parks like Black Canyon of the Gunnison, set up camp wherever you like and enjoy the solitude. Loved this!) Perhaps a compromise solution could be reached, such as increasing the number of first-come first-served spots in the more popular parks, which I know are still available at some of the more remote campgrounds.
Thanks for providing your perspective Glenn. I'm glad things worked out for what sounds like a great trip! My concern is equity in this process and the deterioration of the national parks road trip for all but those who can afford to make non-refundable plans many months in advance. It seems to favor more affluent retired folks to me, which is a coveted demographic for industry groups perhaps not so coincidentally. I know that for our underfunded park staff its a lot easier to move it all online so you don't have to worry about it, but that doesn't make it the right move, only the most convenient one. The parks being chronically underfunded is a major part of this problem to be sure. I think a proper balance needs to be found between reservable and first-come-first-serve and we're far from that right now.
So how can we start back to 1st come 1st serve & not just talk/write about it? What seems to be reflected is our nation wants/needs to return back to simple basics of life. I don't want to leave one busy place to replace it with another.
It's a difficult question to answer. Certainly writing to relevant parties at the Interior Department would help to express user frustration and concern with the direction we're headed. I may need to do a follow up piece at some point to look into the business interests that profit off of moving camping to reservation-only and what influence they've had in government decision making.
Well said. Advance reservations have been a scourge. I agree about first-come being the best way, it's never going to be perfect but it's tried and true. It gives working people the chance to go on road trips when they're able to and have a just as much of a chance to get a campsite as anyone else rather than this nonsense where you might as well not even go because they're all booked months ahead of time. As far as I'm concerned if you want to have a reservation then book a hotel.
Thanks Ken. I hate to see campsites turn into exclusive outdoor hotels and digital commodities when they're supposed to be there to give every American the opportunity to connect with nature.
I agree with many of your points, but I'm not a huge fan of the first-come-first-serve method. That only benefits the people that either live nearby or have the ability to roll into the campground as soon as the previous groups vacate. I appreciate being able to reserve sites and know that I'll have one available when we arrive. I don't typically reserve 6 months ahead, I just snap up cancellations when I see them. I was able to get us 4 nights in Zion in mid November, just three weeks ahead of time. What I see as the worst problem are the people who reserve campsites and let them sit empty. There needs to be some sort of incentive for cancellations or a penalty for being a no-show.
Thanks for your input Karen. The campsites being left empty is a big problem and it feeds back into this idea that a lot of people snagging these sites way in advance have money to burn and don't mind the extra cancellation fee of $10 or $20. Upping the fees for not cancelling by a certain point (like hotels do) would be a good start. I think parks also need to institute a set time that you have to check in by or your site will be forfeited and treated as first-come-first-serve. This would ensure that campsites aren't going to waste when there are eager campers at the park. Those with extenuating circumstances could call the park to let them know their arrival time the day of if they’re going to be late.
Maybe if you failed to cancel, you forfeit your right to make additional reservations for a set time period. Though I suppose people would just create a new account and work their way around such restrictions.
Hello There. I given some thoughts to your views about the ‘first come, first served’. Well, I am old enough to remember those days and it seemed to do more harm than good. First of all more guests the more garbage/trash that needs to be dealt with, then there is sanitation and some one has to cleans and restock the bathroom’s. There needs to be more Park Rangers to manage and help visitors. What about all the first responders and volunteers rescuers that help the lost hikers or injured climbers? I think there many good reasons to have a reservation so everyone can make necessary arrangements in the parks. All those families, vacationers, wilderness lovers, curious hikers, birders, and the likes, all deserve to enjoy the parks. Without any kind of reservation system, there would be huge number of dissatisfied and disappointed people sent away. The race card you mentioned, and the only the white wealthy comments were unnecessary to make your point and very political in nature. Not good. Appreciate you and your brother bringing to our attention the latest news and information about our beloved parks.
Thanks for sharing your perspective Stacey. I notice you refer to an issue of more guests creating more trash and stress on the parks and their limited resources – I agree with this. Our public lands are woefully underfunded and have desperately needed additional resources to help deal with the massive increases in visitation as well as the backlog of maintenance that has been neglected for several decades. You appear to raise this issue as a point of contention with what I wrote, however I never advocated for more visitation to the detriment of the parks. My piece was about reservations and how they disproportionately favor more affluent park goers with flexible schedules. You imply that reservations somehow enable people from all walks of life to enjoy the parks – the fact is there is growing evidence to contradict that which I cite in my newsletter. Furthermore, citing a peer-reviewed study from the University of Montana that uses quantifiable data to demonstrate that the reservation system inadvertently favors wealthier, predominantly white campers goes to the heart of my point and is not political in nature at all. I think we'll have to respectfully agree to disagree on this one.
I would bring to mind in this conversation the secondary and tertiary affects of continually adding my camping opportunities, as seems to be the most objective solution proffered in this write up: the experience of these areas when more crowded (i.e., double or triple the camping capacity, and you increase the number of visitors on the limited number of trails or at other points of interest) is inevitably impacted, and from the increased disturbance of both expanded campsites and increased crowds contesting popular trails/sites comes increased impacts to soils, hydrology, flora, and fauna. To head off a common counterpoint, “build more trails”, you can really only have one Angels Landing hike, right? Each unit of public land hosts some special gems that provide finite opportunities for recreation before they’re inundated and the experience diminished. So, in summary, the above speaks to general finiteness of these resources: they can be enjoyed sustainably and arguably in perpetuity, but not without some restraint on behavior/impact of people visiting today. The last point is a critique of the pricing of these things in general: does it stand to reason that $20-40 is really the barrier to entry for lower income folks? Having lived in my car (in a not sexy, instagrammable way) in my early 20’s, it was the need for reliable transportation and affordability of fuel to get me to these destinations that stood in my way: serious issues for a considerable portion of the population but it doesn’t seem right to make it the problem of agencies tasked with natural resource management. That, and MANY local libraries have free passes for nearby parks and other permitted areas specifically for the nearby underserved communities.
Hi Zack. It seems there might have been a bit of a mix-up in understanding the newsletter's message. The only time I mentioned additional camping opportunities was when I said, "Thoughtful deliberation on where new campgrounds can be built to add more overnight opportunities for American families should also take place, but never at the expense of future generations." I thought that was pretty clear. Regarding the pricing, the core issue isn't the face value of the fees but the risky gamble tied to the non-refundable reservation system. It forces individuals to bet their limited funds on plans set months in advance, a system that inherently disadvantages those with less financial flexibility. There are a lot of factors with the reservation system, which I outlined in the piece, that really stack the deck against lower income working people. Also libraries typically have passes for local parks, not national parks or federal lands which were the subject of the article.
Thanks for your commentary Jim. Having completed a two-month cross-country trip last fall, the reservation system was pretty much essential to making such a trip even feasible-- otherwise we no doubt would have been left stranded many times (even in the desert!). We'd likely have ended up sleeping in the truck on the side of the road somewhere, even as tent campers just looking for a patch of ground.
Also, based on our experience at Yosemite just as one example-- crowded even midweek in October-- I can only imagine the chaos of situating thousands of campers per day on a first-come first-serve basis. (Although at other parks like Black Canyon of the Gunnison, set up camp wherever you like and enjoy the solitude. Loved this!) Perhaps a compromise solution could be reached, such as increasing the number of first-come first-served spots in the more popular parks, which I know are still available at some of the more remote campgrounds.
Thanks for providing your perspective Glenn. I'm glad things worked out for what sounds like a great trip! My concern is equity in this process and the deterioration of the national parks road trip for all but those who can afford to make non-refundable plans many months in advance. It seems to favor more affluent retired folks to me, which is a coveted demographic for industry groups perhaps not so coincidentally. I know that for our underfunded park staff its a lot easier to move it all online so you don't have to worry about it, but that doesn't make it the right move, only the most convenient one. The parks being chronically underfunded is a major part of this problem to be sure. I think a proper balance needs to be found between reservable and first-come-first-serve and we're far from that right now.
So how can we start back to 1st come 1st serve & not just talk/write about it? What seems to be reflected is our nation wants/needs to return back to simple basics of life. I don't want to leave one busy place to replace it with another.
It's a difficult question to answer. Certainly writing to relevant parties at the Interior Department would help to express user frustration and concern with the direction we're headed. I may need to do a follow up piece at some point to look into the business interests that profit off of moving camping to reservation-only and what influence they've had in government decision making.
Well said. Advance reservations have been a scourge. I agree about first-come being the best way, it's never going to be perfect but it's tried and true. It gives working people the chance to go on road trips when they're able to and have a just as much of a chance to get a campsite as anyone else rather than this nonsense where you might as well not even go because they're all booked months ahead of time. As far as I'm concerned if you want to have a reservation then book a hotel.
Thanks Ken. I hate to see campsites turn into exclusive outdoor hotels and digital commodities when they're supposed to be there to give every American the opportunity to connect with nature.
I agree with many of your points, but I'm not a huge fan of the first-come-first-serve method. That only benefits the people that either live nearby or have the ability to roll into the campground as soon as the previous groups vacate. I appreciate being able to reserve sites and know that I'll have one available when we arrive. I don't typically reserve 6 months ahead, I just snap up cancellations when I see them. I was able to get us 4 nights in Zion in mid November, just three weeks ahead of time. What I see as the worst problem are the people who reserve campsites and let them sit empty. There needs to be some sort of incentive for cancellations or a penalty for being a no-show.
Thanks for your input Karen. The campsites being left empty is a big problem and it feeds back into this idea that a lot of people snagging these sites way in advance have money to burn and don't mind the extra cancellation fee of $10 or $20. Upping the fees for not cancelling by a certain point (like hotels do) would be a good start. I think parks also need to institute a set time that you have to check in by or your site will be forfeited and treated as first-come-first-serve. This would ensure that campsites aren't going to waste when there are eager campers at the park. Those with extenuating circumstances could call the park to let them know their arrival time the day of if they’re going to be late.
Maybe if you failed to cancel, you forfeit your right to make additional reservations for a set time period. Though I suppose people would just create a new account and work their way around such restrictions.
Hello There. I given some thoughts to your views about the ‘first come, first served’. Well, I am old enough to remember those days and it seemed to do more harm than good. First of all more guests the more garbage/trash that needs to be dealt with, then there is sanitation and some one has to cleans and restock the bathroom’s. There needs to be more Park Rangers to manage and help visitors. What about all the first responders and volunteers rescuers that help the lost hikers or injured climbers? I think there many good reasons to have a reservation so everyone can make necessary arrangements in the parks. All those families, vacationers, wilderness lovers, curious hikers, birders, and the likes, all deserve to enjoy the parks. Without any kind of reservation system, there would be huge number of dissatisfied and disappointed people sent away. The race card you mentioned, and the only the white wealthy comments were unnecessary to make your point and very political in nature. Not good. Appreciate you and your brother bringing to our attention the latest news and information about our beloved parks.
Thanks for sharing your perspective Stacey. I notice you refer to an issue of more guests creating more trash and stress on the parks and their limited resources – I agree with this. Our public lands are woefully underfunded and have desperately needed additional resources to help deal with the massive increases in visitation as well as the backlog of maintenance that has been neglected for several decades. You appear to raise this issue as a point of contention with what I wrote, however I never advocated for more visitation to the detriment of the parks. My piece was about reservations and how they disproportionately favor more affluent park goers with flexible schedules. You imply that reservations somehow enable people from all walks of life to enjoy the parks – the fact is there is growing evidence to contradict that which I cite in my newsletter. Furthermore, citing a peer-reviewed study from the University of Montana that uses quantifiable data to demonstrate that the reservation system inadvertently favors wealthier, predominantly white campers goes to the heart of my point and is not political in nature at all. I think we'll have to respectfully agree to disagree on this one.
Mlojmkjmkljmklmk
I would bring to mind in this conversation the secondary and tertiary affects of continually adding my camping opportunities, as seems to be the most objective solution proffered in this write up: the experience of these areas when more crowded (i.e., double or triple the camping capacity, and you increase the number of visitors on the limited number of trails or at other points of interest) is inevitably impacted, and from the increased disturbance of both expanded campsites and increased crowds contesting popular trails/sites comes increased impacts to soils, hydrology, flora, and fauna. To head off a common counterpoint, “build more trails”, you can really only have one Angels Landing hike, right? Each unit of public land hosts some special gems that provide finite opportunities for recreation before they’re inundated and the experience diminished. So, in summary, the above speaks to general finiteness of these resources: they can be enjoyed sustainably and arguably in perpetuity, but not without some restraint on behavior/impact of people visiting today. The last point is a critique of the pricing of these things in general: does it stand to reason that $20-40 is really the barrier to entry for lower income folks? Having lived in my car (in a not sexy, instagrammable way) in my early 20’s, it was the need for reliable transportation and affordability of fuel to get me to these destinations that stood in my way: serious issues for a considerable portion of the population but it doesn’t seem right to make it the problem of agencies tasked with natural resource management. That, and MANY local libraries have free passes for nearby parks and other permitted areas specifically for the nearby underserved communities.
Hi Zack. It seems there might have been a bit of a mix-up in understanding the newsletter's message. The only time I mentioned additional camping opportunities was when I said, "Thoughtful deliberation on where new campgrounds can be built to add more overnight opportunities for American families should also take place, but never at the expense of future generations." I thought that was pretty clear. Regarding the pricing, the core issue isn't the face value of the fees but the risky gamble tied to the non-refundable reservation system. It forces individuals to bet their limited funds on plans set months in advance, a system that inherently disadvantages those with less financial flexibility. There are a lot of factors with the reservation system, which I outlined in the piece, that really stack the deck against lower income working people. Also libraries typically have passes for local parks, not national parks or federal lands which were the subject of the article.