Hacker News Reader

Comment by stefan_ | Hacker News Reader

It's very weird to me that Americans have turned nature into Disney-esque amusement parks with clearly delineated opening times and their own little police force.

View on HN

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.

Americans like nature too much?

We protect it too much, including with rangers?

We have specific landmarks that are absolutely amazing and popular?

If you want to see specific landmarks (Yosemite valley, Arches), then they're going to be crowded because they're popular (for good reason. they're amazing). If you want to be deep in the wilderness with no one around, there are a massive number of options.

Wow I feel attacked. Its hardly Disney-esque, there are some delineated trails for safety and restrictions to prevent them from being destroyed by the millions of yearly visitors. If you want federally owned but chaotic there's millions of acres of BLM land, particularly in the west. Not every American is a blithering idiot.

National Forests are a nice balance between the two. Most trails are lightly trafficked, especially when you get more than a couple of miles from the trailhead.

Last week I camped for the entire week in a national forest and didn’t see another camper the entire time. The issue is we have high demand national parks that “everyone” visits and lots of national forest and BLM land that is very sparse.

That's true I forgot about the third designation.

And there's more! Many government agencies are responsible for managing our huge amount of public land.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_land#/media/File%3AUS...

Don't forget National Wildlife Refuges!

And the National Grasslands.

And the Wilderness Areas.

One of my personal favorites: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boundary_Waters

If you portage in far enough, you can be the only person/people on a lake, with no cell phone service. On the other side of the Canadian border is Quetico Provincial Park, which is a Canadian canoeing wilderness. The million acres of BWCA and 1.2 million acres of Quetico join to form a massive wilderness full of lakes and wildlife. Native Americans left pictographs which are still visible, and French Voyageurs used this area extensively to travel from Canada to Lake Superior. I highly recommend a trip if you ever get the opportunity.

I think what OP is referring to is that it seems like every year or so we hear that someone knocks over some balanced rock in Bryce or Moab or jumps into the grand prismatic pools in yellowstone.

And yeah, those areas are really full of idiot tourists walking around everywhere.

What I think a lot of people don't understand is that is 0.00001% of all the beauty that BLM/NF lands in the US offer. I have my own favorite trails in Oregon, Arizona, Utah (that I won't share anywhere) but some of them see 1 person per day. I'm sure there are some folks that know about trails visited once a year. It's those areas that are definitely NOT Disney. (Especially on June 21 when you'll have thousands of naked people hiking everywhere)

>"...Americans have turned nature into Disney-esque amusement parks..."

This comment makes me think you've never been to North America. The stretches of wilderness are truly vast; it's nothing like Britain or Europe.

Agreed, their comment screams "I'm European and I think I can drive across America in a day" to me, especially the bit about the police force.

Which reminds me of the Death Valley Germans,discussed many times on HN.

It’s funny because that comment is far more true about the Black Forest to just pick a random European “wilderness.”

Most of the wilderness is quite nondescript, though. There are far too many people for the few amazing sites. Compare to Norway, the Mediterranean coast and islands, the Alps, and the Canary Islands.

Europe has no true wilderness and is not even in this race. Huge areas of the US are essentially untouched, no visitors, no buildings, no roads, just primal Earth. The Alps are practically suburban in comparison to the Rockies.

I wasn't really talking about unvisited regions, so the Alps wasn't meant to be an example of that. I think you should be pretty easily able to find more remote wilderness if you look to the North or the East. Recall that Europe is larger than US, although of course a large part of that is very remote.

He edited his original comment to omit "repetitive", which made it even more chuckle-worthy.

I've driven through most of the places he mentions in Europe, and with that knowledge it seems even more arbitrarily chauvinistic to try to claim the limited areas he mentions are close to the diversity of the entirety of the US or North America. While I love several of the national parks in France, their nature of being so clustered ends up being much more repetitive than the gigantic sequoias, brutal deserts, enormous mountains, and temperate rainforests one can experience in the USA - and that's just west of the Mississippi.

The fact on the ground is that if you visit a tiny 100 foot waterfall in Pennsylvania, there will be a parking lot, a $25 entrance fee, a gift shop, a show every two hours, and security rails around the path. The travel distances between sights most people would want to see are vast, and hence the crowding.

Go to Niagara falls, and there's literally an amusement park.

That one's on the Canadians. Our side is nice little park. I've done a lot of hiking on the east coast and even a managed park with an entry fee and a visitor center with a little movie will have hundreds of miles of wild trails. 1% of it will be for the car tourists with railings, pavement, strollers and small children. Yellowstone for example, for as touristy as the main areas are, has 900 miles of trails. It is incredibly wild.

Our protection of public lands is a crowning achievement. We have 7,000 state and national parks covering an area roughly the size of Spain. Sorry you didn't like the park you visited in PA.

And considering the problems he seemingly has with the state of US parks is worse in Europe in those same French national parks, the black forest, the alps... Well, I suppose he already declared crowds weren't an issue in Europe, but I'm surprised to see him bring it up against US parks given the state of the "wilderness" he has been to.

For comparison, the city of Oslo has more than 1500 miles of marked and maintained trails, and this isn't even a destination for hiking.

If you don't do that, the areas will be absolutely ruined by people just doing whatever they want.

There are literally tens of thousands of other campsites and trails to hit if you want to avoid that kind of thing. Hell, even in the more crowded areas, it's straightforward to head into backcountry trails and go from hundreds of people to none.

From personal experience: Multnomah Falls, in the Columbia Gorge in Oregon, is a madhouse. Tour groups get bused in, everyone and their dog (literally) is walking up to the top of the waterfall, etc. More than two million people visit the falls every year. But if you head past the waterfall, you'll only see a few people, and after five miles up the Larch Mountain trail, there's absolutely nobody except for the very occasional weirdo like me. And if you don't like the crowds even at the entrance, there are a gazillion other trails in the Gorge that are very sparsely traveled.

I was in Yosemite early this spring (before they implemented the advanced registration system). Even the backcountry trail I was on was crowded. There were so many people it felt like taking a walk in an urban park.

Many trails near Seattle are actually more crowded than the urban parks within the boundaries of the city. Lake Twentytwo and Mount Si are conga lines compared to places like Seward Park or Discovery Park.

They're hardly amusement parks. Many don't have gates, but the most popular ones do need to control the flow somehow. There are roads, and trails, and sometimes lodging. People can buy souvenirs from affiliated nonprofits. Aside from that, though, there's a lot of emphasis on education, not entertainment.

Also, I've experienced an order of magnitude more joy and awe in various National Parks than in any amusement park.

Well yeah, the fastest way to ruin natural space is to let in too many people.

This is just national parks. There is a lot of wilderness that is not governed by that system. As another example, BLM land is pretty much free use.

In California BLM land is popular for plinking because of the supremacy clause. Sadly people abuse the opportunity and leave filthy messes behind.

Huh, never heard that word until now. I guess that's why so many of the road signs have bullet holes.

It's really cool to be able to simply pull over to the side of the road and put up a tent nearby

It makes sense to me. There's a line between preserving it and enjoying it. We've had plenty of similar problems in the UK with staycation-ers enjoying their first trip out into the lake district, and leaving behind their empty beers, the remains of the cheapest tent they could find, etc.

If you've ever seen the leftovers of people camping at a festival, it's immediately obvious that there's a saturation point for things like this.

If you like open wilderness and few people, there is ample BLM land[1]. It’s vast and you can camp in it. No need to go to national parks to camp in the open.

[1] https://www.blm.gov/sites/blm.gov/files/BLM%20Camping%20Guid...

And many national parks have reasonable rules for backcountry camping - the rules themselves encourage you to get out of sight. It's restrictive at Zion, but I've camped in the backcountry at Joshua Tree a couple of times, at Arches, Canyonlands, etc. You leave the trail and won't necessarily see anyone until you return.

American National Parks are still very much wilderness landscapes. Even the most touristy of areas can have the barest of amenities.

There are no guard rails at the edge of many popular high points. You can fall off the top off Half-Dome in Yosemite if you’re not careful. Bison will and often do gore people in Yellowstone. Hikers drown in flashfloods all the time.

Why is it weird to preserve and strongly regulate natural landmarks?

We have so much public land that's essentially uninhabited and in a wild state. A small amount is managed as parks, essentially natural tourist attractions. The fees, entry gates and infrastructure is not only to better accommodate and attract tourists. It's also to carefully manage the human impact on these natural areas. It's not Disneyland, it's a fragile natural ecosystem. The visitors can very easily destroy the very thing they are coming to see.[1]

[1]https://www.audubon.org/news/a-drone-crash-caused-thousands-...

I went to Yellowstone a couple years ago over a holiday weekend and it was absolutely packed trying to find parking near Old Faithful or the prismatic springs.

However, if you walked literally 10 minutes onto a trail you'd reach a point where you'd start to only see people pass every few minutes. Completely isolated for the rest of the day.

Prior to the 70s, rangers weren't law enforcement officers. This changed with the Yosemite/Stoneman riot.

You should read some Edward Abbey.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com