16 ms·

I'm often struck by how arbitrary our nation's tourists are. Grand Canyon, Yosemite, Yellowstone, etc.: packed with tourists every single day they're open; whil

I'm often struck by how arbitrary our nation's tourists are. Grand Canyon, Yosemite, Yellowstone, etc.: packed with tourists every single day they're open; while dozens of surrounding National Monuments and National Parks and National Forests (mostly free to visit), are often nearly devoid of visitors. I live in an RV and travel most of the time...I make it a point to visit any National anything (park, forest, monument, as well was BLM lands that seem interesting) and state parks, within 50-100 miles of my route (depending on my schedule and ability to go off the grid at that time). There are places where you'll see maybe a dozen people on your hike; while in the "big" parks, you can't spit without hitting somebody taking photos from an obvious vantage point. I've stayed in BLM campgrounds that are stunningly beautiful, and I may be the only person there for a week or more. These places often have historical significance; as much of the US does, since there were great civilizations that rose and fell here before Europeans arrived. There's like a weird need for there to be a gate with a ranger taking entrance fees and such, for someone in the US to want to see and experience a place.

cesarbs 10y ago
Can you recommend any of those near-deserted places in WA? Also, you live in an RV - you're my hero! How I wish I could do that...
- SwellJoe 10y ago
  Washington is one of the states I've visited least. I'm in the Pacific Northwest at the moment in Oregon, we'd intended to go on up north through Washington, but got waylaid for a while because my girlfriend wanted to work for a while in a regular job (her online income is much smaller than mine). I've passed through Washington once on my way to Alaska in 2012 or 2013, but I was in a hurry because the summer season in AK is very limited and strictly enforced (you don't want to get stuck on the wrong side of the mountains coming down through Canada in a big motorhome when the snows come). So, I'm not the best person to ask; I just did the obvious tourist stuff and kept on driving. "How I wish I could do that..." I'm gonna let you in on a secret: You (almost certainly) can! It costs less than living in a house, if you set out to live cheaply and travel slowly (the driving part, and the paying nightly rates rather than weekly or monthly rates in RV parks is how you can spend a lot living in an RV). Mobile internet coverage is better and faster than ever, though much more expensive than ever (I pay nearly $300/month). If you're a software developer of any sort, you've got a lot more freedom to live however you want than most people who have ever existed in history.
  - cesarbs 10y ago
    > You (almost certainly) can! In theory, yes, but I'm married and have a kid. No way I'd be able to make the lifestyle change. Hence, you're my hero, living the life that I can't :)
    - SwellJoe 10y ago
      I've met families who travel; home school their kids, etc. It is certainly do-able. But, it'd require your partner's excitement over the idea, as well. I can see how that'd be a deal-breaker, and would maybe put off this lifestyle until your kid(s) have reached adulthood. That's much more common; thousands of people retire and move into the RV full-timer lifestyle every year.
- sverige 10y ago
  Deer Park in the hills above Sequim is lovely. The road there was a little rugged last time I visited, but that was years ago so maybe it's different now. Lake Quinault is also really wonderful, and apparently where the term "rain forest" was coined (by FDR, in the version I heard.) If you're athletic, the climb up Mount Townsend is well worth it, and the trail is really pretty good. If you like to camp, drive out by La Push and hike a mile or two north from Mora. Hole in the Wall is very interesting. Be wary of bears there, though. Hang your bacon high in the tree. Mount Baker has lots to offer and doesn't get as much traffic as Rainier. If you like it dry, there's a great campground above Twisp (northwest IIRC) that is really nice.
- int_19h 10y ago
  Look for places at least an hour away from Seattle and Rainier. Also, go to wta.org, and check how many reviews and trip reports any particular place or trail get. For a specific recommendation, there's a lot of beautiful scenery and generally pretty few people along Hwy 20. Once you get off the road, there are many beautiful creeks and lakes surrounded by miles of trails, and not that many people, especially early and late in the season (the highway is closed for winter, and reopens once the snow melts and avalanche danger is back to normal). Check out the area around Stehekin in particular.
- ghaff 10y ago
  There are so many of them. There are degrees of near-deserted of course. The Alpine Lakes Wilderness, for example, is popular but less so than the popular areas of Rainier. Mount Adams Wilderness. Much of the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest. But really, just look at a map of the Cascades and see the vast swath of national forest land there and pick up a Washington hiking guidebook to provide some pointers.
waterphone 10y ago
There are plenty more places where you'll see zero people on your hike, even on developed trails. Undeveloped BLM Wilderness Areas you're even less likely to see someone—some of these in remote areas likely only get a dozen or so visitors per year, mostly hunters. I've visited some 20,000+ acre Wilderness Areas half a dozen times and never once seen another person in them.
- SwellJoe 10y ago
  Yep, BLM land and campgrounds are some of the most under-utilized resources for getting out into nature. It's not uncommon to be the only person for miles around. There's sort of a continuum of how populated an area will be, based on how it's been designated by the government. What's most interesting to me is that it often has little correlation to how beautiful or interesting an area is. BLM land is kind of like an afterthought for the federal government. They are mostly very sparsely staffed (I can count the number of rangers I've seen on BLM lands on my fingers, and I've cumulatively spent maybe a year on BLM lands), and very sparsely visited.
  - mason55 10y ago
    Is there a list of these places somewhere?
    - waterphone 10y ago
      Not really, because BLM land, especially in the west, is incredibly scattered and vast. You could find a list of, say, BLM Wilderness Areas, but not their general land. I would suggest looking at a land ownership map for an area you're interested in to see where concentrations of public land can be found. Caltopo is a great option for this—among many other layers you can turn on, "Land Management" is an option you can overlay atop the background for anywhere in the entire U.S. in the top right layer dropdown. A land management agency legend for the color overlays will appear at the right of the top navbar when enabled. http://caltopo.com http://caltopo.com
    - SwellJoe 10y ago
csallen 10y ago
Last year I went camping with some friends in the Redwood National Parks in the northwestern tip of California, and I experienced something similar. We hiked in maybe 12 miles to the Grove of Tall Trees, which has some of the biggest trees in the world and is surrounded by absolutely pristine nature (think butterflies, rivers, streams, and orange-brown deer prancing about). It was breathtakingly beautiful. We were there for 3 days and this was smack dab in the middle of the summer, and we saw maybe 8 or 9 other people the entire time.
- lacker 10y ago
  I just was up there last week and had the same impression, at Prairie Creek Redwoods State Park & the Redwood National Park. Fern Canyon and the Cathedral Trees trail were both amazing and pretty unpopulated - I would recommend it for anyone interested in hiking, who could handle a long day's drive from San Francisco.
y0y 10y ago
I'm not sure arbitrary is the best word here. I agree, this is a huge country in terms of geography and there are countless things to see that are incredibly beautiful or downright interesting, but the three sites you mention (Grand Canyon, Yosemite, and Yellowstone) are the cream of the crop in terms of uniquness and impressiveness. It's not called the "Common Canyon" for a reason. Where else are you going to see something like that in the States? Something of that magnitude? And Yellowstone? It's a Super Volcano for christ's sake! Yellowstone and Yosemite both offer incredibly unique and beautiful sites. This isn't meant to take away from your larger point - that we have hundreds (if not thousands) of other locations in the US that are both amazingly beautiful and where your experience will be more your own rather than shared with the denizens of tourists, but to call the major attractions "arbitrary" seems to undermine how incredible they actually are.
- SwellJoe 10y ago
  You're right. To be clear, I've visited all of the National Parks I mentioned, sometimes multiple times, and I've loved my visits, and I recommend them highly to anyone who hasn't seen them. I suspect when I retire I will volunteer as camp host in whichever national parks will have me, and continue my travels. I really love our national park system is what I'm trying to say, but I'm also disappointed at how little most people step outside of the well-trod paths...even to the small degree required to take a short detour to hit up a national monument or forest or whatever. There's definitely a long tail at work; visitors drop off precipitously when talking about places that aren't the really "big" ones.
  - oldmanjay 10y ago
    Be careful lamenting that the places you love aren't overrun
    - SwellJoe 10y ago
      I doubt it will become a problem in my lifetime. America is big. We have a lot of beautiful mostly deserted places, including a lot of federally protected land. I'd like it if more people got out into it more often; there might be a bit more concern for protecting it, if more people saw it in person.
niftich 10y ago
Some of it can be explained by trends and name recognition, as other comments suggest -- e.g. you get far more reactions to "We went to the Grand Canyon!" or "we went to Zion National Park!" than to "We hiked to Bluebell Knoll, the highest point of Dixie National Forest!" But another part is definitely facilities. Being not originally from the US but having been to large parts of it, I was incredulous when I found out that BLM public land literally means just that -- that you can drive onto it and do stuff within reason; this is such a powerful concept that I -- and others -- often don't know what to do with it. It's definitely an easier expenditure of mental energy to go to a big-name National Park, pay the fee, get the map, go to the Visitor Center, go to the big lookout and vistas, and leave with the magnet and the hat -- and I say this without intending to disparage this style of tourism. I lack the outdoorsy know-how and wisdom to feel at ease on the backroads of the desert southwest (and I live too far away from the backroads of the rugged northwest) where most of these facilities are, and it's a nice (albeit somewhat fictitious) thought that when you stick to the approved big tourist roads at big tourist places, that you're not completely alone in nature at the mercy of the elements.
- codeddesign 10y ago
  Not to mention tours, accessible restrooms, refreshments...etc. it also has to do with advertising. If I am planning a trip, I have never heard of Bluebell knoll but I have certainly heard of Yosemite. I live in rural appalachia. There are a thousand state parks and 2 national parks by me. The locals know where the best places are. Tourist tend to go where ease of access (picnic tables, maps, refreshments, etc), and accommodations. Highly trafficked parks are also geared towards tourists and are heavily more well funded. People in general like comforts when they are away from home.
  - semi-extrinsic 10y ago
    > restrooms, refreshments Hiking: you're doing it wrong. Seriously, if you don't have to at least pee outdoors, it's not a hike.
    - 10y ago
wallace_f 10y ago
I've travelled some internationally and realized this phenomenon is magnified inside the US. If I had to wonder at a reason why, I'd say it has to do with something else I've noticed: People from the US are also significantly more worried about the credence in what they're doing as something worth doing. Best way of that is that other people are doing it. If there's a ranger waiting to take your money it must really be worth it!
- firebones 10y ago
  I'm not sure. In Rocky Mountain National Park for instance, there are things above 9000 feet you can't get to unless a ranger takes your money; and in every experience I've ever had, that's the only way to get access to those experiences.
  - jessaustin 10y ago
    When I spent the night on Long's Peak in Rocky Mountain (not intentional! I went up a semi-technical route but somehow lost the "easy" trail on the way down...) there were no rangers and no payments. I value that day-night-morning more than all of my other visits to RMNP put together.
    - driverdan 10y ago
      The trail markings on Long's Peak are terrible. I had trouble finding the trail back down too but it was midday and there were ranges around to point me in the right direction.
- briandear 10y ago
  I am American living in southern France and you haven't seen nothing until you've seen Chinese tourists.
  - wallace_f 10y ago
    Haha, I thought Chinese shared that with Americans, but maybe they are more extreme -- I feel like living in France you get some selective bias of the type of tourists that go to France... It's France after all
praneshp 10y ago
Some of us do not have the luxury of living in a rv and travelling most of the time, so we take the easy route and go to national parks in the limited time available. I went to yellowstone this independence day weekend, and it was terrific, despite the crowds. It doesn't matter to me that a noname place could have been better, because I had a great time anyway.
- SwellJoe 10y ago
  That's great, and I don't mean to sound demeaning of that kind of decision-making. I understand my lifestyle provides a tremendous amount of privilege in this area. I just think of the times when I've had conversations with folks who live within an easy day trip of some amazing place, and I'll say, "I'm stocking up to camp at X place for the next week or two." And, they'll say, "Oh, yeah? I've heard of it. Never been." It's surprising. National Parks at least tend to have been visited by the folks who live nearby, often regularly.
AndrewKemendo 10y ago
It's the same reasons that some products take off and others don't. The right people went and made a big deal out of them early and they were the social proof needed to get more, which begat more resources and infrastructure etc...
atheg33 10y ago
>There's like a weird need for there to be a gate with a ranger taking entrance fees and such, for someone in the US to want to see and experience a place. Or is the exact opposite true? Perhaps the United States Government does a poor job of promoting their most breathtaking parks, and only creates parking lots and ticket takers once there is the financial incentive to do so (because the general public decides they want to amass there for any particular reason)?
- ethanbond 10y ago
  Yellowstone, Yosemite, and the Grand Canyon are among the most beautiful pieces of land probably in the world and certainly in the country. Just because there's other pretty, lesser known stuff around does not make these things any less spectacular.
- firebones 10y ago
  No, it's because the breathtaking places are breathtaking for a reason, and the infrastructure built up around them before is still relevant now. I'm not discounting how wonderful, say, a national forest is, but the areas deemed a national park are classified that for a reason. Often that reason may simply reflect where the water is, and how the wildlife follows that water.
ChuckMcM 10y ago
I look forward to the book. Seriously. There isn't enough material on the more "undiscovered" parts of the country.
lettergram 10y ago
My favorite location like that is Este park, which is the town right next to rocky mountain national park. Of all the places I've been it's by far the most beautiful. Hell the in the thin 10 mile winding road through a canyon I was stopped by two mountain goats fighting on the road. 30 minutes later, I chilled with some elk, while eatting McDonalds. All this was right before driving to the top of a mountain, called "stair to heaven"
- esalman 10y ago
  I loved that place. The Stanley Hotel, where Stanley Kubrick shot "The Shining", is also located here.
  - DerekL 10y ago
    The Stanley Hotel inspired the novel, but it was not used in filming the movie.
xelfer 10y ago
I have a week to explore areas near San Francisco in the first week of December (driving there from Vegas via LA) can you suggest anything for an Australian? all I've heard is "Big Sur"
- trvrsalom 10y ago
  Big Sur is great, and quite a fun drive. There is also the Marin Headlands and Muir woods north of San Francisco
- mch82 10y ago
  From Santa Monica to San Francisco take the coast highway as much as you're able (usually Pacific Coast Highway 1, sometimes 101), especially from Morro Bay north. The drive will take longer, maybe much longer if you stop at the scenic points. Driving north puts your car against the mountain. Driving south would put your car on the ocean side of the road, possibly offering better views.
- ktRolster 10y ago
  Yosemite is still worth-while, at the top of the list, but it's a four hour drive. Mount Diablo is nice, and you can drive to the peak. Fremont peak is nice, and is a hike. Point Reyes is great hiking (I've seen a white deer there!). Pinnacles is great. Henry Cowell redwoods park is great, you've never seen redwoods like that. Going south across the golden gate bridge, sometimes I just drive along the coast all the way south to half-moon bay, it's a great drive, and in December the Mavericks waves might be big. There is a black-sand beach along that drive, too.
  - xelfer 10y ago
    I'm a little worried Yosemite might be closed in the first week of winter or something? does it get snowed in?
    - sizzzzlerz 10y ago
      Yosemite doesn't usually close except for rare events like flooding. The valley will remain open through the winter. It's just the road over Tioga Pass that closes with the first snow since NPS doesn't plow it. Actually, winter is my favorite time of the year there. Snow (hopefully) blanketing the mountains and the valley floor and fewer people. Many fewer people.
xelfer 10y ago
I have a week to explore areas near San Francisco in the first week of December (driving there from Vegas via LA) can you suggest anything for an Australian? all I've heard is "Big Sur"
damienkatz 10y ago
BLM == Bureau of Land Management (Leaving this here for anyone like me who had to google why Black Lives Matter has anything to do with tourism)
- SwellJoe 10y ago
  Sorry, I guess I'm used to speaking with folks who recognize the context (lots of my friends are involved in Black Lives Matter, too, but the ones who travel know BLM means "free/cheap camping"). One incredible thing about BLM managed land is that you can often visit, and camp, for free. Sometimes for months at a time. There's an entire subculture of mobile homeless folks who do just that. There's lots of snowbirds who summer around Mammoth Lake (which is actually national forest land, mostly, I think, but similarly loosely regulated) and winter in Quartzsite or Slab City or Yuma.
  - kalleboo 10y ago
    Cool, it sounds like the Freedom to Roam we have in the Nordic countries[0], except in the Nordics it applies to all wild land, even privately owned. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_to_roam#Nordic_countries https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_to_roam#Nordic_countri... "Allemansrätten gives a person the right to access, walk, cycle, ride, ski, and camp on any land—with the exception of private gardens, the immediate vicinity of a dwelling house and land under cultivation. It also gives the right to pick wild flowers, mushrooms and berries, but not to hunt in any way. Swimming in any lake and putting an unpowered boat on any water is permitted unless explicitly forbidden"
    - bdamm 10y ago
      That sounds amazing. Sadly, BLM land is not as expansive as the Nordic lands.
      - deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
    - 10y ago
infiniteseeker 10y ago
Little bit of a tangent... I am thinking of getting a travel trailer and living in it full time... Any forums, tips, experiences, models to look at you can share?? I have 0 experience with this.
- sanswork 10y ago
  Rent an RV for a month and live in it full time first before buying one. After you're sure that you want to live in one then get a Good Sam membership and the rest will come naturally.
  - SwellJoe 10y ago
    Or, just buy an old one. Renting costs ~$100/day (and that doesn't include the cost of RV parks, fuel, etc.). You can buy a travel trailer for not much more than a month of renting, if you don't mind an older one. Buying a new RV would be madness, of course unless you're really sure you want to live this way and have a lot of spare cash laying around. They depreciate at an incredibly high rate. My first motorhome cost a bit over $30k when I bought it (it was 7 years old when I bought it), and I sold it last year for $12000, after living in it for most of the six years that I owned it. If you take your time, and shop carefully, you can find really great deals. But, yeah, it's definitely a major life change, and one that maybe shouldn't be dived into without careful consideration.
    - sanswork 10y ago
      Yeah but then if you don't like it you're stuck with an old travel trailer or RV to try and sell(hard) or store until it rusts away(space/money). Spending $3000 to validate a pretty huge lifestyle change isn't that much really. We got lucky that we really enjoyed it when we bought ours but I could understand a lot of people finding the lifestyle ultimately a lot different from what they expected.
- SwellJoe 10y ago
  I can, and do, talk for hours about RVs. I love them. I love cranky old RVs, in particular (I live in a 1984 Avion...which is one of the all-aluminum models, of which Airstream is the best-known manufacturer and the only current manufacturer). There are forums for every major manufacturer of RVs, most of them are super helpful; a bunch of retired old-timers who love talking about their RVs. I'd recommend you spend some time learning about them. There are definitely quality differences; usually you get what you pay for, though buying older can get you a great deal, comparatively speaking. I would much prefer a high quality old rig to a cheap newer rig. But, older rigs can have a lot of hidden problems; my Avion has had a much rougher life and needs a lot more work than previous owner disclosed (for a variety of reasons I bought it knowing it needed work but some of the work it needed/needs is beyond what I expected or could reasonably find in the brief inspection I gave it). One probably can't easily summarize everything one should know before buying an RV, but I'd recommend you start reading up on them now, and don't plan to buy for at least a month or more. Go visit RV dealers (with no intention to buy new, or even to buy from a dealer at all, as they will overcharge by a huge amount in the majority of cases...it's normal to pay half what a dealer would charge for a used RV). Do you already have a tow vehicle? That's probably where you need to start, if you plan to go the travel trailer route. If you plan to live in the trailer full-time, you probably need a big truck to haul it; I've got a diesel F250, and it works great. With a weight distribution hitch it'll comfortably haul more than my house (which is probably about 9000 pounds loaded with tanks full). As the other commenter recommended, road side service from Good Sam is a great idea; I've used both Good Sam and AAA, and Good Sam does a slightly better job getting the right sized tow truck out to you when you need it.
smegel 10y ago
Interesting, as an Australian, I would say the culture here is almost the opposite. Of course, the famous national parks will be heavily visited, often by international or interstate tourists, but exploring lesser known and further flung parks is part of the culture of "going bush". I have been amazed to go to places so remote I would not expect to see a living soul over a week only to find 2-3 4WDs already nestled in between the trees.
icantdrive55 10y ago
I worked out at Muir Woods National monument years ago, when it was free to get in. Most of the tourists were from other countries. ($10 to get in today--crazy.) It seemed like most tourists cared more about eating, and buying souvineers. (Most were on a bus schedule though. It went from San Francisco, Sausalito, and then Muir Woods.) They seemed to like being around other tourists? Never quite figured them out. I do know this, some tourists didn't appear to be on vacation. They looked misserable. They seemed annoyed at little things, like ice in soda. I was asked so many times, "Why do Americans put ice in soda!". I used to tell them that we want to delay diabetes. Then, I got to the point where I just said Americans are stupid. The second one they got. Most didn't seem to care about the large Redwood trees. The only group of people who seemed genuinely interested, excited to see such large trees were a group of Amish tourists. My buddy introduced me to BLM camping, and one day, I hope to be in your shoes, enjoying life in a RV.
- ralfd 10y ago
  > a group of Amish tourists I never imagined Amish could travel like tourists around. What a funny idea.
  - waterphone 10y ago
    Some Amish and Mennonites can drive (sometimes they'll have community cars they share), but even those who don't can use public transportation and will take busses, Amtrak trains, etc. to travel.
    - TheCoelacanth 10y ago
      The majority of Mennonites have no religiously-based restrictions on technology at all.
- ryuker16 10y ago
  I have a funny feeling your talk about chinese tourists and others from poorer countries. Ice in drinks is rarer due to concerns about tap water. Chinese also seemed to greatly prefer all drinks to be warm or hot....the concept of ice cold drinks seems to be no the norm. A good many of these tourists are tours....some of them straight up rip offs so they take it out on locals. Imagine if you went to paris and found out your tour group was charging you 20% higher for everything....I'd be pissed off too. I'm susprised about redwoods... The tourist thing is a language barrier....When I lived abroad, I noticed americans did the same thing too including many expats.
malloryerik 10y ago
Maybe tourists are investors of a kind, and investors famously dislike uncertainty...
- pbhjpbhj 10y ago
  You're right, they are, investing time - which you can't make back if things go wrong. It's like going out for a meal: our family can afford to eat out maybe once in 2 months. That makes the possibility of getting rubbish food, and rubbish service more worrying than if you can just go somewhere else the next night. With more time (and more opportunity) you can sample more widely with less risk of wasting a large proportion of that time.
- VLM 10y ago
  Investors in social capital, in conspicuous consumption. Stereotypically the locals don't visit nearby touristy areas because if the whole point of the activity is to brag that you are in the social class that gets vacation time and can pay a lot for travel, driving fifteen minutes from home proves nothing. Its a human thing not rural/urban... plenty of places in great cities where no locals will visit. Being sweaty is not high social status, which explains why the parking lots and roads are bumper to bumper but the hiking trails are near abandoned.
Theodores 10y ago
Black Canyon of the Gunnison and Lassen Volcanic National Park were two notable finds that I thought to be under-appreciated, every bit as amazing as those places people can be expected to know. I went from place to place by bicycle when I was a tourist in the U.S. and, because I was not able to travel as speedily as everyone else, able to evaluate the scenery for what it was. Most of my up-close-with-nature experiences happened in the forest or BLM areas surrounding big parks such as Yellowstone, not in those parks. People that visit the U.S. are not like me, they have a very short amount of time and they book lots of hotels in must see places. One day they are at the airport in L.A. picking up the car, three days later they are in Vegas, then they have the helicopter flight booked for the Grand Canyon the day after that. In their itinerary they also have some irrational must-do thing where no amount of education can talk them out of this pilgrimage. This could be to the birthplace of a particular singer, a desire to drive some silly old car on Route 66 or a 'need' to go to '4 corners'. It is therefore most fortunate for the bears and other unusual flora 'n' fauna that there is this tourist free area just outside the tourist hotspots. These areas are totally inaccessible to people on two-week fly-drive holidays with both Vegas and the Grand Canyon to cram in.
nappy 10y ago
If you're driving a car, truck, or RV... then maybe the Grand Canyon is packed. If you are hiking or rafting... it is a desolate and inaccessible place.
- SwellJoe 10y ago
  The Grand Canyon is actually pretty great, if you're physically able to hike several hours down into the Canyon. Once you're a couple miles down, the crowds thin way out, and you can get some peace and quiet. The number of people who go all the way to the river each day is quite small, compared to the number who just roam around the rim (on either side).
- sizzzzlerz 10y ago
  The south rim can be a zoo during peak tourist season but the north rim has 10% of the visitation and it is 2000 feet higher in elevation and much cooler. The canyon views, in my opinion, are even more exquisite. Make the long, difficult trek out to Toroweap on the north rim, and you'll be fortunate if there is any one else there.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
bby 10y ago
dude just casually lives in an RV
dominotw 10y ago
> while dozens of surrounding National Monuments and National Parks and National Forests (mostly free to visit), are often nearly devoid of visitors. My parents went to grand canyon couple of years ago on their yearly 1 week off from work. they wanted to see the grand canyon . Most people I would imagine don't live in a RV or have all the time in the world to explore smaller parks. I find it that whenever someone generalizes a population they are often talking about poor or lower middle-class people. sorry, 'average American' doesn't live idyllic RV lifestyle .
- SwellJoe 10y ago
  "sorry, 'average American' doesn't live idyllic RV lifestyle ." I think this comment ignors a huge swath of people living in RVs. Most of the people living on BLM and National Forest land in RVs do so as much out of necessity as desire. Living in an RV is cheaper than living in a house or apartment, and most of my friends who live in RVs are extremely poor; well below the poverty line in many cases.
mjfern 10y ago
This concentration of tourism is by design. They call these areas "dead zones." The idea is to create a national park of millions of acres and concentrate all the tourism into just a few select areas and roads. You assume these areas will experience significant environmental degradation but the remaining park will be largely untouched, aside from the occasional backpacker. It makes good sense to me if the main goal is preservation.
pjc50 10y ago
This happens basically everywhere though. Name recognition is critical. For example, in Naples you have the very famous Pompeii (overcrowded with tourists), the less famous Herculaneum (just as impressive, smaller, light crowds), and the spectacular Villa Poppaea (deserted). Do visit the later if you get the chance.
strictnein 10y ago
I get what you're saying, but the Grand Canyon and Yosemite are worth the crowds. When you walk up to the Grand Canyon the first time, your brain can't quite get a grip on the scale. And the first time I went to Yosemite I drove in at night and had no idea what I was in until I woke up inside that gigantic valley. Awe inspiring experiences.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
visittheparks 10y ago
The parks are definitely something to enjoy and respect. I highly recommend two books: Desert Solitare https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desert_Solitaire Death, Daring and Disaster: Search and Rescue in the National Parks https://www.nps.gov/parkhistory/hisnps/NPSBooks/farabee.htm This is good too: The National Parks: America's Best Idea https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_National_Parks:_America%27s_Best_Idea
spikej 10y ago
It extends beyond the ruins to all things of cultural note... I've known several people who will never set foot in an art gallery or a museum at home but who have lined up for the louvre just to say they've been there.
gumby 10y ago
It's pretty clearly the curation. Parks have familiar facilities, guidance and support, and, frankly, advertising. A friend of mine contacted me after a very bad trip to the Desolation Wilderness. She was shocked that the trails weren't marked, that there wasn't water etc. She thought it would be like a city park! Listening to her story I realized she didn't even understand in retrospect how close to dying she had been. For someone like her a park is great: it gives her the support system she needs to enjoy the outdoors.
paulddraper 10y ago
Agreed. But isn't that true with everything? There's anyways somewhere better than the tourist trap; but only the locals know where.

cesarbs 10y ago

Can you recommend any of those near-deserted places in WA? Also, you live in an RV - you're my hero! How I wish I could do that...

SwellJoe 10y ago
Washington is one of the states I've visited least. I'm in the Pacific Northwest at the moment in Oregon, we'd intended to go on up north through Washington, but got waylaid for a while because my girlfriend wanted to work for a while in a regular job (her online income is much smaller than mine). I've passed through Washington once on my way to Alaska in 2012 or 2013, but I was in a hurry because the summer season in AK is very limited and strictly enforced (you don't want to get stuck on the wrong side of the mountains coming down through Canada in a big motorhome when the snows come). So, I'm not the best person to ask; I just did the obvious tourist stuff and kept on driving. "How I wish I could do that..." I'm gonna let you in on a secret: You (almost certainly) can! It costs less than living in a house, if you set out to live cheaply and travel slowly (the driving part, and the paying nightly rates rather than weekly or monthly rates in RV parks is how you can spend a lot living in an RV). Mobile internet coverage is better and faster than ever, though much more expensive than ever (I pay nearly $300/month). If you're a software developer of any sort, you've got a lot more freedom to live however you want than most people who have ever existed in history.
- cesarbs 10y ago
  > You (almost certainly) can! In theory, yes, but I'm married and have a kid. No way I'd be able to make the lifestyle change. Hence, you're my hero, living the life that I can't :)
  - SwellJoe 10y ago
    I've met families who travel; home school their kids, etc. It is certainly do-able. But, it'd require your partner's excitement over the idea, as well. I can see how that'd be a deal-breaker, and would maybe put off this lifestyle until your kid(s) have reached adulthood. That's much more common; thousands of people retire and move into the RV full-timer lifestyle every year.
sverige 10y ago
Deer Park in the hills above Sequim is lovely. The road there was a little rugged last time I visited, but that was years ago so maybe it's different now. Lake Quinault is also really wonderful, and apparently where the term "rain forest" was coined (by FDR, in the version I heard.) If you're athletic, the climb up Mount Townsend is well worth it, and the trail is really pretty good. If you like to camp, drive out by La Push and hike a mile or two north from Mora. Hole in the Wall is very interesting. Be wary of bears there, though. Hang your bacon high in the tree. Mount Baker has lots to offer and doesn't get as much traffic as Rainier. If you like it dry, there's a great campground above Twisp (northwest IIRC) that is really nice.
int_19h 10y ago
Look for places at least an hour away from Seattle and Rainier. Also, go to wta.org, and check how many reviews and trip reports any particular place or trail get. For a specific recommendation, there's a lot of beautiful scenery and generally pretty few people along Hwy 20. Once you get off the road, there are many beautiful creeks and lakes surrounded by miles of trails, and not that many people, especially early and late in the season (the highway is closed for winter, and reopens once the snow melts and avalanche danger is back to normal). Check out the area around Stehekin in particular.
ghaff 10y ago
There are so many of them. There are degrees of near-deserted of course. The Alpine Lakes Wilderness, for example, is popular but less so than the popular areas of Rainier. Mount Adams Wilderness. Much of the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest. But really, just look at a map of the Cascades and see the vast swath of national forest land there and pick up a Washington hiking guidebook to provide some pointers.

waterphone 10y ago

There are plenty more places where you'll see zero people on your hike, even on developed trails. Undeveloped BLM Wilderness Areas you're even less likely to see someone—some of these in remote areas likely only get a dozen or so visitors per year, mostly hunters. I've visited some 20,000+ acre Wilderness Areas half a dozen times and never once seen another person in them.

SwellJoe 10y ago
Yep, BLM land and campgrounds are some of the most under-utilized resources for getting out into nature. It's not uncommon to be the only person for miles around. There's sort of a continuum of how populated an area will be, based on how it's been designated by the government. What's most interesting to me is that it often has little correlation to how beautiful or interesting an area is. BLM land is kind of like an afterthought for the federal government. They are mostly very sparsely staffed (I can count the number of rangers I've seen on BLM lands on my fingers, and I've cumulatively spent maybe a year on BLM lands), and very sparsely visited.
- mason55 10y ago
  Is there a list of these places somewhere?
  - waterphone 10y ago
    Not really, because BLM land, especially in the west, is incredibly scattered and vast. You could find a list of, say, BLM Wilderness Areas, but not their general land. I would suggest looking at a land ownership map for an area you're interested in to see where concentrations of public land can be found. Caltopo is a great option for this—among many other layers you can turn on, "Land Management" is an option you can overlay atop the background for anywhere in the entire U.S. in the top right layer dropdown. A land management agency legend for the color overlays will appear at the right of the top navbar when enabled. http://caltopo.com http://caltopo.com
  - SwellJoe 10y ago

csallen 10y ago

Last year I went camping with some friends in the Redwood National Parks in the northwestern tip of California, and I experienced something similar. We hiked in maybe 12 miles to the Grove of Tall Trees, which has some of the biggest trees in the world and is surrounded by absolutely pristine nature (think butterflies, rivers, streams, and orange-brown deer prancing about). It was breathtakingly beautiful. We were there for 3 days and this was smack dab in the middle of the summer, and we saw maybe 8 or 9 other people the entire time.

lacker 10y ago
I just was up there last week and had the same impression, at Prairie Creek Redwoods State Park & the Redwood National Park. Fern Canyon and the Cathedral Trees trail were both amazing and pretty unpopulated - I would recommend it for anyone interested in hiking, who could handle a long day's drive from San Francisco.

y0y 10y ago

I'm not sure arbitrary is the best word here. I agree, this is a huge country in terms of geography and there are countless things to see that are incredibly beautiful or downright interesting, but the three sites you mention (Grand Canyon, Yosemite, and Yellowstone) are the cream of the crop in terms of uniquness and impressiveness. It's not called the "Common Canyon" for a reason. Where else are you going to see something like that in the States? Something of that magnitude? And Yellowstone? It's a Super Volcano for christ's sake! Yellowstone and Yosemite both offer incredibly unique and beautiful sites. This isn't meant to take away from your larger point - that we have hundreds (if not thousands) of other locations in the US that are both amazingly beautiful and where your experience will be more your own rather than shared with the denizens of tourists, but to call the major attractions "arbitrary" seems to undermine how incredible they actually are.

SwellJoe 10y ago
You're right. To be clear, I've visited all of the National Parks I mentioned, sometimes multiple times, and I've loved my visits, and I recommend them highly to anyone who hasn't seen them. I suspect when I retire I will volunteer as camp host in whichever national parks will have me, and continue my travels. I really love our national park system is what I'm trying to say, but I'm also disappointed at how little most people step outside of the well-trod paths...even to the small degree required to take a short detour to hit up a national monument or forest or whatever. There's definitely a long tail at work; visitors drop off precipitously when talking about places that aren't the really "big" ones.
- oldmanjay 10y ago
  Be careful lamenting that the places you love aren't overrun
  - SwellJoe 10y ago
    I doubt it will become a problem in my lifetime. America is big. We have a lot of beautiful mostly deserted places, including a lot of federally protected land. I'd like it if more people got out into it more often; there might be a bit more concern for protecting it, if more people saw it in person.

niftich 10y ago

Some of it can be explained by trends and name recognition, as other comments suggest -- e.g. you get far more reactions to "We went to the Grand Canyon!" or "we went to Zion National Park!" than to "We hiked to Bluebell Knoll, the highest point of Dixie National Forest!" But another part is definitely facilities. Being not originally from the US but having been to large parts of it, I was incredulous when I found out that BLM public land literally means just that -- that you can drive onto it and do stuff within reason; this is such a powerful concept that I -- and others -- often don't know what to do with it. It's definitely an easier expenditure of mental energy to go to a big-name National Park, pay the fee, get the map, go to the Visitor Center, go to the big lookout and vistas, and leave with the magnet and the hat -- and I say this without intending to disparage this style of tourism. I lack the outdoorsy know-how and wisdom to feel at ease on the backroads of the desert southwest (and I live too far away from the backroads of the rugged northwest) where most of these facilities are, and it's a nice (albeit somewhat fictitious) thought that when you stick to the approved big tourist roads at big tourist places, that you're not completely alone in nature at the mercy of the elements.

codeddesign 10y ago
Not to mention tours, accessible restrooms, refreshments...etc. it also has to do with advertising. If I am planning a trip, I have never heard of Bluebell knoll but I have certainly heard of Yosemite. I live in rural appalachia. There are a thousand state parks and 2 national parks by me. The locals know where the best places are. Tourist tend to go where ease of access (picnic tables, maps, refreshments, etc), and accommodations. Highly trafficked parks are also geared towards tourists and are heavily more well funded. People in general like comforts when they are away from home.
- semi-extrinsic 10y ago
  > restrooms, refreshments Hiking: you're doing it wrong. Seriously, if you don't have to at least pee outdoors, it's not a hike.
  - 10y ago

wallace_f 10y ago

I've travelled some internationally and realized this phenomenon is magnified inside the US. If I had to wonder at a reason why, I'd say it has to do with something else I've noticed: People from the US are also significantly more worried about the credence in what they're doing as something worth doing. Best way of that is that other people are doing it. If there's a ranger waiting to take your money it must really be worth it!

firebones 10y ago
I'm not sure. In Rocky Mountain National Park for instance, there are things above 9000 feet you can't get to unless a ranger takes your money; and in every experience I've ever had, that's the only way to get access to those experiences.
- jessaustin 10y ago
  When I spent the night on Long's Peak in Rocky Mountain (not intentional! I went up a semi-technical route but somehow lost the "easy" trail on the way down...) there were no rangers and no payments. I value that day-night-morning more than all of my other visits to RMNP put together.
  - driverdan 10y ago
    The trail markings on Long's Peak are terrible. I had trouble finding the trail back down too but it was midday and there were ranges around to point me in the right direction.
briandear 10y ago
I am American living in southern France and you haven't seen nothing until you've seen Chinese tourists.
- wallace_f 10y ago
  Haha, I thought Chinese shared that with Americans, but maybe they are more extreme -- I feel like living in France you get some selective bias of the type of tourists that go to France... It's France after all

praneshp 10y ago

Some of us do not have the luxury of living in a rv and travelling most of the time, so we take the easy route and go to national parks in the limited time available. I went to yellowstone this independence day weekend, and it was terrific, despite the crowds. It doesn't matter to me that a noname place could have been better, because I had a great time anyway.

SwellJoe 10y ago
That's great, and I don't mean to sound demeaning of that kind of decision-making. I understand my lifestyle provides a tremendous amount of privilege in this area. I just think of the times when I've had conversations with folks who live within an easy day trip of some amazing place, and I'll say, "I'm stocking up to camp at X place for the next week or two." And, they'll say, "Oh, yeah? I've heard of it. Never been." It's surprising. National Parks at least tend to have been visited by the folks who live nearby, often regularly.

AndrewKemendo 10y ago

It's the same reasons that some products take off and others don't. The right people went and made a big deal out of them early and they were the social proof needed to get more, which begat more resources and infrastructure etc...

atheg33 10y ago

>There's like a weird need for there to be a gate with a ranger taking entrance fees and such, for someone in the US to want to see and experience a place. Or is the exact opposite true? Perhaps the United States Government does a poor job of promoting their most breathtaking parks, and only creates parking lots and ticket takers once there is the financial incentive to do so (because the general public decides they want to amass there for any particular reason)?

ethanbond 10y ago
Yellowstone, Yosemite, and the Grand Canyon are among the most beautiful pieces of land probably in the world and certainly in the country. Just because there's other pretty, lesser known stuff around does not make these things any less spectacular.
firebones 10y ago
No, it's because the breathtaking places are breathtaking for a reason, and the infrastructure built up around them before is still relevant now. I'm not discounting how wonderful, say, a national forest is, but the areas deemed a national park are classified that for a reason. Often that reason may simply reflect where the water is, and how the wildlife follows that water.

ChuckMcM 10y ago

I look forward to the book. Seriously. There isn't enough material on the more "undiscovered" parts of the country.

lettergram 10y ago

My favorite location like that is Este park, which is the town right next to rocky mountain national park. Of all the places I've been it's by far the most beautiful. Hell the in the thin 10 mile winding road through a canyon I was stopped by two mountain goats fighting on the road. 30 minutes later, I chilled with some elk, while eatting McDonalds. All this was right before driving to the top of a mountain, called "stair to heaven"

esalman 10y ago
I loved that place. The Stanley Hotel, where Stanley Kubrick shot "The Shining", is also located here.
- DerekL 10y ago
  The Stanley Hotel inspired the novel, but it was not used in filming the movie.

xelfer 10y ago

I have a week to explore areas near San Francisco in the first week of December (driving there from Vegas via LA) can you suggest anything for an Australian? all I've heard is "Big Sur"

trvrsalom 10y ago
Big Sur is great, and quite a fun drive. There is also the Marin Headlands and Muir woods north of San Francisco
mch82 10y ago
From Santa Monica to San Francisco take the coast highway as much as you're able (usually Pacific Coast Highway 1, sometimes 101), especially from Morro Bay north. The drive will take longer, maybe much longer if you stop at the scenic points. Driving north puts your car against the mountain. Driving south would put your car on the ocean side of the road, possibly offering better views.
ktRolster 10y ago
Yosemite is still worth-while, at the top of the list, but it's a four hour drive. Mount Diablo is nice, and you can drive to the peak. Fremont peak is nice, and is a hike. Point Reyes is great hiking (I've seen a white deer there!). Pinnacles is great. Henry Cowell redwoods park is great, you've never seen redwoods like that. Going south across the golden gate bridge, sometimes I just drive along the coast all the way south to half-moon bay, it's a great drive, and in December the Mavericks waves might be big. There is a black-sand beach along that drive, too.
- xelfer 10y ago
  I'm a little worried Yosemite might be closed in the first week of winter or something? does it get snowed in?
  - sizzzzlerz 10y ago
    Yosemite doesn't usually close except for rare events like flooding. The valley will remain open through the winter. It's just the road over Tioga Pass that closes with the first snow since NPS doesn't plow it. Actually, winter is my favorite time of the year there. Snow (hopefully) blanketing the mountains and the valley floor and fewer people. Many fewer people.

xelfer 10y ago

I have a week to explore areas near San Francisco in the first week of December (driving there from Vegas via LA) can you suggest anything for an Australian? all I've heard is "Big Sur"

damienkatz 10y ago

BLM == Bureau of Land Management (Leaving this here for anyone like me who had to google why Black Lives Matter has anything to do with tourism)

SwellJoe 10y ago
Sorry, I guess I'm used to speaking with folks who recognize the context (lots of my friends are involved in Black Lives Matter, too, but the ones who travel know BLM means "free/cheap camping"). One incredible thing about BLM managed land is that you can often visit, and camp, for free. Sometimes for months at a time. There's an entire subculture of mobile homeless folks who do just that. There's lots of snowbirds who summer around Mammoth Lake (which is actually national forest land, mostly, I think, but similarly loosely regulated) and winter in Quartzsite or Slab City or Yuma.
- kalleboo 10y ago
  Cool, it sounds like the Freedom to Roam we have in the Nordic countries[0], except in the Nordics it applies to all wild land, even privately owned. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_to_roam#Nordic_countries https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_to_roam#Nordic_countri... "Allemansrätten gives a person the right to access, walk, cycle, ride, ski, and camp on any land—with the exception of private gardens, the immediate vicinity of a dwelling house and land under cultivation. It also gives the right to pick wild flowers, mushrooms and berries, but not to hunt in any way. Swimming in any lake and putting an unpowered boat on any water is permitted unless explicitly forbidden"
  - bdamm 10y ago
    That sounds amazing. Sadly, BLM land is not as expansive as the Nordic lands.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
  - 10y ago

infiniteseeker 10y ago

Little bit of a tangent... I am thinking of getting a travel trailer and living in it full time... Any forums, tips, experiences, models to look at you can share?? I have 0 experience with this.

sanswork 10y ago
Rent an RV for a month and live in it full time first before buying one. After you're sure that you want to live in one then get a Good Sam membership and the rest will come naturally.
- SwellJoe 10y ago
  Or, just buy an old one. Renting costs ~$100/day (and that doesn't include the cost of RV parks, fuel, etc.). You can buy a travel trailer for not much more than a month of renting, if you don't mind an older one. Buying a new RV would be madness, of course unless you're really sure you want to live this way and have a lot of spare cash laying around. They depreciate at an incredibly high rate. My first motorhome cost a bit over $30k when I bought it (it was 7 years old when I bought it), and I sold it last year for $12000, after living in it for most of the six years that I owned it. If you take your time, and shop carefully, you can find really great deals. But, yeah, it's definitely a major life change, and one that maybe shouldn't be dived into without careful consideration.
  - sanswork 10y ago
    Yeah but then if you don't like it you're stuck with an old travel trailer or RV to try and sell(hard) or store until it rusts away(space/money). Spending $3000 to validate a pretty huge lifestyle change isn't that much really. We got lucky that we really enjoyed it when we bought ours but I could understand a lot of people finding the lifestyle ultimately a lot different from what they expected.
SwellJoe 10y ago
I can, and do, talk for hours about RVs. I love them. I love cranky old RVs, in particular (I live in a 1984 Avion...which is one of the all-aluminum models, of which Airstream is the best-known manufacturer and the only current manufacturer). There are forums for every major manufacturer of RVs, most of them are super helpful; a bunch of retired old-timers who love talking about their RVs. I'd recommend you spend some time learning about them. There are definitely quality differences; usually you get what you pay for, though buying older can get you a great deal, comparatively speaking. I would much prefer a high quality old rig to a cheap newer rig. But, older rigs can have a lot of hidden problems; my Avion has had a much rougher life and needs a lot more work than previous owner disclosed (for a variety of reasons I bought it knowing it needed work but some of the work it needed/needs is beyond what I expected or could reasonably find in the brief inspection I gave it). One probably can't easily summarize everything one should know before buying an RV, but I'd recommend you start reading up on them now, and don't plan to buy for at least a month or more. Go visit RV dealers (with no intention to buy new, or even to buy from a dealer at all, as they will overcharge by a huge amount in the majority of cases...it's normal to pay half what a dealer would charge for a used RV). Do you already have a tow vehicle? That's probably where you need to start, if you plan to go the travel trailer route. If you plan to live in the trailer full-time, you probably need a big truck to haul it; I've got a diesel F250, and it works great. With a weight distribution hitch it'll comfortably haul more than my house (which is probably about 9000 pounds loaded with tanks full). As the other commenter recommended, road side service from Good Sam is a great idea; I've used both Good Sam and AAA, and Good Sam does a slightly better job getting the right sized tow truck out to you when you need it.

smegel 10y ago

Interesting, as an Australian, I would say the culture here is almost the opposite. Of course, the famous national parks will be heavily visited, often by international or interstate tourists, but exploring lesser known and further flung parks is part of the culture of "going bush". I have been amazed to go to places so remote I would not expect to see a living soul over a week only to find 2-3 4WDs already nestled in between the trees.

icantdrive55 10y ago

I worked out at Muir Woods National monument years ago, when it was free to get in. Most of the tourists were from other countries. ($10 to get in today--crazy.) It seemed like most tourists cared more about eating, and buying souvineers. (Most were on a bus schedule though. It went from San Francisco, Sausalito, and then Muir Woods.) They seemed to like being around other tourists? Never quite figured them out. I do know this, some tourists didn't appear to be on vacation. They looked misserable. They seemed annoyed at little things, like ice in soda. I was asked so many times, "Why do Americans put ice in soda!". I used to tell them that we want to delay diabetes. Then, I got to the point where I just said Americans are stupid. The second one they got. Most didn't seem to care about the large Redwood trees. The only group of people who seemed genuinely interested, excited to see such large trees were a group of Amish tourists. My buddy introduced me to BLM camping, and one day, I hope to be in your shoes, enjoying life in a RV.

ralfd 10y ago
> a group of Amish tourists I never imagined Amish could travel like tourists around. What a funny idea.
- waterphone 10y ago
  Some Amish and Mennonites can drive (sometimes they'll have community cars they share), but even those who don't can use public transportation and will take busses, Amtrak trains, etc. to travel.
  - TheCoelacanth 10y ago
    The majority of Mennonites have no religiously-based restrictions on technology at all.
ryuker16 10y ago
I have a funny feeling your talk about chinese tourists and others from poorer countries. Ice in drinks is rarer due to concerns about tap water. Chinese also seemed to greatly prefer all drinks to be warm or hot....the concept of ice cold drinks seems to be no the norm. A good many of these tourists are tours....some of them straight up rip offs so they take it out on locals. Imagine if you went to paris and found out your tour group was charging you 20% higher for everything....I'd be pissed off too. I'm susprised about redwoods... The tourist thing is a language barrier....When I lived abroad, I noticed americans did the same thing too including many expats.

malloryerik 10y ago

Maybe tourists are investors of a kind, and investors famously dislike uncertainty...

pbhjpbhj 10y ago
You're right, they are, investing time - which you can't make back if things go wrong. It's like going out for a meal: our family can afford to eat out maybe once in 2 months. That makes the possibility of getting rubbish food, and rubbish service more worrying than if you can just go somewhere else the next night. With more time (and more opportunity) you can sample more widely with less risk of wasting a large proportion of that time.
VLM 10y ago
Investors in social capital, in conspicuous consumption. Stereotypically the locals don't visit nearby touristy areas because if the whole point of the activity is to brag that you are in the social class that gets vacation time and can pay a lot for travel, driving fifteen minutes from home proves nothing. Its a human thing not rural/urban... plenty of places in great cities where no locals will visit. Being sweaty is not high social status, which explains why the parking lots and roads are bumper to bumper but the hiking trails are near abandoned.

Theodores 10y ago

Black Canyon of the Gunnison and Lassen Volcanic National Park were two notable finds that I thought to be under-appreciated, every bit as amazing as those places people can be expected to know. I went from place to place by bicycle when I was a tourist in the U.S. and, because I was not able to travel as speedily as everyone else, able to evaluate the scenery for what it was. Most of my up-close-with-nature experiences happened in the forest or BLM areas surrounding big parks such as Yellowstone, not in those parks. People that visit the U.S. are not like me, they have a very short amount of time and they book lots of hotels in must see places. One day they are at the airport in L.A. picking up the car, three days later they are in Vegas, then they have the helicopter flight booked for the Grand Canyon the day after that. In their itinerary they also have some irrational must-do thing where no amount of education can talk them out of this pilgrimage. This could be to the birthplace of a particular singer, a desire to drive some silly old car on Route 66 or a 'need' to go to '4 corners'. It is therefore most fortunate for the bears and other unusual flora 'n' fauna that there is this tourist free area just outside the tourist hotspots. These areas are totally inaccessible to people on two-week fly-drive holidays with both Vegas and the Grand Canyon to cram in.

nappy 10y ago

If you're driving a car, truck, or RV... then maybe the Grand Canyon is packed. If you are hiking or rafting... it is a desolate and inaccessible place.

SwellJoe 10y ago
The Grand Canyon is actually pretty great, if you're physically able to hike several hours down into the Canyon. Once you're a couple miles down, the crowds thin way out, and you can get some peace and quiet. The number of people who go all the way to the river each day is quite small, compared to the number who just roam around the rim (on either side).
sizzzzlerz 10y ago
The south rim can be a zoo during peak tourist season but the north rim has 10% of the visitation and it is 2000 feet higher in elevation and much cooler. The canyon views, in my opinion, are even more exquisite. Make the long, difficult trek out to Toroweap on the north rim, and you'll be fortunate if there is any one else there.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

bby 10y ago

dude just casually lives in an RV

dominotw 10y ago

> while dozens of surrounding National Monuments and National Parks and National Forests (mostly free to visit), are often nearly devoid of visitors. My parents went to grand canyon couple of years ago on their yearly 1 week off from work. they wanted to see the grand canyon . Most people I would imagine don't live in a RV or have all the time in the world to explore smaller parks. I find it that whenever someone generalizes a population they are often talking about poor or lower middle-class people. sorry, 'average American' doesn't live idyllic RV lifestyle .

SwellJoe 10y ago
"sorry, 'average American' doesn't live idyllic RV lifestyle ." I think this comment ignors a huge swath of people living in RVs. Most of the people living on BLM and National Forest land in RVs do so as much out of necessity as desire. Living in an RV is cheaper than living in a house or apartment, and most of my friends who live in RVs are extremely poor; well below the poverty line in many cases.

mjfern 10y ago

This concentration of tourism is by design. They call these areas "dead zones." The idea is to create a national park of millions of acres and concentrate all the tourism into just a few select areas and roads. You assume these areas will experience significant environmental degradation but the remaining park will be largely untouched, aside from the occasional backpacker. It makes good sense to me if the main goal is preservation.

pjc50 10y ago

This happens basically everywhere though. Name recognition is critical. For example, in Naples you have the very famous Pompeii (overcrowded with tourists), the less famous Herculaneum (just as impressive, smaller, light crowds), and the spectacular Villa Poppaea (deserted). Do visit the later if you get the chance.

strictnein 10y ago

I get what you're saying, but the Grand Canyon and Yosemite are worth the crowds. When you walk up to the Grand Canyon the first time, your brain can't quite get a grip on the scale. And the first time I went to Yosemite I drove in at night and had no idea what I was in until I woke up inside that gigantic valley. Awe inspiring experiences.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

visittheparks 10y ago

The parks are definitely something to enjoy and respect. I highly recommend two books: Desert Solitare https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desert_Solitaire Death, Daring and Disaster: Search and Rescue in the National Parks https://www.nps.gov/parkhistory/hisnps/NPSBooks/farabee.htm This is good too: The National Parks: America's Best Idea https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_National_Parks:_America%27s_Best_Idea

spikej 10y ago

It extends beyond the ruins to all things of cultural note... I've known several people who will never set foot in an art gallery or a museum at home but who have lined up for the louvre just to say they've been there.

gumby 10y ago

It's pretty clearly the curation. Parks have familiar facilities, guidance and support, and, frankly, advertising. A friend of mine contacted me after a very bad trip to the Desolation Wilderness. She was shocked that the trails weren't marked, that there wasn't water etc. She thought it would be like a city park! Listening to her story I realized she didn't even understand in retrospect how close to dying she had been. For someone like her a park is great: it gives her the support system she needs to enjoy the outdoors.

paulddraper 10y ago

Agreed. But isn't that true with everything? There's anyways somewhere better than the tourist trap; but only the locals know where.