3 ms·

There isn't any doubt that visitation rates have been up. I'm sure instituting formal reservation systems "helped" at the places that actually needed them, but

There isn't any doubt that visitation rates have been up. I'm sure instituting formal reservation systems "helped" at the places that actually needed them, but this is a case that you can no longer get reservations at the parks which are also the least visited in the year following the reservation system being implemented, which seems suspect. So, maybe its just social media/etc driving the problem, but it could also be that people can search the entire inventory and are like "hey I can't get a reservation at X, but we could go to Y instead since they have a site free" Vs actually having to pick up the phone and call a half dozen reservation desks adding friction to the system.

ahepp 4y ago
I guess my objection to characterizing this as a problem, is that it's the public's land held in trust for them. It would destroy the integrity of the system to not make it as discoverable and accessible as possible, within the bounds of maintaining the natural character of the land. I have some sympathy for people who knew places off-the-beaten-path that now have more competition for a spot, but if the land really is public land, I don't see how it's ethical to keep it hard to find and hard to use. Fundamentally, doesn't a trustee have a duty to beneficiaries? If you want a spot that's less accessible to others (and thus less crowded), there are still a lot of options. Finding such a spot might involve hiking a bit farther, visiting during the week, or dealing with harsher weather. But I really do think fairness, and thus the long term future of the system depend on the government doing its best to make it easy to find and access these places.