3 ms·
I say convert it all to dispersed camping. Leave the zoos, I mean national parks, to the common overcrowding. Let us have our forests back. It’s obvious that th
by jonnycoder 2y ago
I say convert it all to dispersed camping. Leave the zoos, I mean national parks, to the common overcrowding. Let us have our forests back. It’s obvious that their policies have led to many of it burning down in mega fires that get so hot it kills every living thing in its path.
- desert_rue 2y agoAh, yes, make it harder for people to enjoy and admire nature. Then people will lobby to raze it down as “no one uses it anyway.”
- trimethylpurine 2y agoWhile you're right, undeniably there are many parks where fencing and parking lots have desertified or made unsightly much of what is in and around the "preserved" areas. Very sad.
- lazide 2y agoUSFS campgrounds are setup (generally) in places to reduce the damage caused by the public, because given enough people, the ‘public’ becomes abusive and we can’t have nice things. And in many areas, there will always more enough people that it will cross that threshold, regardless of what anyone calls the place. USFS campgrounds in truly remote areas excepted, but any available camping near a highway is going to be a public safety hazard quickly without someone responsible for keeping it clean and somewhat organized/policed. USFS ‘managed’ campgrounds generally were setup where there was already a problem area. So are you proposing Rangers sit there and drive anyone away trying to do what they want to do? Or we turn these spots into National parks? Because just saying ‘dispersed camping’ doesn’t work either without someone sitting there enforcing it.