Mountain Project Logo

Government Shutdown - impacted areas

Keith Boone · · Henderson, NV · Joined Jul 2013 · Points: 492

Red Rocks, NV is closed since it is a national conservation area. Even if you approach from the Calico Basin side, the gates are locked and signs are posted on bathroom doors and gates. There were quite a few people walking in to hike and climb, but the area is being patroled so be careful. BTW.... Metro is ticketing cars for illegal parking since so many people are parking along the residential areas.

smassey · · CO · Joined Dec 2008 · Points: 200

Red Rock Canyon National Conservation Area. According to the BLM, you have to park in open parking areas to access the Conservation Area. MP User BLM Red Rock, who is official BTW, has posted on at least one of the threads on this site with the regs.

Keith Boone · · Henderson, NV · Joined Jul 2013 · Points: 492
smassey wrote:Red Rock Canyon National Conservation Area. According to the BLM, you have to park in open parking areas to access the Conservation Area. MP User BLM Red Rock, who is official BTW, has posted on at least one of the threads on this site with the regs.
This one maybe?

mountainproject.com/v/red-r…
Tom Mulholland · · #1 Cheese Producing State! · Joined Apr 2010 · Points: 50

This may be a silly question, but doesn't a popular park like Yosemite generate enough income to be self-sustaining? Could they have stayed open if they wanted to?

S Denny · · Aspen, CO · Joined Sep 2008 · Points: 20

ask DNC

Buff Johnson · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Dec 2005 · Points: 1,145

the NOAA site is not on...I feel so naked...brrrrrr

Craig N · · Madison, WI · Joined Jun 2011 · Points: 15

I plan on sending my legislator a bill for everyday I am unable to use my annual federal lands pass.

Jonny d · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Jan 2011 · Points: 40
Tom Mulholland wrote:This may be a silly question, but doesn't a popular park like Yosemite generate enough income to be self-sustaining? Could they have stayed open if they wanted to?
Silly rabbit. Free enterprise isn't for the Feds.
J. Albers · · Colorado · Joined Jul 2008 · Points: 1,926
Tom Mulholland wrote:This may be a silly question, but doesn't a popular park like Yosemite generate enough income to be self-sustaining? Could they have stayed open if they wanted to?
No, it doesn't generate enough money to be self-sustained. Besides, you don't get to pick and choose which parts of the government shut down. If you could, who would decide which portions stay open? You? Or maybe your neighbor who has a completely different set of values compared to you? Personally I like that they shut everything down because it forces the masses to come to grips with the fact that everything costs money....tax money!!!

Jonny d wrote: Silly rabbit. Free enterprise isn't for the Feds.
Sigh....statements like this are so tiring to read.

Guess what happens to beautiful places like Yosemite that aren't federally protected? (i.e. lands that are open to "free enterprise corporations"). Go watch the National Parks documentary by Ken Burns. We were a hair away from losing it to "enterprising" folks who would have sold that area to the highest bidder. Guess who isn't the highest bidder? The public. Guess who is? Loggers and miners. Get a fricking clue.

The "feds" are not some elusive entity. They are "us". Namely, public servants (people like you and me) that are doing the best they can with limited resources. Do you really think that those NP employees enjoy enforcing a total shut down? For crying out loud, they aren't even getting paid to do it. If things were run by a corporation with shareholders, I can guarantee that the park would be more regulated and more expensive to enter. Is the NP service perfect? No, of course not. But they do a pretty damn good job as far as I am concerned. And I get pretty tired of arm chair bitching about how much better it would be without so much government involvement with our public lands. I for one appreciate them and shudder at the thought of the day that the NP system is run by a private company.
cassondra l · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Nov 2008 · Points: 335
Buff Johnson wrote:the NOAA site is not on...I feel so naked...brrrrrr
I was just looking at it a minute ago-noaa.gov is still on, at least on my computer.
Fred 4 · · San Diego, CA · Joined Mar 2013 · Points: 0

The road to the Tahquitz South Ridge BLM campgrounds is closed by a gate where it splits off from Tahquitz View. Looking for recommendations of other places to stay around Idyllwild.

Paisley Close · · Mojave, CA · Joined Sep 2011 · Points: 76

Go to the Needles. It might be cold! Lots to do outside the park in REd Rocks. Lovers leap is awesome. Don't forget Bishop; so many options there.

Tony B · · Around Boulder, CO · Joined Jan 2001 · Points: 24,665
J. Albers wrote: No, it doesn't generate enough money to be self-sustained.
Actually, the big popular parks all do.
Chris D · · the couch · Joined Apr 2009 · Points: 2,230
cassondra wrote: I was just looking at it a minute ago-noaa.gov is still on, at least on my computer.
Not when I just checked it...went to the government shutdown page.

Which makes me curious...

NOAA's weather.gov site isn't down...is there another service from NOAA that people use? If there is, I'd like to know. Aside from the map-click forecasts on weather.gov, I only use the Scientific Forecaster Discussion for forecast info.

Always glad to find another resource for area weather.
GMBurns · · The Fucking Moon, man, the… · Joined Jul 2008 · Points: 470
wonderwoman wrote: I'd be happy to pay the entrance fee to the park. Now I guess I get to climb for free. Regardless, the Affordable Care Act will move forward and is not contributing to the deficit.
you never had to pay for climbing at Acadia anyway. all of it can be accessed legally for free year-round.
Mike Lane · · AnCapistan · Joined Jan 2006 · Points: 880
Tony B wrote: Actually, the big popular parks all do.
He also threw out a false dilemma with that post. Sell the Parks to corporate resource extraction operations as the only other alternative. One way the Proggies turned me off to their cause is this sort of intellectually dishonest bullying.
nmiller · · Montana · Joined Jan 2011 · Points: 80
Chris D wrote: Not when I just checked it...went to the government shutdown page. Which makes me curious... NOAA's weather.gov site isn't down...is there another service from NOAA that people use? If there is, I'd like to know. Aside from the map-click forecasts on weather.gov, I only use the Scientific Forecaster Discussion for forecast info. Always glad to find another resource for area weather.
I only use the weather portion, but it seems like if you try to access it via nws.noaa.gov you get the standard "shut down" page but if you use the direct weather.gov it comes up (as noted on the shut down page they are considering it essential). I always thought both were the same, guess not
J. Albers · · Colorado · Joined Jul 2008 · Points: 1,926
Tony B wrote: Actually, the big popular parks all do.
Hmm. I actually don't think that this is the case. I will admit that I was mostly speculating, but I don't think that my assumption is either far fetched or as it turns out inaccurate. A simple cursory glance through a Google search reveals the following two articles (no I have not vetted the first source, though the second source, which is legit, seems to support the first).

hcn.org/blogs/range/the-mos…

I didn't read the article particularly carefully, but there is a table that shows what it would cost per person per day in user fees for each NP to be self sufficient. If you add it up, you will notice that the weekly user fees at neither Yellowstone nor Yosemite cover the the cost of self sufficiency. For example, a weekly pass for Yellowstone would cost $79.52 instead of the current $25. Moreover, this article:

pbs.org/newshour/bb/busines…

points out that the Presidio in SF is the only NP that is required to be self sufficient. They also state that this could serve as a model for other parks...this statement would seem to elude to the fact that other NPs are not self sufficient.

Mike Lane wrote: He also threw out a false dilemma with that post. Sell the Parks to corporate resource extraction operations as the only other alternative. One way the Proggies turned me off to their cause is this sort of intellectually dishonest bullying.
Well actually Mike, I don't think that it is a false dilemma at all. What I am stating is in fact historically accurate. Without the protection of the NP system, Yosemite Valley would most certainly not exist in the state that it is today (companies were foaming at the mouth to log and mine it). What's that you say? That was a long time ago? Right. What about a current event then? Uranium mining and the Grand Canyon mean anything to you?

theguardian.com/environment…

You think for a second that if the Grand Canyon was privately owned that the park itself would not be at risk for mineral extraction? And what about the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge? If that was privately owned do you really think that it wouldn't have oil rigs all over it?

Its not dishonest bullying when history backs up your claims. And what if the NPs were transferred to a private entity with the stipulation that they couldn't extract resources? What then? Well, if its a private company, they still have to turn a profit, which would likely mean higher user fees because the government would not be subsidizing the park. Plus the private company is not accountable to anyone but themselves and their board. Contrary to what people think, the NP does actually respond to user needs and input (just look at the Merced River corridor process that is going on right now...they can hardly move forward because they are trying to take into account every user group's demands). I guess there is some precedent for this kind of system, namely the Adirondack Park in upstate NY. But their system is not exactly free of restrictions and issues either.
Mike Lane · · AnCapistan · Joined Jan 2006 · Points: 880

Yes, the progressivism of TR did wonderful things for us at the time and preserved these places in perpetuity. NO ONE, ever, would NOW submit an idea of selling the Parks to corporate interests. Even the Kochs would not dare. So to suggest it is a false dilemma. I would also add that that era of progressivism did many wonderful advances for our society, but all things eventually suffer from entropy and that is where we are at now.

Tony B · · Around Boulder, CO · Joined Jan 2001 · Points: 24,665
Mike Lane wrote: He also threw out a false dilemma with that post. Sell the Parks to corporate resource extraction operations as the only other alternative. One way the Proggies turned me off to their cause is this sort of intellectually dishonest bullying.
It's the same folks who came up with the scheme to only let the big parks keep a certain percentage of their collections over their budgeted collections based on the prior years' collections and put the rest into the general fund, not into an enterprise...
But that was the incentive for the sudden and steep rise in park admission prices we saw a decade ago or a little more, as I recall it.
But never mind the facts?
I'm OK with a post office that runs as enterprise.
I'm OK with a parks system that does the same.
And I give quite generously to places like the Nature Conservancy & Access Fund who do NOT allow for parasitic drilling/logging on their lands, or another Curry Village... as opposed to the feds, who would and do.
Guideline #1: Don't be a jerk.

General Climbing
Post a Reply to "Government Shutdown - impacted areas"

Log In to Reply

Join the Community

Create your FREE account today!
Already have an account? Login to close this notice.

Get Started.