Big Bend Chatters...

[SHANEA]

http://nationalparkstraveler.typepad.com/national_parks_traveler/2006/11/big_bend_chatte.html

Big Bend Chatters
    I've never been to Big Bend National Park, but in light of the emails I received after my initial post about park chat rooms, I'm definitely going to have to find some time to get down there.
    The emails reflected a pretty loyal following for this park and pointed to additional chat rooms and virtual sites that are great resources when it comes to planning a trip to Big Bend. So, if you're interested in learning more about the park, check out these sites:
    Big Bend Chat
    Virtual Big Bend
    Virtual Big Bend Store
    And then there are links to the Big Bend Natural History Association and the Friends of Big Bend.

Technorati Tags: Big Bend National Park, National Parks

[Drifter]

Shanea , Did you ever think that the efforts of the loyalist on this page may be unwittingly increasing the patronage of the park.  Can you see BB looking like yellowstone or the Grand Canyon in terms of the crowds of people.  I would hate to run into crowds of people in Fisk canyon, or going over Jacks pass or around the southern route of Mule Ears.  Just a thought. Drifter

[SHANEA]

Shanea , Did you ever think that the efforts of the loyalist on this page may be unwittingly increasing the patronage of the park.

Yes/No.  The individuals/groups that I am "target marketing" are already BIBErs and frequenters of the park.  I'm just pointing these BIBErs in the right direction to this community so that they can provide contribute their knowledge and experience.   :P

[presidio]

Shanea , Did you ever think that the efforts of the loyalist on this page may be unwittingly increasing the patronage of the park.

That is always the result when people broadcast their 'special' place to the world. However, this effect really only occurs in national parks. Most other public lands, which have special places every bit the equal of national parks, are obscure, unadvertised and mostly unvisited. Because of that, they also frequently are more pristine.

Here's a comparison that may surprise you. First Big Bend has NO Congressionally-designated wilderness, a fact not mentioned in the park's website info, where they liberally use the word 'wilderness'. While there may be defacto wilderness, and areas managed as wilderness (the latter of which is the case at Big Bend), unless it is Congressionally-designated the laws of the Wilderness Act DO NOT apply. The only NPS designated wilderness in Texas is at Guadalupe Mountains, where 46,850 acres fall under the Wilderness Act.

Even Yellowstone has no Congressionally-designated wilderness. Sounds unbelievable doesn't it? Check out http://planning.nps.gov/wilderness/maplocator.cfm where you will see what is designated (and where they also mention 'potential' wildnerness).

The map at the top of that page shows many more areas than the 45 parks where wilderness exists....that's including the 'potential' ones like BIBE and YELL. A question begging for an answer is why are some of these areas not already wilderness? Such designations in the NPS are far less politically controversial than creating wilderness on other federal lands, where such designations frequently mean a significant change in use of the land (or more specifically, elimination of uses). Yet, the other agencies have, in some cases more wilderness in the contiguous states than the NPS, or are approaching the NPS totals. And this occurs in a climate of fierce political debate/opposition. So what exactly prevents the NPS from getting designations for areas they have long pretended and present to the public as wilderness?

The NPS has a total of 43,414,321 acres of Congressionally-designated wilderness. Of that 33,079,611 acres are in Alaska....over 76% of their total, leaving 10,334,710 for the places most people are likely to be able to reasonably visit.

Now, in contrast to these highly advertised park areas, the USFS has a total of just under 35 million acres, of which less than 17% are in Alaska, leaving 28,942,000 acres for reasonably easy access. My cursory search of USFS data did not reveal the number of designated areas, only the total acreage. USFS data is at http://roadless.fs.fed.us/documents/feis/data/gis/far/far105_wilderness_state.htm

Lastly, the BLM has 7,327,632 acres of wilderness, none in Alaska. These acres are located in just 9 western states, but include 177 discrete areas. A list of BLM wildnerness areas, and many more special designations, is at http://www.blm.gov/nlcs/summary_tables.htm

With a few exceptions, the USFS and BLM areas are nearly unknown and thus seldom visited....true wilderness where you won't be stumbling over all the other hikers crowding the national parks.

[Casa Grande]

Shanea , Did you ever think that the efforts of the loyalist on this page may be unwittingly increasing the patronage of the park.  Can you see BB looking like yellowstone or the Grand Canyon in terms of the crowds of people.  I would hate to run into crowds of people in Fisk canyon, or going over Jacks pass or around the southern route of Mule Ears.  Just a thought. Drifter

I've been dealing with this debate for years now.  I've been told, "Hey, once you tell everyone about how great this place is, everyone will want to go!" Yadda, yadda, yadda.

The simple truth is, no. BB will never rise to the level of Yellowstone or Yosemite simply because of its geography.  You can't just 'pass through' it or 'stop by on your way somewhere else.' You have to want to go.  And, besides, do you know how many "benders" there are out there that don't know it yet?  Why would you want to deprive them of their Nirvana?

[presidio]

The simple truth is, no. BB will never rise to the level of Yellowstone or Yosemite simply because of its geography.  You can't just 'pass through' it or 'stop by on your way somewhere else.' You have to want to go.

Yes, that's very true, in addition to the fact that most people don't want to go to deserts and would rather crowd into places that are 'pretty'...with trees and waterfalls and meadows and such. That these things all exist in Big Bend as well is buffered by having to drive endless hours through the desert to get there (with little in the way of diversions enroute)...and then you have to WORK to find/see them, not just drive up and walk a short distance.

[SHANEA]

The simple truth is, no. BB will never rise to the level of Yellowstone or Yosemite simply because of its geography.  You can't just 'pass through' it or 'stop by on your way somewhere else.' You have to want to go.

Careful.  Think about the new trans Texas corridor that will be built from Presidio, to Marfa, to Alpine, and up through Texas to connect with other trans corridors.  Now that Gov. Perry has a mandate from the people with his overwhelming re-election, the Texas corridors will be built, which could mean easier/quicker access to BIBE and other areas.

[presidio]

Careful.  Think about the new trans Texas corridor that will be built from Presidio, to Marfa, to Alpine, and up through Texas to connect with other trans corridors.  Now that Gov. Perry has a mandate from the people with his overwhelming re-election, the Texas corridors will be built, which could mean easier/quicker access to BIBE and other areas.

Certainly possible, but grand, expensive plans sometimes have a way of not getting done. Never seen a huge public works project yet that ever came anywhere near the original budget. As costs inevitably go up, voter/taxpayer support will wane. While some portions could be built, it wouldn't be the first 4 lane road to nowhere.

The city of Carlsbad has been pressing for years to widen US 62/180 to 4 lanes from town to the TX state line (the El Paso side)...where it will then drop to the 2 lanes in TX. While there is no question the road needs upgrading for safety alone, the underlying premise that it will encourage more business and tourist traffic is a pipe dream. I'm they think TX will rush out to redo their part of the highway...not likely, and if TX doesn't reciprocate with 4 lanes on their side going into El Paso, what has been gained? Just a safer road in NM, which is good. This route just isn't any major throughfare. There also have been proposals to convert US 285 from Ft. Stockon to I-40 in NM to an interstate highway, much like I-17 from Tucson south or I-27 from Amarillo to Lubbock.

Again, the premise is that the change will elevate business interest in the region. Probably not. US 285 from I-40 to Carlsbad was rebuilt from a crummy, narrow 2 lane highway into a quite nice divided four lane about 8 years ago to handle the nuclear waste going to a disposal site east of Carlsbad. That highway is now every bit as good as an interstate (without the controlled access) and, while traffic has increased very slightly, it has not become a major route to anywhere, nor has there been any significant economic investment in the area because of it.

A lot of these kinds of projects are the grandiose dreams of politicians and not the result of any demonstable need. It they aren't spending gobs of tax money, they aren't happy.

[MarkB]

I don't worry about it more people finding out about the Bend. It takes a special type of person to appreciate what it has to offer, and you either like it or not. I would rather have a more informed person hiking or camping in the desert or mountains than not, and if by sharing photos of the Bend from the MSN Big Bend Photos group located here: http://groups.msn.com/bigbendphotos which has had more than 5000 visitors in the last year alone, or engaging in chat on websites like this one, if that produces a better informed person, we are all better off.
There are still plenty of areas in the Big Bend National park where one can find either all the solitude or mutual company desired regardless of the time of the year.

[BIBEARCH]

First Big Bend has NO Congressionally-designated wilderness, a fact not mentioned in the park's website info, where they liberally use the word 'wilderness'. While there may be defacto wilderness, and areas managed as wilderness (the latter of which is the case at Big Bend), unless it is Congressionally-designated the laws of the Wilderness Act DO NOT apply.

ACTUALLY, The NPS also has a strong set of policies that are equally binding as wilderness law. Management Policies, Chapter 6.3 Wilderness Resource Management, 6.3.1 General Policy:  "For the purposes of applying these policies, the term "wilderness" will include the categories of suitable, study, proposed, recommended, and designated wilderness. Potential wilderness may be a subset of any of these five categories. The policies apply regardless of category. "

Further in the same chapter: "The National Park Service will take no action that would diminish the wilderness suitability of an area possessing wilderness characteristics until the legislative process of willderness designation has been completed. ...This pollicy also applies to potential wilderness, requiring it to be managed as wilderness to the extent that existing non-conforming conditions allow."

Your observation about giving out information on "secret places" is well taken and fortunately, many folks on this forum use great discretion when posting trip reports. 'Tis a good thing...

Tom

[BIBEARCH]

That is always the result when people broadcast their 'special' place to the world. ...Most other public lands, which have special places every bit the equal of national parks, are obscure, unadvertised and mostly unvisited. Because of that, they also frequently are more pristine.

As a Spring Break refugee in the early 70s, I started discovering special places in the park, and after working here the past 24 years, I can point to several that are no longer pristine and special because they got to be too well known, popular, and consequently hammered to death by people who love the park. It's a point well taken. I'm not sure we can gauge the effect of the Trans-Texas Corridor, the rise in web popularity, and worldwide media coverage but we've seen park visitation increase because of it. Just how far it goes...?

[Casa Grande]

Your observation about giving out information on "secret places" is well taken and fortunately, many folks on this forum use great discretion when posting trip reports. 'Tis a good thing...

Tom

it is a good thing.  it is my 'official' policy that i won't edit, delete any post whether I agree with it or not. I hope everyone continues to self-regulate. It helps me keep my pledge.