The Dec. 15 editorial about access to the national parks reflects, I think, too much of the elitism and snobbery of the environmental lobby.
Maybe these people have the wherewithal to take long leisurely trips, but the average American’s vacation time in the ’90s is short enough. Forcing people to park miles away and then ride shuttle buses means many people just won’t have enough time to visit the national parks. In addition, few people traveling with young children or senior citizens are going to want to leave their cars outside of the main gate. Of course, this is probably just what the environmental groups want; that way, only they can use the parks while everyone else has to pay for them.
I think the solution to the problem of overcrowding is just the opposite of what your editorial recommended. Instead of having people waste time and dawdle with things like shuttle buses and hiking in, move visitors in and out as quickly as possible. Most tourists just want to drive around for an hour or two, take a few pictures of the famous sights, and then go on to the next attraction on their list. Besides, if they really wanted to spend days and days hiking and camping, they would have done it closer to home and not have traveled hundreds or even thousands of miles to a national park. I think Wisconsin Dells is looking better all of the time.
As for the comment “It is better, for sure, to view a bear on foot than from a car”: You must be kidding. If you think the average tourist wants to be close to an 800-pound bear without 3,000 pounds of steel around him, then I don’t think you really understand what the average vacationer wants to experience on a trip.
