Recent comments

As I mentioned last time this came up, there is enormous pressure on the Forest Service for mining, forest and (intrusive) recreational use within the boundaries of the monument. Because the Forest Service's mission is not about protection of the resource, but best use of the resource, the Forest Service is prone to give in to these commercial interests. Mount St. Helens is too vital to science and the public to be parced out to private interests. The amount of compromise so far in the monument is unacceptable (already the boundaries are way too small and porous).

No, the Park Service can't afford governing the area any more than the Forest Service. But I hope that doesn't stop us from protecting areas that ought to be protected. Mount St. Helens is of significant interest to the public and to science. We have arguably learned more from the 1980 eruption about explosive volcanic events than any previous event and the recovery information we're receiving from the blast zone is vital to so many areas of interest. This is a place that deserves park status if ever one does.

When Lassen exploded in 1915, Congress moved to protect the area to ensure the public's interest. It's time we do the same for Mount St. Helens.

If both NPS & USFS are strapped for cash, what difference is the transfer except that Mount St. Helens will receive the protection it deserves and stop the ravishing from commercial interests?

The watershed that feeds Yosemite Creek is very small compared to the massive watersheds for Bridalveil Creek (which feeds Bridalveil Fall) and the Merced River (which feeds Vernal & Nevada Falls). Yosemite Creek's watershed is based around the southern slopes of Mount Hoffman which isn't far from Yosemite Valley. It is natural even in high water seasons for Yosemite Creek to dry up in fall. This year everything is about a month early, due to the low snowpack.

Personally, I find the dry fall beautiful. Usually by November or so, Yosemite Creek begins to trickle again and through the winter falls softly, building a nice ice cone. The cycle is stunning and really beautiful to watch.

I have to admit, I'm a real sucker for Roosevelt Lodge at Yellowstone and for White Wolf tent cabins in Yosemite. They are to me reminiscent of the old-fashioned park experience with a touch of civilization attached. I love waking in the mornings to the cool morning air, lighting up a fire in the wood stove... cup of coffee... I love the camaraderie of the lodge experience which both places afford. I also love the locations of these since they are both away from the main hubbub of these busy parks.

To me, the Ahwahnee is a beautiful, architecturally-stunning, upscale experience that I would prefer were at the park's gates rather than smack dab in the middle of Yosemite Valley. It's too late to do anything about it now, but if everyone could evacuate the building and a rockslide could bury it, I wouldn't mourn too much.

I would like to thank you for your thoughtful comments. The Tallgrass Prairie National Preserve is indeed intriguing and worth the visit. I'd like it even more if there were bison grazing instead of cattle.

My comments about the quality of interpretation during the bus tour of the preserve reflect my concern that there has been a gradual decline in the general quality of NPS interpretive/ educational services over the decades. Indeed, to his credit, this uniformed interpreter did not make up an answer for questions to which he did not know the answer. But, he made no attempt to follow-up, either. These were questions that I would consider to be of the frequently asked type. I'm positive that he's been confronted with variations of these questions many times before. My critique is not so much a reflection on the performance of a single person, but an indication of lower standards and expectations of local NPS management.

In my travels, the best park interpreters and volunteers would first ask their colleagues for an answer to questions they could not address. Failing to find an immediate answer, they would request my home or e-mail address so that they could follow-up (provided that I was interested to get this information, and I ususally am).

When I returned to my home in Oak Ridge, TN, I got online and visited the Tallgrass Prairie NPS web site. I communicated my questions and concerns to park staff via the e-mail address given on their "contact us" button, but to date there has been no response. Interestingly, when reviewing the preserve's web site, I did notice that they have a "Frequently Asked Questions" button, but when I clicked on it, only one single question came up ("where is all the tall grass?"). I expected more.

Since I posted the original trip report, several individuals have written me with information about the Tallgrass Prairie carrying capacity for American bison. It seems that if properly fenced and maintained, the 10,861 acres of the TGP National Preserve is sufficient to sustain a population of serveral hundred grazing bison. That would indeed be a sight that would prompt a return visit.

Any of you mountain climbers in need of a liquid rubberizing dip? Great for coating metal, plastic, rope ends Any ideas please pass them on to me.

Sincerely,

Mike Anderson

Sad to see this picture, I was their back in the 70's We need to stop shipping our water out of the country! Remember to place a plastic Quart water filled container in your toilet tank. I have a gallon jug wedged in mine.

I'll be the first to admit that I have yet to visit, or will EVER visit the entire scope of facilities offered within the NPS. I also concede to the fact that all encompassing words and statements never live up to their billing. That said, and having no point of reference regarding LeConte, I will say that by the strict definition and personal experience the Yosemite sites don't quite qualify in the sense of the term "lodge". And to me the greatest difference is the fostering of community that evolved naturally at Phantom versus the somewhat uncomfortably "forced" nature that existed on my trek through Yosemite. To be sure, the location of certain regions within Glacier is quite demanding and remote enough to keep away the "casual tourists" to which I usually make it a point to avoid in my personal backcountry expeditions. And the chalet atmosphere does indeed lend itself to the kindred spirit. But to consider them a similar lodge is a bit of a stretch in my humble opinion. Maybe my issue is that after a week or so in the middle of nowhere, sometimes quite literally, almost ANY structure becomes highly appealing, even the Muav Cabin, so it's possible my perspective isn't the most objective on many of the NPS facilities. Phantom isn't opulent, by any stretch, but that's not high on my criteria or I obviously would have selected the El Tovar from the Grand Canyon facilities. I'm just saying that the effort expended to reap the "reward" of the lodge is the greatest draw for me personally. But this is just one of those debates that anyone can justify his/her opinion on with little dispute from the masses.

So much for focusing on content. But since the author raises a new question, my personal hands-down choice is Phantom Ranch. Location, location, LOCATION!!! There are no "casual tourists" to be had in the bottom of the abyss, which enhances the level of camaraderie amongst kindred spirits, akin to a true brotherhood of a "lodge". No other facility in the NPS network is remotely (no pun intended) close to fostering that type of closeness among guests. Even the canteen visitors from Bright Angel campground become part of the overall family, albeit somewhat like a second cousin. For that matter, in spite of what you're thinking, those river-running folk, to some degree "casual" due to the lack of physical effort expended upon reaching the lodge, have a unique perspective on the facility after days (and nights) on the river. Before you ridicule me for taking them seriously as more than casual invaders of the inner sanctum, if you've yet to experience the length of the Colorado via watercraft, you are indeed missing the most unique adventure the Canyon had to offer. But I would still prefer the trans-canyon hike with a night (or two, off season) at the Ranch to any stay in ANY lodge.

OK, new question: If you had the opportunity to spend the night in any lodge within the entire park system tonight, which one would you choose, and why?

Earthjustice can kiss my butt, they are just a bunch of lawyer parasites--NOT environmentalists--who make their living by trying to deny use of public lands to the taxpayers who OWN them.

Surprise Canyon isn't pristine wilderness, it's a historical site that was altered for mining purposes over 100 years ago and should still be accessible by road as it was intended to be long before NPS encroached upon it.

geeez.... i bet that you, as a former interpreter, would know one of the best things to say when you don't know the answer is "i don't know." kudos to the ranger for his honesty rather than making something up like a lot of interpreters do. additionally, one of the jobs of an interpreter is to get people excited about something so they go on to learn more themselves. what's that tilden quote about spark something.... i can't remember. but the fact that you were left with questions, rather than a bored yawn, is good, don't you think? i mean, you did google it, you did get more responses so his answer, rather than a lie that stopped your inquisition there, instigated more thought and research?

it's not that i don't agree with you in some regard, perhaps someone should know the story behind the area's name. however, you spent an awful lot of time analyzing one individual and one set of expertise that clearly comes from something else (grazing and ranching) and perhaps had more to offer based on his experience. not all interpreters know every subject in detail. i think your research may have been more fruitful asking the park administration (easy nps reformers anti-gov types, this isn't a door to get all trollish, OK?) about the time the interpreter's supervisor has to do training, tour audits, asking for training materials, etc. and then give grades (perhaps) there rather than on an individual. i dunno.

the symphony thing sounds great. i would pay to see that. man and nature aren't separate and it's not like our national parks are always this pristine chapel of untouched nature as pop culture has misrepresented.

as i've wanted to visit this area for a long time, my vote is for another post, expanding on what you did, what you saw and what we should do if we were to visit. this place is intriguing.

Jeremy, I'm sorry you feel that way. However, during the last two weeks, I've only commented on 6 of the 21 articles on NPT, and that's far from "nearly every"; most of my comments, while they do involve critical analysis and offer a different view point, are not critiques of the articles themselves, but of the issues they cover.

Matt, I'm not sure what Xanterra's giving to the NPS now, but I'd guess it's a very small percentage. Before Xanterra assumed control of the Crater Lake Lodge, the concession returned 3% of their profits to the park, but for a number of years the contract was expired and the concession gave no money to Crater Lake.

My observation was not about the hierarchical value judgment of individual lodges. I was wondering why NPT, which often prints stories on the "plight of the parks", condones private profit from federally funded lodges (with the vast majority of those profits leaving the park) when parks are (supposedly) strapped for cash and could address budget shortfalls with a larger share of the profits? So in that way, it was related to the topic, but I'll leave the conversation to those who prefer to rank the taxpayer-funded, monopoly-controlled lodges in national parks.

----------------------------------------
Reform the National Park Service!
http://NPS-reform.blogspot.com

A few quick notes -

The NPS has lots of concessions operating in the parks. Things like the park phone system and garbage service may be operated by a concessions. It is cost-effective to let others operate some services within the parks. It makes sense to me that lodge operations should be handled by a concessionaire. We don't need park rangers checking you into your room or changing your sheets. This does not mean there aren't problems in the system, but why should that diminish the stature of the hotel?

Let's not confuse the people who operate the lodges with the lodges themselves. This list states simply that the Ahwahnee is the best lodge in the parks, it doesn't say that Delaware North (the concession that operates the lodge) are the best. In a few years, some other outfit may be managing the hotel, but the hotel remains in the park, and the hotel may continue to be rated "the best". We can debate the best/worst concession contracts on another day, but for this article, as Lone Hiker says, lets see if we can maintain some focus.

Are there lodges in the parks that should have been included on this list? I've already suggested that maybe one of the Olympic lodges should be here, anyone second that opinion?