You are here

Is It "Elitist" To Try to Visit All 58 National Parks?

Share

Is it 'elitist' to carefully plan your vacations so you can visit all 58 national parks, such as Voyageurs National Park? NPS photo of a scene in Voyageurs.

There was a disconcerting column in the Utne Reader the other day, one that dubbed those who tried to visit all 58 national parks "elitist." "Determined," is one adjective that comes immediately to mind when talk turns to visiting all 58, but "elitist"?

Under the title, Don't Be a National Park Bagger, writer Keith Goetzman claims that those who set out to visit all 58 of the "national parks" do so so fleetingly that they can't possibly come to truly, and intimately, appreciate the 58. Plus, he points out, you'd leave a huge carbon footprint with all the driving and flying necessary to accomplish the task.

"Face it", writes Mr. Goetzman, "only the wealthiest and luckiest among us has the vacation time, the money, and the means to have a chance at ticking off all 58 parks, and even announcing your achievement to the world can come perilously close to bragging about what an amazingly fortunate life you lead—not the sort of message parks advocates should be sending."

Hopefully the folks who are members of the National Park Travelers Club don't catch wind of his column. This group celebrates travelers who look at visiting as many of the 391 units of the National Park System not as something that's elitist but rather something that's both a challenge and a great way to celebrate and appreciate the national parks movement in the United States.

And really, how elitist is it? Where I live in Utah, seven national parks are within a half-day's drive. Stretch that to a full day on the road and I can add another six. With some rather typical vacation planning, anyone in the country could knock off anywhere between three and five national parks during a two-week vacation, or a series of four-day weekends scattered throughout the year. Would it really be that "elitist," if you were so determined, to visit the 58 national parks over a period of a decade or so? True, for those on the East Coast getting to Alaska could be an expensive endeavor, just as it would be for those in Alaska determined to visit Everglades or Virgin Islands national parks. But over the course of your adult lifetime, it wouldn't necessarily be impossible if you were determined to visit the parks.

Concerned about your carbon footprint? There are mass transit options that can be combined with park shuttle systems, as well as other ways to offset your carbon footprint.

The other point Mr. Goetzman raises is whether those who set out to tour the 58 could come away with more than a superficial, fawning glance.

...the “collect ’em all” mentality goes against a better, nobler impulse, which is to get to know the land intimately. Better that we should acquaint ourselves with one, two, or a few parks very well than attempt to superficially survey them all in baseball-card-collector fashion. Several years ago, I worked for the summer in Alaska’s Wrangell-St. Elias National Park, driving a tourist shuttle van between the tiny gateway community of McCarthy and the mining relic town of Kennicott. Among my passengers I met a few park baggers, most memorably a man and his teenage son. They “explored” the park in an afternoon, which meant strolling among Kennicott’s dilapidated buildings, looking up at the stupendous glaciers around them, and then riding my van back down to resume their journey. Never mind that Wrangell-St. Elias is the nation’s largest park at 13 million acres, and that even someone who’s there for months, as I was, can barely claim to have scratched the surface of its vast wonder. The man told me that they were off next to the Gates of the Arctic National Park and Preserve, which they would fly over in a bush plane—not even setting foot on the tundra. They added both parks to their all-important list, yet they didn’t have a true wilderness experience in either place.

Indeed, if all you seek to attain is a National Park Passport stamp, then yes, "park bagging" is over-rated and denies those involved in such an endeavor a tremendous opportunity to see fantastic landscapes and get at least an introduction to different ways of life and cultures. But let's be fair to those who visit Wrangell-St. Elias. The park, spanning more than 13 million acres, has two gravel roads that make forays of a combined 101 miles into the park's 20,580 square miles. Even if you knew how to live off the land and had the available time, it likely would take more than a lifetime to "know the land intimately."

Many people do fall in love with a small handful of parks, and visit them time and time and time again, which can be a wonderfully rewarding experience. But let's not be so self-righteous as to ridicule those who want to see as many of these magnificent landscapes and soak up the rewards they offer.

Comments

I'm up to 19 although it would have been 20 if a certain tropical storm didn't mess with my plans to visit Key West and then Dry Tortugas NP. I rescheduled the trip to Key West but didn't have enough time to take the ferry to Fort Jeffeson in Dry Tortugas NP.

There are places where the economy is heavily based on people visiting from far distances. The visitor economy in Hawaii or Florida is heavily dependent on visitors from all over the US and the world. I have no pangs of guilt about visiting Hawai'i Volcanoes NP or venturing to Everglades NP. These were wonderful experiences that I'll remember for the rest of my life. Visiting Alaska one of these days is a distinct goal, although I have the feeling I'll never visit Kobuk Valley NP or Gates of the Arctic NP. I've seen visitors in Yosemite from all over the world. I'd hate there to be some sort of limit (perhaps a lottery) on visitors that depends on how far they've traveled.

The sentiment about "carbon footprint" may be a valid one but the reality is that people live in the modern world. I don't know if it's more "elitist" to actually make a goal of visiting all these units or if it's more "elitist" to decry that other people choose to visit places that they consider wonderful.


Who cares what the environazis at Utne think. They always think they know what the rest of us should be doing. I've been to about 15 or so NPs and NMs and will continue to visit as I see fit.


Kirby is right on. I've visited most of the national parks of the eastern part of the US, but never thought of "collecting" them. What a super idea. You don't have to be wealthy either. You go, Roxanne! I can't think of a better use for your time. Mr. Goetzman needs to get out more.


I've been to 191 units (29 NP's by my rough count) and my 13-year-old son has seen 113 units. Every site is important to me. We've made it a part of our kids' homeschooling. Horseback riding in Teddy Roosevelt NP. Digging for fossils near Fossil Butte. Next year, now that my son is older, I hope to hike across the Grand Canyon with him, and yeah, we'll spend a few hours at Wupatki and a few a Sunset Crater. Book history is fine, but if you can visit the birthplaces of Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, and George Washington you're more likely to INSPIRE kids rather than just educate them. I've made this a priority in my life. We sold the huge house and downsized. Now we're selling our land adjacent to the C&O Canal NHP so we can afford to see the rest. Only an elitist would be insulted by the elitist label. I couldn't care less what someone else thinks.


Brad,
Upon Googling U.S. National Parks List, Wikipedia gave what looks like a very thorough list by state. There are 61 entries but as it explained some are mentioned twice if the park overlaps two states. For example, Yellowstone is mentioned in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming. Great Smoky Mountains are in Tennessee and North Carolina. The two territories, Am. Samoa and U.S. Virgin Islands, are also included.

Subtracting the "three" duplicates, I think the math will come out correct for your count of 58. Please double check the calculation!


If Keith wants to get me a job working in Wrangell-St. Elias NP, I'd be guaranteed to get a good "wilderness" experience too.
Sounds to me like he's compensating.


This is the NPS website that breaks down all of the current 391 units by category:
http://www.nps.gov/pub_aff/refdesk/classlst.pdf [Ed: If you click on this link, it will take you directly to the list and ask if you want to save the pdf. It's a small file, only around 110 kb.]

I am a member of the NPTC and am attempting to get to all 391 units of the National Park Service. I think that it's up to each individual to decide what they get out of a visit. I've been lucky enough to get to 309 of the units (42 of the 58 National Parks), and will continue my quest.

I'm retired and this is what I do instead of going to a job everyday.


I've been to 46. Elitist and Proud!


Add comment

CAPTCHA

This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.

The Essential RVing Guide

The Essential RVing Guide to the National Parks

The National Parks RVing Guide, aka the Essential RVing Guide To The National Parks, is the definitive guide for RVers seeking information on campgrounds in the National Park System where they can park their rigs. It's available for free for both iPhones and Android models.

This app is packed with RVing specific details on more than 250 campgrounds in more than 70 parks.

You'll also find stories about RVing in the parks, some tips if you've just recently turned into an RVer, and some planning suggestions. A bonus that wasn't in the previous eBook or PDF versions of this guide are feeds of Traveler content: you'll find our latest stories as well as our most recent podcasts just a click away.

So whether you have an iPhone or an Android, download this app and start exploring the campgrounds in the National Park System where you can park your rig.