[timmaah]

> From a selfish standpoint, this type of system discourages spontaneous trips. When I did my road trip three years ago, I already noticed the trend of mandating an RSVP for any activity. I am not against any RSVPs as I understand the concept of resource protection, but with a greed-based system with profit and not sustainability as its goal, there are fewer incentives to set aside spots for walk-ups.

The increased demand makes `walk-ups` a logistical headache for workers (volunteers) on the ground. If there are X amount of campsites available as first-come-first-served, the campground host then has to spend time turning away people all day when those spots get filled by 9am.

I'm not certain what the solution is for bringing the type of spontaneity back that many people crave, but the reservation system is in place for a reason. Crazy demand for nature.

[manachar]

A great example is sunrise at the peak in Haleakala National park on Maui.

So many people were crowding the top that they started parking on critically endangered species and making an amazing experience something of a zoo. Something had to be done.

The reservation approach is two pronged. One batch of the majority of reservations is offered well in advanced. Then something like 48 hours before hand the final batch is offered.

This helps those who want more spontaneous while also keeping the numbers manageable.

Bluntly, the US population has mostly grown to the point where we are regularly having to deal with the fact that some things and experiences are just limited.

There's something endearing and maddening about a culture like ours that just flat out doesn't understand limits.

[kingcharles]

> Bluntly, the US population has mostly grown to the point where we are regularly having to deal with the fact that some things and experiences are just limited.

This is the bigger problem. Not just US population, but world population has grown enormously, and is richer, and travel is cheaper. So there are exponentially more people arriving at tourist destinations that a hundred years ago received only a handful of people a week.

Look at Everest. Total clusterfuck.

https://s.abcnews.com/images/Nightline/190531_ntl_climber_01...

[dariusj18]

I've been mulling over the colonial era privileges that people expect to be able to have. But with a greater population, especially a wealthier population, the old timey vacation that everyone imagines just isn't possible. This disparity is part of the loss felt by those with privilege.

[dreamcompiler]

Exactly. When I went camping 20 years ago it was easy to just pull in to a nice park when we got tired of pulling the trailer. We would almost always get a campsite.

No more. Nowadays there seems to be 10x the number of RVs in use and advance reservations are mandatory. We never even try to camp in places that are "first come/first served" today because it's completely hopeless. The only places where fc/fs works today are commercial RV parks where you'll pay $50-$100 per night for a camping spot packed in like sardines with everybody else.

[stewx]

The solution is the same one used by airlines and hotels: dynamic demand-driven pricing, charging enough that you don't sell all your seats until the last minute.

An airline that sold out of all its seats 6 months ahead of time would be considered incompetent, but governments do this all the time with reservations for various activities, because they are trying to "be nice" by charging low entry fees.

[goplayoutside]

That might be a reasonable solution for a private business, but it's not appropriate for public lands.

Increasing prices will only exacerbate the existing issues around equitable access.

Here's an article[1] describing a University of Montana study on the subject, for anyone who would like to consider the issue in greater depth.

[1] https://archive.ph/7EDcJ

[catern]

Increasing prices will increase equity. By charging rich people more, you can afford to give greater subsidies for marginalized groups and poor people, and lower the price from whatever it is currently for them. You can even use that revenue to pay them to go camping, if you really want to!

[goplayoutside]

Maybe.

In any event, that unlikely to be helpful in this specific situation, as the majority of all revenues from rec.gov go directly to BAH[1], rather than to the public land management agencies responsible for stewarding the resources in the public interest.

BAH also has price setting authority, with a dearth of public oversight.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31369931

[uoaei]

Assuming those subsidies and rebates are actually administrated. That's a very big assumption and all precedent points in the opposite direction.

[randyrand]

not everyone (few?) has the luxury of being able to plan 6 months in advance.

rich or poor. the current system excludes many people too.

[timmaah]

No. Just no.

Public lands and access to public lands can't be a playground for the rich and entitled.

[uoaei]

It's called "public land" because it is already paid for, and effectively owned, by the public. I would consider a government who resorted to market solutions "incompetent".

[kevinh]

How is that a better solution?

[stewx]

It solves the spontaneity issue. It ensures that tickets are almost always available, no matter when you book, even fairly last minute.

The reason they won't do it is because it's more complicated to implement and people will complain in the media about govt "gouging" residents.

[kevinh]

Yeah, it solves the spontaneity issue by guaranteeing only the richest have access.

[dillondoyle]

I both feel it sucks while it also clearly is necessary. But I think they can make things more equitable and we need to invest money to increase access.

scarce back country permits for popular places should be a raffle system not refresh as fast as possible. That system would be hard for 2 night trips, but maybe set aside like 10% for that, let them allocate first, then open 1 nights.

imho give some chunk of preference to locals and sports/non car touring uses. E.g. RMNP climbing is my personal example. I've never had a problem getting in, but I also usually climb at night. The top parking lot is pretty small and filled up in the mornings. But people that have to carry gear should get preference, it's much easier to take the bus without gear. AND if you're staying later having to walk an extra couple miles with pads or bags bc the bus stopped sucks.

RMNP is also just a prime example of awfulness of crowds and people. There are one or two trails that almost all visitors go on. They don't venture out even though it's such a huge beautiful park.

Part of it is ease of trails. At least partially concrete and very short. But the facilities are disgusting just a few bathrooms and people sh*t on the floor...

People are awful, loud, littering, rude. Hard to fix that.

Would love to discourage car touring where people stop on roads you can't get around. Big % of people go to the big 4 and don't get out of their cars for more than a couple feet to intrude on animals for selfies.

Also cars are just awful polluters minimally try to minimize idling. Encourage people to actually get out in nature.

I get there accessibility issues that's an able est bias, hence building out more easy / paved loops.

We should definitely protect land and animals. But there is a huge amount of space to open up.

Building more facilities/enforcement would better protect the land too.

Maybe have some of those armed rangers who roll around in giant SUVs instead walk and stop littering (that's jest, it's crazy the amount of them that carry guns).

Especially if you bring in and build out forest service land.

Marketing might help too, there are so many amazing places that don't get traffic it's all going to the same few spots.

[mordechai9000]

> The increased demand makes `walk-ups` a logistical headache for workers (volunteers) on the ground.

I don't remember this really being a problem, though. If a site is unoccupied and untagged, you know it's available. Otherwise, it's not.

But without reservations you can't reliably plan anything now, because of the high demand, so i understand it's not an easy problem.

[stinkytaco]

It's the angry stream of people you need to turn away that becomes the issue. It's not confusing, it's just time consuming and frustrating for all involved. Doubly so if there's an event the overwhelms your normal facilities and staffing.

I recall a bedraggled stream of cars and park officials when I camped to see the solar eclipse in Nebraska. All very nice people, one even drove around to issue protective lenses to all the campers that didn't bring them, but I sure sympathized with those who didn't make reservations and those who had to disappoint them.