Possible reservation system at Many Glacier campground ...

[Hockey Ref]

If the goal is to reduce the number of people in the area at any given time, then simply close the annex at MGH, close half the cabins and motel rooms at Swiftcurrent, cut the number of campsites at the campground in half, and only let in a certain number of day visitors each morning. That would accomplish the goal of fewer people in a wildlife habitat, reduce traffic on the Many Glacier Road, and still would allow people to move about freely. Movement within the immediate area might not be restricted, but it would be if you have plans for activities outside the area, such as getting an early start on a drive to Two Med or eating a late dinner in Babb or St. Mary. You might not be able to do those things if you are beholden to a shuttle schedule to get you out of or back into the park.

But I don't see any of that happening, nor do I see the closing of the road to personal vehicles happening, either.

[Selkie]

Like others, I have mixed feelings about a reserved system. However, if a partial system is implemented then the park needs to take control of the unreserved sites too. The system should be set up like the scramble for unreserved backcountry sites. You show up as early as you need to and get in line. They pass out sites first come first served until they run out. When you get a site, you have to declare whether you plan to stay the next night also. That way rangers have a reasonably accurate count of available sites. This method transfers the hunt out of the campground and confines it to the office line. Of course it is also more labor intensive for the park and less spontaneous for campers but anything less will continue to be a big mess.

Orin, I like this idea. The Grand Canyon also gives out numbers to backpackers in the queue, so if on Tuesday morning they do not get a site but get number 4, say, they are automatically 4th in line for Wednesday morning and can sleep in a bit.
Are you sending your comment in? A few hours left...

Hockey Ref,
I don't really know what the goal is of the proposed half-reserved method. I expect it's to get some campers off their (campground rangers') neck with moaning about not being able to get a place.

As I recall, there were some proposals last year to create formal animal viewing stations by making pullouts along the entrance road, so it doesn't sound as though the general trend is to limit human activity. Corral, maybe.

[Jay w]

I wrote in my comments. As I re-read it, I see I should have proofread it.

I would NOT like to see a reservation system occur at Many Glacier:

-A reservation system will increase demand (and the craziness that occurs) for non-reservable sites. I think it will make it MUCH worse, both at Many Glacier and elsewhere.
-Sites will be left open because people will change plans and not cancel (happens at other locations). This means less people are served.
-I also believe more RVs will be using Many Glacier since their time (on average) is more flexible and this is a trend. E.g., it's difficult for me to leave on vacation on the exact day as planned.

Other ideas
-------------
-I would prefer a limit be set on the length of RVs that can use Many Glacier campground, or if there is an occifial length limit, that it be shortened. It is more appropriate for big RVs to camp in St. Mary. This would reduce demand.
-I would prefer the price per night go up to reduce demand. $30-35 a night is appropriate when looking at the demand and Canadian prices (Banff).
-I would prefer that for July, August, and the first week of Sep, that a one week limit be put on camping. This would reduce demand.

I've been tent camping in Many Glacier every summer for probably 12 years. I generally try to stay 2-3 weeks. The trend I'm seeing is more RVs, particularly large RV that sound like tanks driving through the campground. I feel that Many Glacier is not a place for large RVs. Small trailers, yes. I have not problem with that.
I have also witnessed, or been a victim of, the mad panic that occurs at 8 am looking for a campsite. I believe the main way to reduce that is through higher fees, limits on stays, and limiting the size of RVs. Please, no reservations!

Jay

[Selkie]

Thanks, Jay. The limitations specific to this CG, or the higher fees, both sound like things worth trying, but I am not sure the Park can impose such differences from the way other CGs in Glacier are treated.
It's my impression there is already a 14-day aggregate frontcountry campground use per summer season (yes?).
Many Glacier CG is just too small to divy up the pie further into reservable and nonreservable sites.

I hope people who DO prefer a reservation system wrote in their thoughts and represented their interests. The Park needs to hear different views.

Sometimes I walk along the lakefront, in Chicago or northern Indiana, and wonder how the landscape at lake edge looked prior to infill and homebuilding, and how the trappers and Native Americans in canoes experienced the marshes and bays and dunes. And I wonder about the birds and animals that must have thrived in this resource-rich area.

It takes a great effort of imagination to subtract the human additions to the environment at Many Glacier and try to see it as it was, 150 years ago. It must have been extraordinary, the throne of the gods.

[DaveC]

I think the mandatory shuttle systems in places like Zion, Yosemite, and Denali are clearly very successful ... but in the short term, at least, it's hard to see them working in Glacier. Doing that at Many would require a massive infrastructure investment, both for buses, and a new parking area at the boundary, for a relatively minimal reduction in vehicle miles. Additional staffing, too. I'd be worried about security at the parking area, and think that the overall environmental impact of the new infrastructure would cancel out any environmental benefit.

In retrospect, at least, it was a huge mistake to put 300 lodging units and 100 campsites in that tiny, ecologically important valley ... but of course park administrators of decades past couldn't see into the future, and realistically those developments aren't likely to go away. It puts the NPS in what is almost a no-win situation when it comes to figuring out what to do at Many ... the campground included. For now, at least, I'm not sure what they can do other than encourage people to visit other areas of the park -- pass the word that Iceberg and Grinnell aren't the only appealing destinations the park has.

As for the Sun Road shuttle, it would be very interesting to see into the future there! I know the carrying capacity of that road is limited, but at the same time I know the park is realizing that a shuttle system isn't a perfect solution, either.

I don't see any compelling reason why past park staff couldn't foresee what has come to pass. Population and visitation trends haven't exactly been obscure for the last half century. Being subject to the ideology of your time may be understandable, but that doesn't make it subject to the soft judgment of history. Crowding at Many and the associated problematic bear encounters will continue to get worse unless something is done. As you point out that will have to be radical. Better now than in 30 years.

Environmental is a secondary if not tertiary consideration. National Parks are not environmental preserves, but preserves of and for human experience. That is why people need to be obliged to slow down when visiting.

I also think raising the price to drive down demand is a horrid idea. Parks are supposed to be socioeconomically democratic, something the fee demo disaster of 1994 has already done much violence to. 30 bucks a night puts an extending camping vacation into the realm of the affluent only, a problem National Parks already have.

[Hockey Ref]

I think the mandatory shuttle systems in places like Zion, Yosemite, and Denali are clearly very successful ... but in the short term, at least, it's hard to see them working in Glacier. Doing that at Many would require a massive infrastructure investment, both for buses, and a new parking area at the boundary, for a relatively minimal reduction in vehicle miles. Additional staffing, too. I'd be worried about security at the parking area, and think that the overall environmental impact of the new infrastructure would cancel out any environmental benefit.

In retrospect, at least, it was a huge mistake to put 300 lodging units and 100 campsites in that tiny, ecologically important valley ... but of course park administrators of decades past couldn't see into the future, and realistically those developments aren't likely to go away. It puts the NPS in what is almost a no-win situation when it comes to figuring out what to do at Many ... the campground included. For now, at least, I'm not sure what they can do other than encourage people to visit other areas of the park -- pass the word that Iceberg and Grinnell aren't the only appealing destinations the park has.

As for the Sun Road shuttle, it would be very interesting to see into the future there! I know the carrying capacity of that road is limited, but at the same time I know the park is realizing that a shuttle system isn't a perfect solution, either.

I don't see any compelling reason why past park staff couldn't foresee what has come to pass. Population and visitation trends haven't exactly been obscure for the last half century. Being subject to the ideology of your time may be understandable, but that doesn't make it subject to the soft judgment of history. Crowding at Many and the associated problematic bear encounters will continue to get worse unless something is done. As you point out that will have to be radical. Better now than in 30 years.

It wasn't so long ago that feeding bears was an acceptable practice, so it's not out of the realm of possibility that park managers didn't foresee the impact of humans on the Many Glacier area.

[pitamakan]

I don't see any compelling reason why past park staff couldn't foresee what has come to pass. Population and visitation trends haven't exactly been obscure for the last half century. Being subject to the ideology of your time may be understandable, but that doesn't make it subject to the soft judgment of history. Crowding at Many and the associated problematic bear encounters will continue to get worse unless something is done. As you point out that will have to be radical. Better now than in 30 years.

Environmental is a secondary if not tertiary consideration. National Parks are not environmental preserves, but preserves of and for human experience. That is why people need to be obliged to slow down when visiting.

I also think raising the price to drive down demand is a horrid idea. Parks are supposed to be socioeconomically democratic, something the fee demo disaster of 1994 has already done much violence to. 30 bucks a night puts an extending camping vacation into the realm of the affluent only, a problem National Parks already have.

I'm a professional historian, and have been fortunate enough to have done a number of research projects in Glacier over the years ... and looking at the park's history it's clear that even the most far-sighted observers from the park's early years couldn't have envisioned how things turned out. By the 1960s people were starting to get an idea, but by that point Many Glacier had already been operating as a tourist hub for decades, and the die was cast. Whether or not park managers want to reduce the crowding at Many -- and many of them absolutely do -- they don't operate in a vacuum and can't act unilaterally. And the public will to make those sorts of changes simply isn't there.

It seems like your comment raises two contradictory points -- that the park needs to manage crowding, but also needs to be a preserve for "human experience." You can't do both, unless you have the ability to dictate what human experiences are acceptable, and which aren't. At best, that's an extremely slippery slope. Neither you or I would find camping at Many Glacier to be much fun -- we'd both prefer to be wandering alone around the Kishenehn country -- but it would be selfish for me to assume that everyone else should share my priorities. (And I wouldn't want them to, anyway ... I want certain corners of the park to myself!)

If I were King and got to decide what to do at Many Glacier, I'd close the auto campground down entirely and ship the RVs over to the KOA. That would solve lots of problems in the valley, while still preserving something like 3/4 of the overnight stays in the area. But of course, that's no more likely to happen than the shuttle is. More realistically, I can just try to accept the fact that Many Glacier is something of a "sacrifice zone," which is doomed to have too many people so the rest of the park doesn't get overrun. And in real-world terms, there's something to be said for that.

[DaveC]

It seems like your comment raises two contradictory points -- that the park needs to manage crowding, but also needs to be a preserve for "human experience." You can't do both, unless you have the ability to dictate what human experiences are acceptable, and which aren't. At best, that's an extremely slippery slope. Neither you or I would find camping at Many Glacier to be much fun -- we'd both prefer to be wandering alone around the Kishenehn country -- but it would be selfish for me to assume that everyone else should share my priorities. (And I wouldn't want them to, anyway ... I want certain corners of the park to myself!)

The NPS already heavily engages in dictating acceptable human experience, and looking back at those choices without excessive hagiography shows that managing crowding is a necessity for preserving human experience. This is why i don't want to see hard quotas for park visitation, nor de facto ones created by cost. (Further)Restrict the ways and times in which people can access places like Many Glacier, but still allow anyone to go. Crowds will be alleviated, folks will be forced to slow down, and they might learn something in the process.

On another note, it's been a slow week in the office, and I thank you gents for the diversion.

[scott-atl]

what is hagiography?

[Selkie]

what is hagiography?

... biography of a saint, idealizing or idolizing biography. Often used negatively, as in hagiography of a former government leader (country X) who was a creep to his own people.

Thus, without glorifying NPS unnecessarily (and, I'll offer, without vilifying it unnecessarily), we can say that parks do trammel experiences in certain ways. The ranger-led hikes and evening campground talks are ways of managing human activity and limiting human-animal interactions, as is the permit system. Wilderness areas and USFS areas offer/allow a different kind of experience.

[scott-atl]

thanks for the definition. there's no doubt that the many/swiftcurrent area gets crowded july and august but that's a pretty short period of time. just 8 weeks out of 52. folks need to stay on the trails and odds are things will be ok. the bears know what's going on. yosemite is a completely different story. 2-3 hour drive from 4 million folks.

[risingwolf]

I THINK EVERYTHING HAS BEEN COVERED. I SAY LEAVE IT FOR THE PEOPLE COMING TO GLACIER FOR THE FIRST TIME WITH THEIR FAMILIES AND DO NOT KNOW ALL THE INS AND OUTS. WE KNOW HOW TO SNAG A SITE IF WE WANT IT THAT BAD. NOTHING IS TOTALLY FARE. I.E. THE BC LOTTERY SYSTEM. NEXT WOULD BE NEEDING RESERVATIONS FOR A HIKING TRAIL OR THE "PARK CAFE".

[Selkie]

Bump.

New comment period ending in December 2014 (see thread under General Glacier Discussion forum).

I suspect the NPS has decided to proceed with a reservation system, and without any of the other good ideas, such as getting control of the nonreservable sites, or having vehicles looking for a campsite wait courteously somewhere in line, or issuing numbers to the first few in line who didn't get a site so they could return the following day and be guaranteed a site.

However, I would encourage all interested folks to send a comment, whether pro or con the proposed reservation system.