Having spent each summer and the early part of my adult life living a stone's throw from the base of Long's Peak, the tallest peak in Colorado's Rocky Mountain National Park, I'm no stranger to the user dynamic of that area.
If you were to park it on the bench at the trailhead, you would notice a particular pattern established over the course of any day.
3:00am: The first wave of eager hikers arrive, headlamps emblazoned, they head up the trail at a decent clip, determined to reach summit and be back in time for breakfast.
5:00am: Silence.
6:00am: The second wave of hikers arrive. These folks, equally eager, share ambitions of summiting, as well as Chasm Lake, Granite Pass, or any other myriad of stops along the way.
8:00am: The third wave of hikers, which come at a steady roll until late morning, begin the casual, exploratory hiking in the area. Most don't plan on reaching the summit, or they intend to set up camp at the Boulder Field.
10:30am: First group begins to arrive back at the parking lot.
1:00 pm: Second group begins arriving back at the parking lot.
2:00 pm: The skies open up. IT'S STORMING! Run for your car!
2:30 - 5:00pm: Folks arrive back, and the parking lot clears out, save a few overnight parkers.
Granted, you would notice overall - especially on a good weather day - that the parking lot in Long's Peak reaches near capacity. There is a line of cars parked down the access road leading to the trailhead. The lot is, truly, maxed out.
This is perhaps one reason behind today's headline in the Daily Camera: "Rocky Mountain National Park Proposes More Long's Peak Parking." I suggest taking a read through, as it only begins to hint at a larger picture of how increased parking could impact this area - positively and negatively.
I love Long's Peak. I bring my family and friends there whenever they visit, because even if we don't reach the top, just being in the presence of such a beautiful monument is enjoyable enough. It is, without a doubt, a must see in Colorado.
However, if parking increases to the proposed level, what will this do to the land? The alpine areas that make up the large part of these region are fragile, and prone to damage if recreationists are unaware of how they must be treated. Thankfully, Rocky Mountain National Park has done an amazing job with the integration of Leave No Trace in to their park's culture, using the principles on backcountry permits, educating it's visitors at trail heads, and more.
What are your thoughts? What would you do - as a community member or as a supporter of Leave No Trace - if parking was suddenly increased at your favorite park? Increased traffic and user demographics are a catch-22: we need more participation in the outdoors in order to have people connect with and care about the future of the land, BUT we also risk increased impact on the land in conjunction with increased user traffic.
There's merit to both sides, I think.
Posts
2 comments:
This is so complicated. As a lover of LNT / backcountry hiking and someone who was at the top of Long's Peak twice last year I shrink from the thought of expanding traffic and parking.
But it's so important for people to be able to see and fully appreciate that place and so many others like it.
I don't have an answer, but I do hope that the folks in charge are always very deliberate and strategic about these decisions.
This is simply inevitable. It's not just about Longs Peak either. It's part of a bigger plan to improve amenities in the area. Leave No Trace will have to be a core part of the education program (more than it currently is) in the Longs Peak area if this expansion isn't going to significantly impact the area due to increased foot traffic.
Post a Comment