What's the point of setting it aside if it's too difficult for most people to see it? The one in particular that comes to mind it Chaco Canyon. It's shortest access route is 13 miles of BAD dirt road. Note that's bad for dirt road. The park's website advises that the roads can be impassable after inclement weather.

Only thirteen miles of dirt road? Things have improved since I worked there in the late 60s (that's 1960s). As I recall, it was more like thirty miles or so of not always well maintained road, heading either north or south.

Things like dirt roads,or actually having to hike, rather than driving up to the attraction, tend to weed out casual visitors or those just making use of the restrooms (not that there is anything wrong with using restrooms). Those folks will always have Mesa Verde, with its paved road and developed facilities - basically more civilized than Chaco. Working the information desk at Mesa Verde, I had a visitor who said they had fifteen minutes to see Mesa Verde, what was available. I advised them to go have a quick cup of coffee and maybe a fast tour through the museum.

Actually if you want to see the best preserved cliff dwelling, in the most scenic situation, in all the National Parks, you want to visit Keet Seel. Be prepared for an overnight stay after a minimum eight mile hike.

There is a perpetual tension between preservation and development, and in my biased opinion, the National Park Service mostly gets it right. But the proper amount of development is always up for discussion - there are those who would build chair lifts to the summit of Denali, if they could.

"What's the point of setting it aside if it's too difficult for most people to see it?"
What's the point of letting floods of people in to ruin it? Yellowstone National Park can be so crowded in the summer it resembles a New York City park.

And what is wrong with keeping a few areas which are difficult and challenging to reach? You mention "one in particular that comes to mind". So there is one that is a pain to get to. Bummer! Yet as hikermor so well puts it there are numerous others which are accesable by everyone. Must we make every inch of every park accessable by road? And, as others have noted, if too many people trample an area, it tends to destroy the very things that attract us to those areas.

There are plenty of parks, preserves, and other areas of all sorts that anyone who is still breathing can reach. I strongly believe that there should be at least some areas which are left as much as possible in their wild state. I agree with hikermor that the NPS, USFS, and various other agencies generally do a pretty good job of striking a balance between keeping areas that are accessable to all, and keeping a few areas which are left alone and remote. Looking at the big picture, the amount of true wilderness in the US is actually quite small (and it gets smaller every year). Let's keep the few scraps of wilderness we have left! The people that don't want to make any effort to get there have numerous areas they can visit easily.

Absolutely not. Having a trail within the park rated extreme? Dandy. I know my limits. Same thing to reach the valley/clearing/old settlement where they are repopulating the Smokeys with elk. IIRC it's several miles of one lane gravel road. I'm not referring to a particular area (i.e. a peak, trail, valley, etc.) That is just to get to the visitor's center of the park. It's been several years since I was there but what I'm remembering is that the roads after the visitor's center are either good gravel or paved.

Thirteen is the shortest (northern). The other two (southern) are 20 & 30 miles. The maintenance has apparently gotten worse since then. Their description of the southern routes is now "Both routes can vary from very rough to impassable."

I don't have a problem with protecting sites with isolation. Isolating the entire park including visitor's center is another matter. I can easily see isolating parts of Chaco Canyon, especially the petroglyphs. I can see some joker deciding to add to them if they didn't.

One interesting thing about this is that Chaco itself is under the management of the NPS, while the roads leading to the park are the responsibility of the state of New Mexico. The roads inside the park are paved. Why the state would not improve the roads leading to a tourist attraction in a region where tourism is a major industry is a good question. Note that surrounding population is mostly Navajo. Back in the sixties, the word was that the local trader just outside Chaco opposed improving the roads, making the locals dependent upon him for goods and services. The gentleman is question was one of the most despicable individuals I have ever encountered.

BTW,if you think the roads at Chaco are bad,wait until you see the roads at Channel Islands. They in turn are far easier than what people drive on inside Canyon de Chelly (I hesitate to call them "roads."). And we haven't even reached Alaska yet. The Superintendent at Gates of the Arctic NP told me there are areas within that park that no human in recorded history has ever visited. Definitely uncivilized, even barbaric!

I would like to point out that these decisions are not made in secret by faceless guv'ment burrowcrats. Nowadays there is a fairly elaborate public meeting and review process, so if you have an interest in an area orin the general concept, participate, either by submitting written comments or attending and appearing at a public meeting.

This is on my mind, because I am planning to attend such a meeting dealing with the management plan and wilderness status for Channel Islands National Park early next month. I expect the meetings will be well attended and that everyone will get a chance to express themselves.

Personally,I am a bit conflicted. I am a fan of wilderness, and wilderness is where I prefer to taketrips. Proposed wilderness boundaries in the park will close some of the roads that have provided access to important research areas, so that will mean tougher access...So be it!

True, but a lot of times you are stuck with decisions that were made years or decades ago and haven't been revisited. If it were a park that is a lot closer to me it would get commented on long and loud.



Will the roads be maintained for park service and firefighting? Push for some sort of research exemption. If you are doing research that the park service could benefit from they should have no problem writing you a waiver for access.

Might be in part to preserve them through isolation. With the current condition of the roads only someone that WANTS to see it will make the trip.

Sounds like road conditions are largely a matter of what you are used to. The worst you generally find around here are gravel or forest service fire roads. The road into Chaco Canyon reminded me of a stretch in West Virginia after passing a sign that read "state maintenance ends."