Pre-packaged parks

It was with much anticipation that I set out on my first trip west. I was looking forward to finally doing some camping. \nBut I was to be disappointed and left feeling cheated. \nFirst, everything was so damn expensive -- $30 for an adventure pass, $13 for camping, $5 for firewood and $5 per day for parking anywhere other than campgrounds. If I had wanted to take a shower, it was an additional $1.25.\nThat was in Angeles National Forest in California. \nSecond, on entering the campground I discovered an extremely sanitized camping experience awaiting me. I was to be chaperoned by a camp host. Everything that could be was paved. Cordoned off parking spurs, picnic tables and fire rings dotted each campsite, and the whole place had a thoroughly depressing over planned feel to it. \nIt reminded me of a city park. \nPulling into site No. 36, my home away from home, I was dismayed to find that somebody seemed to have literally brought their home away from home with them. It seemed my tent was destined to lie in the shadow of a massive RV parked in the neighboring site. \nMy park brochure suggested this Class C campground was in fact "primitive." I later found out Class AA sites provide electrical and sewage hook ups, and in some cases -- get this -- a swimming pool. \nI realize this might be a fairly extreme example, but it seems America's wilderness areas are in danger of becoming homogenized by overdevelopment and restrictive, exorbitant fees.\nIf the extent of charges is proportional to the amount of money poured into providing things like electrical and sewage hook-ups, then presumably this is at least one way to reduce park fees. As it stands, the very people who could most benefit from escaping urban centers may not be doing so because it's simply too expensive.\nLast year, parks across the country were inundated with over 278 million visitors. That's a suffocating number of people. As a consequence, I acknowledge that at least some development is required for adequate conservation of reserves. \nBut there seems to be another deeply rooted problem, and that is people's perceptions and expectations.\nThe following is taken from an article that appeared in the Hoosier-Times discussing the rise in park fees for 2003. This comment was apparently made by a park manager in justifying fee increases. "The state park's goal is to offer the best product possible to the public."\n Then, in the New YorK Times, I read about a different state park sporting a golf course and family cottages. What astonished me most was the reporter saying such facilities were "intended to introduce families, especially urban families, to the world of conservation and the environment."\n Forty two percent of overnight stays in National Parks are spent in RVs. Is this, and the establishment of cottages, golf courses and swimming pools, really the best way for people to experience the "world of conservation and the environment"?\nViewing wilderness areas as products that require marketing to an, apparently, reluctant public represents a sad state of affairs. People should want to visit wilderness areas to experience what they are -- wilderness. As it stands, the overdevelopment of many National and State Parks implies that the majority of Americans are happier with a sanitized, pre-packaged version of nature.