US citizens with permanent disabilities get free lifetime pass to National Parks(nps.gov)
nps.gov
US citizens with permanent disabilities get free lifetime pass to National Parks
https://www.nps.gov/subjects/accessibility/interagency-access-pass.htm
310 comments
> I think it'd be great to encourage kids to visit the parks through passes like these. Sponsor a lottery/giveaway or a contest featuring children's park-themed art or creative writing as chances to win lifetime park passes for them and their family.
It’s a great idea, and if you’re one of the people here making SV tech salaries, you could make that happen tomorrow. You’re talking about $5000-10000 of direct philanthropy to run/promote the contest and buy those passes for the winner. Media coverage would come easy and you could get it to snowball through other contributors after driving it through the first time.
(Not being flippant. Sometimes people just need help seeing what they can actually make happen without too much trouble.)
It’s a great idea, and if you’re one of the people here making SV tech salaries, you could make that happen tomorrow. You’re talking about $5000-10000 of direct philanthropy to run/promote the contest and buy those passes for the winner. Media coverage would come easy and you could get it to snowball through other contributors after driving it through the first time.
(Not being flippant. Sometimes people just need help seeing what they can actually make happen without too much trouble.)
Money is cheap, it's time that's expensive... I don't have any experience here, but my intuition is that organizing and executing the event with appropriate bureaucratic signoff, managing PR, reviewing all the candidates (in a fair and unbiased manner), etc... sounds like weeks of effort spanning months, no?
Think more hackathon project than startup.
Philanthropically, people do this scale of stuff for their own communities all the time. In the arts, people stand up and run themed contests every day.
There is absolutely time to be invested in designing or approving whatever online presence, reviewing submissions, becoming comfortable with whatever legal requirements, etc — but that’s the part that makes it a memorable life experience, not unlike the time spent on that trip to Belize or in those woodshop classes.
Philanthropically, people do this scale of stuff for their own communities all the time. In the arts, people stand up and run themed contests every day.
There is absolutely time to be invested in designing or approving whatever online presence, reviewing submissions, becoming comfortable with whatever legal requirements, etc — but that’s the part that makes it a memorable life experience, not unlike the time spent on that trip to Belize or in those woodshop classes.
How interested are you? If you or someone you know can provide the money, I bet I can find someone in the parks service, or a close connection, to handle the bureaucratic side of it. (I was an environmental science undergrad, and we frequently worked with the NPS and similar entities. Culturally it's very different from the tech world; they are often budget-starved for things but can make time for events and such.)
I have done small philantrophic projects with 5-6 people and doing it with a team helped a lot
I imagine you could send the money and idea to Amplifier[0] and have them run that for you
[0] https://amplifier.org/
[0] https://amplifier.org/
Individual parks often do contests like that, for example https://www.nps.gov/shen/youth-wildflower-art-contest.htm and https://www.nps.gov/long/learn/kidsyouth/student-poetry-cont....
There are also free passes specifically for 4th graders (and their families) for some reason: https://everykidoutdoors.gov/index.htm
There are also free passes specifically for 4th graders (and their families) for some reason: https://everykidoutdoors.gov/index.htm
> for some reason
Edit: I was sort of right, but I found this on the website:
“We chose fourth graders because research shows that kids ages 9 to 11 are beginning to learn about the world around them. They're open to new ideas, and they are likely to connect to nature and our history,”
Original answer:
5th grade is the year that students learn about US History. I think the theory is that they get a chance to see the national parks before they learn about them in 5th grade.
Edit: I was sort of right, but I found this on the website:
“We chose fourth graders because research shows that kids ages 9 to 11 are beginning to learn about the world around them. They're open to new ideas, and they are likely to connect to nature and our history,”
Original answer:
5th grade is the year that students learn about US History. I think the theory is that they get a chance to see the national parks before they learn about them in 5th grade.
[deleted]
[deleted]
And for those wanting a bit more complexity is the 2023 worker placement game "Trailblazer - John Muir Trail": https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/307044/trailblazer-john-...
I personally really enjoyed that game, and some reviewers have described it as "What Parks should've been"
I personally really enjoyed that game, and some reviewers have described it as "What Parks should've been"
Thanks for this. "Parks" was disappointing.
For kids, all 4 graders can get a free pass. That program has been in place for a while and we got it for all my kids, but it doesn't seem to be really well known. But we definitely hit more parks those years, and the kids enjoyed being the one who owned the pass and getting to show it at each entrance.
As a Canadian it’s one of the things I envy most about the United States. The park system is amazing and so vast. Canada has a lot of parks (3.3% of the land vs 3.6% for the USA) and some are great, and perhaps it’s a result of me going to wrong Canadian parks and the right US parks, but they don’t seem as good here in Canada. They also seem to be predominately north where fewer people are. The majority of them are in places I will never go, along with most Canadians.
Canada is beautiful. I guess I just wish more of the parks were accessible and well-supported by our government, in the same way US parks seem to be.
Canada is beautiful. I guess I just wish more of the parks were accessible and well-supported by our government, in the same way US parks seem to be.
Well, there's Banff and Jasper (and other nearby parks) which I visited with my wife quite a while ago. We're Californians. And Stanley Park in Vancouver is very accessible.
I’m partial to US parks as well, having visited many of them across the country. But Canada has some truly amazing parks like Banff or places like Lake Louise that are world beating.
Yeah, you’re not wrong. There are some parks that are basically in my back yard that you couldn’t explore in a life time. I don’t mean to sound bitter or unappreciative at all. If anything I just want more of it for everyone.
My personal favourite is strathcona park on Vancouver Island. My family spends summers and winters there. The geology is incredible, and you can find heaps of fossils in some areas. The lakes are stunning and cool throughout summer. The alpine areas are breathtaking. You really couldn’t see it all in a lifetime. I can’t think of a better thing to have a few hours away.
My personal favourite is strathcona park on Vancouver Island. My family spends summers and winters there. The geology is incredible, and you can find heaps of fossils in some areas. The lakes are stunning and cool throughout summer. The alpine areas are breathtaking. You really couldn’t see it all in a lifetime. I can’t think of a better thing to have a few hours away.
[deleted]
Looks like the art from those games - which really is quite stunning - is available directly as posters, an art book, and more (although not until next month, I guess): https://59parks.net/
> We are fortunate to have them and helping disabled people take advantage of the parks is an excellent idea.
Joseph Sax is rolling in his grave.
Joseph Sax is rolling in his grave.
>"Joseph Sax is rolling in his grave."
Could you please elaborate, I don't know anything about Joseph Sax, and his Wikipedia entry doesn't contain anything that explains your comment. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Sax
Could you please elaborate, I don't know anything about Joseph Sax, and his Wikipedia entry doesn't contain anything that explains your comment. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Sax
He wrote a famous book called Mountains Without Handrails:
https://www.amazon.com/Mountains-Without-Handrails-Reflectio...
It's been 20 years since I read it, but iirc he is musing about whether things like paving the trails around Niagara falls to make them handicap accessible diminishes our ability to be awed by the natural experience.
I may well be mischaracterizing it, so if you want to read it yourself the whole thing appears to be online here:
https://www.nps.gov/parkhistory/online_books/sax/contents.ht...
https://www.amazon.com/Mountains-Without-Handrails-Reflectio...
It's been 20 years since I read it, but iirc he is musing about whether things like paving the trails around Niagara falls to make them handicap accessible diminishes our ability to be awed by the natural experience.
I may well be mischaracterizing it, so if you want to read it yourself the whole thing appears to be online here:
https://www.nps.gov/parkhistory/online_books/sax/contents.ht...
The thing is that like 90% of national park visitors will never venture more than a half mile from their car. We should be making the experience as accessible as possible for those visitors while also preserving the vast majority of the open space for backcountry users.
The Paradise Visitor Center at Mt Rainier does a nice job striking this balance. Visitors can get an excellent view of the mountain by driving to the parking lot. There is a paved path to a popular waterfall. Beyond that, hikers can have a more typical trail hiking experience and by the time you are about 4-5 miles from the parking lot, it's a proper wilderness experience.
The Paradise Visitor Center at Mt Rainier does a nice job striking this balance. Visitors can get an excellent view of the mountain by driving to the parking lot. There is a paved path to a popular waterfall. Beyond that, hikers can have a more typical trail hiking experience and by the time you are about 4-5 miles from the parking lot, it's a proper wilderness experience.
The problem is national parks have a vendetta against dogs. I love out of my car with my dog. If a place doesn’t allow dogs, it doesn’t allow me.
Granted, I prefer BLM, FWS, and FS land anyways. But don’t forget that NPS adamantly excludes whole classes of people.
Granted, I prefer BLM, FWS, and FS land anyways. But don’t forget that NPS adamantly excludes whole classes of people.
High traffic nature areas are ruined by selfish dog owners. My favorite is spring on my local trails when every time you go out you get to enjoy progressively more dog poop revealed right on the side of the trail as the snow recedes.
With the volume of visitors popular National parks see there wouldn’t 50ft of path free of dog poop even if they went out of their way to mitigate it.
With the volume of visitors popular National parks see there wouldn’t 50ft of path free of dog poop even if they went out of their way to mitigate it.
Ah yes, the ol’ “some people can’t behave, so everyone of their ilk must be discriminated against” approach.
Instead, I’d recommend requiring dogs be accompanied by a dedicated shit-carrying pack and bags sufficient for it. Similar to how humans are required to have bear canisters in some parts. (indeed some places require humans to carry shit bags for themselves!)
Instead, I’d recommend requiring dogs be accompanied by a dedicated shit-carrying pack and bags sufficient for it. Similar to how humans are required to have bear canisters in some parts. (indeed some places require humans to carry shit bags for themselves!)
Let's not pretend that we're discriminating against a class of people with some immutable characteristic. Having a dog is a choice. Are you entitled to bring your pet into Mesa Verde? Obviously no.
As I’ve said, I’m homeless. Is that a choice? Kinda. Is having a dog a choice? Kinda. But I wouldn’t be alive without her.
Given those two things, I am basically 100% prohibited from using National Parks. Am I entitled to them? Maybe not. But still kinda sucks that I cannot use them through no fault of my own and people like you justify it by pointing out bad actors who have nothing to do with me.
Given those two things, I am basically 100% prohibited from using National Parks. Am I entitled to them? Maybe not. But still kinda sucks that I cannot use them through no fault of my own and people like you justify it by pointing out bad actors who have nothing to do with me.
I’m empathetic to responsible dog ownership and your situation. It does suck that you’re precluded from some experiences as a result of the selfish actions of others.
I’m not the type who thinks dogs have zero place in nature. I was happy to see a dog summiting a rocky scramble at 13000 ft just the other week. I plan on adopting this coming spring and am acutely aware of how it will affect my ability to travel and plan outings.
I responded, maybe too bluntly, because I felt your language including words like discrimination was heavy handed and you did not even allude to the absolutely Herculean task the NPS faces when trying to balance accessibility and conservation in nature areas that see millions of visitors every season.
I hope you and your pup enjoy the winter. We just got our first big snow up here in the rockies.
I’m not the type who thinks dogs have zero place in nature. I was happy to see a dog summiting a rocky scramble at 13000 ft just the other week. I plan on adopting this coming spring and am acutely aware of how it will affect my ability to travel and plan outings.
I responded, maybe too bluntly, because I felt your language including words like discrimination was heavy handed and you did not even allude to the absolutely Herculean task the NPS faces when trying to balance accessibility and conservation in nature areas that see millions of visitors every season.
I hope you and your pup enjoy the winter. We just got our first big snow up here in the rockies.
I've been to plenty of national parks with my dog. The rules are generally that dogs must be on-leash, and they are not allowed in especially sensitive areas. Those rules make a lot of sense to me.
The NPS hardly has a vendetta against dogs. At Carlsbad Cavern they even had a free kennel facility so you can visit the caves without worrying about leaving your dog in a hot car.
The NPS hardly has a vendetta against dogs. At Carlsbad Cavern they even had a free kennel facility so you can visit the caves without worrying about leaving your dog in a hot car.
Every one I’ve seen only allows dogs on paved trails. Which is basically just the roads.
Not sure where you are, but the southwest tends to have pretty dog friendly policies. Sand Dunes, White Sands, Grand Canyon, Petrified Forest (these are just ones I’ve been to off the top of my head) all allow pets on trails with some minor limitations: e.g. Pets only allowed on rim in Grand Canyon.
Pretty easy to google a list of dog friendly parks.
Pretty easy to google a list of dog friendly parks.
Alright I guess we just have different ideas of “minor limitations”. Being able to use only a single (paved) trail in the entire park sounds like a pretty major limitation to me.
Regardless, I much prefer BLM and Forest Service land. Free as in freedom, free as in beer. National Parks are fantastic for the disabled and (petless) families, but that’s about it as far as I can tell.
Regardless, I much prefer BLM and Forest Service land. Free as in freedom, free as in beer. National Parks are fantastic for the disabled and (petless) families, but that’s about it as far as I can tell.
Those who appreciate the raw outdoors will know that National Parks are best compared to amusement parks. Family friendly, tons of rules and regulations you must follow, expensive, but granted: some really cool vistas too.
Much better is BLM land, US Forest Service land, and (sometimes) US Fish and Wildlife Service land. Free, generally unregulated, vast, and exceedingly beautiful in its own right.
Much better is BLM land, US Forest Service land, and (sometimes) US Fish and Wildlife Service land. Free, generally unregulated, vast, and exceedingly beautiful in its own right.
https://www.nps.gov/parkhistory/online_books/sax/chap6.htm in particular:
> One does not provide such an opportunity for older people or inexperienced visitors by building a highway to the top of a mountain. Rather we can assure that places that are accessible to them are not so deprived of their natural qualities as to put such an experience beyond their reach.
which suggests that he'd be fine with things like the pass program.
> One does not provide such an opportunity for older people or inexperienced visitors by building a highway to the top of a mountain. Rather we can assure that places that are accessible to them are not so deprived of their natural qualities as to put such an experience beyond their reach.
which suggests that he'd be fine with things like the pass program.
It's not really possible in today's austere political climate, but I think the parks should be free for everyone. Especially as entrance passes to many parks are already rationed, the economic benefits of continuing to charge are relatively small.
Ignorance here, I thought the entrance/camping costs went to park maintenance and services. That has to be a non-trivial amount?
My understanding is that’s exactly why access is not unlimited.
Interestingly during the pandemic some Nevada state parks moved to a mandatory pass pre-purchase system as a way to control the number of people in the park at a given time to aid in infection control and prevention. Nevada has some truly gorgeous state parks that are more akin to BLM managed land than NPS land. (To me, it’s all beautiful.)
Interestingly during the pandemic some Nevada state parks moved to a mandatory pass pre-purchase system as a way to control the number of people in the park at a given time to aid in infection control and prevention. Nevada has some truly gorgeous state parks that are more akin to BLM managed land than NPS land. (To me, it’s all beautiful.)
This is a good infographic that shows who can get what sorts of passes: https://www.nps.gov/planyourvisit/images/Passes-Flowchart-up...
For example, it's also free for current military and veterans, or if you volunteer for 250+ hours that year
Some states also let you check out state parks passes (NOT for the National Parks, but the state ones) at libraries.
Washington: https://discoverpass.wa.gov/148/Check-Out-Washington California: https://www.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=30806 Nevada: https://parks.nv.gov/about/library-pass
For example, it's also free for current military and veterans, or if you volunteer for 250+ hours that year
Some states also let you check out state parks passes (NOT for the National Parks, but the state ones) at libraries.
Washington: https://discoverpass.wa.gov/148/Check-Out-Washington California: https://www.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=30806 Nevada: https://parks.nv.gov/about/library-pass
Yes! I learned about the library state park pass program recently and it truly is wonderful. Some state parks don’t accept the pass but the vast majority of them do. It has propelled my wife and I to explore outside of our normal park options.
In addition, many libraries also buy museum memberships. For example, Tolland Public Library in Tolland, CT has passes to the Children's Museum in West Hartford, Mark Twain House in Hartford, and the USS Constitution Museum in MA.
I used this last week using my daughter’s disability. It made me absurdly sad because it’s yet another reminder that she’s going to live forever with what she has but eventually realized in practicality it makes so much sense.
For us, the parents, we never know if today is a good day for our daughter to go on a hike and often times will buy tickets to things we don’t or can’t use. Happened with sesame park and that was expensive.
I imagine with other disabilities it’s the same thing or similar. Being blind or in a wheelchair (this park had paved paths) sometimes means having to turn around if external or internal conditions aren’t right. Combined with the fact that earning potential probably drops with many severe disabilities and you can imagine these spaces being rarely visited by an entire group.
For us, the parents, we never know if today is a good day for our daughter to go on a hike and often times will buy tickets to things we don’t or can’t use. Happened with sesame park and that was expensive.
I imagine with other disabilities it’s the same thing or similar. Being blind or in a wheelchair (this park had paved paths) sometimes means having to turn around if external or internal conditions aren’t right. Combined with the fact that earning potential probably drops with many severe disabilities and you can imagine these spaces being rarely visited by an entire group.
I came in pretty hostile to the idea, but your post made me think twice.
I don't think disabled people deserve to go to the parks more than non-disabled, but get that there are logistics challenges.
I wonder if a time flexible pass would be better than just free access
I don't think disabled people deserve to go to the parks more than non-disabled, but get that there are logistics challenges.
I wonder if a time flexible pass would be better than just free access
Another reason that I'm probably making up right now is that parents of children with disabilities just won't go do certain things if they think it's going to be a waste of money, regardless of how much they earn really.
I don't know this for sure but I wonder if that explains the "medicaid waiver". Someone with a disability (and only that individual) has access to medicaid regardless of parental earned income; so we got it for my daughter. And I thought it was weird because we're probably not going to need to use it? I'm not really sure yet...I know I have good insurance but don't think have tested its limits.
And that's when I realized why they don't factor in parental income or the presence of existing insurance. It's not to cover insurance gaps if I move jobs. It's because people with disabilities will probably hit insurance maximums, and at the end of the day, you do not want guardians foregoing necessary medical care when that happens. Because it will happen. You will create a population of disabled and neglected disabled people. And I think it's the same for parks. Some people won't even try going if they think they'll lose $30.
And I know someone reading this will immediately say regular people are also being neglected. I think everyone should have access to the same care, but from a budgeting standpoint and no lawmakers wanting to appear uncompassionate, this is an easier pill to swallow. Probably why the parks page linked also mentions veterans.
I don't know this for sure but I wonder if that explains the "medicaid waiver". Someone with a disability (and only that individual) has access to medicaid regardless of parental earned income; so we got it for my daughter. And I thought it was weird because we're probably not going to need to use it? I'm not really sure yet...I know I have good insurance but don't think have tested its limits.
And that's when I realized why they don't factor in parental income or the presence of existing insurance. It's not to cover insurance gaps if I move jobs. It's because people with disabilities will probably hit insurance maximums, and at the end of the day, you do not want guardians foregoing necessary medical care when that happens. Because it will happen. You will create a population of disabled and neglected disabled people. And I think it's the same for parks. Some people won't even try going if they think they'll lose $30.
And I know someone reading this will immediately say regular people are also being neglected. I think everyone should have access to the same care, but from a budgeting standpoint and no lawmakers wanting to appear uncompassionate, this is an easier pill to swallow. Probably why the parks page linked also mentions veterans.
There's another factor here: There's a huge swath of services that private insurance companies outright will not, under any circumstances, cover. They are explicitly exempted from having to cover these things specifically because they are technically available through Medicaid. This very much includes critical things like long-term caregivers/assistive devices. So having access to Medicaid becomes extremely important as soon as you need any of those services.
There are a lot of benefits provided specifically to people with disabilities because of this sort reasoning.
It’s more difficult for those of us who don’t see a wide spectrum of it up close to understand, but to individuals with the kinds of disabilities that impair mobility, the world is a shockingly different place. Sometimes leveling that playing field is best accomplished by eating the cost of a variable.
It’s difficult to imagine but some people are (for example) vulnerable to getting physically stranded in place just because a battery died. Not in terms of going without (for example) Uber, but being unable to physically move through the world the way it was built to move through. All the while cognitively being no more or less different than anyone else, and having to navigate life like that every day.
It’s more difficult for those of us who don’t see a wide spectrum of it up close to understand, but to individuals with the kinds of disabilities that impair mobility, the world is a shockingly different place. Sometimes leveling that playing field is best accomplished by eating the cost of a variable.
It’s difficult to imagine but some people are (for example) vulnerable to getting physically stranded in place just because a battery died. Not in terms of going without (for example) Uber, but being unable to physically move through the world the way it was built to move through. All the while cognitively being no more or less different than anyone else, and having to navigate life like that every day.
I've nothing to add to the topic but I want to commiserate. I'm sad because we would have used this a few years ago, but my son is just deteriorating and I doubt we'll be visiting National Parks with him again.
Yosemite has great disabled access FWIW. With a handicap placard we could drive on roads otherwise reserved for buses or rangers and get close to some of the best sights.
Yosemite has great disabled access FWIW. With a handicap placard we could drive on roads otherwise reserved for buses or rangers and get close to some of the best sights.
I am really so sorry to hear about your son. I'm new to this whole thing having found out only 4 months ago and have to force myself to do these things and make the best of it.
Yosemite is where we went last week. I was glad the government shutdown didn't happen. And yea, we were able to use their paved trails to push her around in a stroller because it would have been otherwise quite nearly impossible to go anywhere. She's getting a little heavy to hold for extended periods of time. But it made her absurdly happy, so it was worth it.
Yosemite is where we went last week. I was glad the government shutdown didn't happen. And yea, we were able to use their paved trails to push her around in a stroller because it would have been otherwise quite nearly impossible to go anywhere. She's getting a little heavy to hold for extended periods of time. But it made her absurdly happy, so it was worth it.
Just a mention, we only found out last year on accident. Veterans or Gold star families can get free lifetime passes at participating parks or you can fill out an online form and pay like a $10 processing fee. Lady noticed my wife and I were gonna pay for admission with our USAA cards, asked if one of us were vets (we both are) and started throwing pamphlets and stuff at us for the free lifetime pass.
Edit: Source for more information https://www.nps.gov/planyourvisit/veterans-and-gold-star-fam...
Edit: Source for more information https://www.nps.gov/planyourvisit/veterans-and-gold-star-fam...
People with disabilities get free park access, 4th graders get free park access, everybody gets free park access on MLK day and Veterans Day. Maybe we should just make national park access free again? I mean, I get that it comes out of my taxes, but it feels weird to charge people to wander around in nature. That's what we should be encouraging people to do.
There’s tons of public land that is free to access. BLM, USFWS, USFS, maybe more. But people in general don’t want that land. They want the land with paved, maintained trails, where there’s always a ranger around the bend to help you out of any situation you might get yourself into. And I don’t mind them paying for those privileges.
Those of us who don’t need them have plenty of land to use.
Those of us who don’t need them have plenty of land to use.
Rangers are federal law enforcement, not 'there to help you out of any situation you might get yourself into'. Don't talk to the police.
Rangers are a valuable resource to anyone venturing into the backcountry. I cannot count the amount of times I’ve been provided useful information and services by rangers. I’ll happily strike up a conversation with any ranger I meet.
Based on your statement I’d be surprised if you’ve ever interacted with a ranger. The only people I meet who dislike rangers are the types who feel entitled to do whatever they please in the wilderness and refuse to carry a bear can when hiking through Yosemite.
Take the mindless anti government sentiment elsewhere.
Based on your statement I’d be surprised if you’ve ever interacted with a ranger. The only people I meet who dislike rangers are the types who feel entitled to do whatever they please in the wilderness and refuse to carry a bear can when hiking through Yosemite.
Take the mindless anti government sentiment elsewhere.
Broadly speaking, there are interpretative rangers who provide information and education about national parks and there are law enforcement rangers who exist to protect people, park features, and provide emergency services. If you don’t wish to talk to any rangers, go right ahead, but please don’t spread misinformation about them.
Right? It's inherently public land... why should one have to pay in order to access nature? When you put it in words, it truly sounds like late-stage capitalism manifest.
The more popular national parks don’t actually have the capacity to meet the demand…theyre huge but the relatively easily human accessible areas are relatively small. Building these out to meet capacity would harm the wildlife goals.
https://theconversation.com/us-national-parks-are-crowded-an...
http://www.doi.gov/ocl/overcrowding-parks
https://amp.theguardian.com/environment/2021/sep/10/overcrow...
https://theconversation.com/us-national-parks-are-crowded-an...
http://www.doi.gov/ocl/overcrowding-parks
https://amp.theguardian.com/environment/2021/sep/10/overcrow...
Managing to capacity is not actually a reason for imposing the fees. And even if it was, the fees are not nearly high enough to have that effect.
Capacity challenges are being handled instead by denser transportation (e.g. Zion shuttle), by lotteries (e.g. Grand Canyon float trips), and by limited timed reservations (e.g. Rocky Mountain).
Capacity challenges are being handled instead by denser transportation (e.g. Zion shuttle), by lotteries (e.g. Grand Canyon float trips), and by limited timed reservations (e.g. Rocky Mountain).
People devalue things that are free. Ever been to the Google cafeteria?
>Ever been to the Google cafeteria
nope
nope
I hear more and more that disadvantaged people want access to markets instead of having stuff procured for them, with medicine as one possible exception.
If you get a Section 8 Voucher but the amount is too cheap, that isn't access to the market. https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-fond-du-lac-apartm...
I think maybe this would be better solved by improving the financial situations of people with permanent disabilities, because then they might be able to afford a ride to the national park and not just entrance. One possible unintended side effect is reducing services given to visitors of national parks.
Edit: actually single payer seems to work in some places as a means to get access to the market for health care providers, rather than access to a Health Insurance Marketplace®.
If you get a Section 8 Voucher but the amount is too cheap, that isn't access to the market. https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-fond-du-lac-apartm...
I think maybe this would be better solved by improving the financial situations of people with permanent disabilities, because then they might be able to afford a ride to the national park and not just entrance. One possible unintended side effect is reducing services given to visitors of national parks.
Edit: actually single payer seems to work in some places as a means to get access to the market for health care providers, rather than access to a Health Insurance Marketplace®.
American charity is setup to punish anyone that needs it. The issue isn't one of market, it's one of choice and availability. Whenever you need to rely on an institution operated by or on behalf of the government you are often dealing with something that has gone through 1000 rounds of reaganomics to trim it to the bone and then some.
A prime example of this is what happened to our mental health institutions. We used to have flawed, but fairly robust institutions to take care of individuals with extreme disabilities. Under reagan that all got yoinked away and people with severe disabilities were left with just about nothing.
But it doesn't end there, we do provide SSI and Medicare for people with extreme disabilities, but it's setup in the most draconian way imaginable. I have a child with severe autism, in order to not have them lose out of medicare I've had to get a law firm involved to setup a trust to ensure that my child never sees a dime of inheritance. My child can never own their own home, that'll kick them off of medicare. They can't own their own things, that will also eject them. It was an open question at one point if you could use trust money just to eat a restaurant (you can now, but this is certainly something that can be reversed as it was an IRS decision, not a law). This is all because if I want to give my child the best life possible after I'm gone, I have to make sure they have health coverage, and I simply can't save enough money to ensure that happens.
This isn't a question of what markets are available, but rather what quality of life should someone be entitled to? Should we all be entitled to have our needs met such as health, housing, clothing, and food? The current answer is no. I disagree. A good government is one that protects the most vulnerable.
A prime example of this is what happened to our mental health institutions. We used to have flawed, but fairly robust institutions to take care of individuals with extreme disabilities. Under reagan that all got yoinked away and people with severe disabilities were left with just about nothing.
But it doesn't end there, we do provide SSI and Medicare for people with extreme disabilities, but it's setup in the most draconian way imaginable. I have a child with severe autism, in order to not have them lose out of medicare I've had to get a law firm involved to setup a trust to ensure that my child never sees a dime of inheritance. My child can never own their own home, that'll kick them off of medicare. They can't own their own things, that will also eject them. It was an open question at one point if you could use trust money just to eat a restaurant (you can now, but this is certainly something that can be reversed as it was an IRS decision, not a law). This is all because if I want to give my child the best life possible after I'm gone, I have to make sure they have health coverage, and I simply can't save enough money to ensure that happens.
This isn't a question of what markets are available, but rather what quality of life should someone be entitled to? Should we all be entitled to have our needs met such as health, housing, clothing, and food? The current answer is no. I disagree. A good government is one that protects the most vulnerable.
Deinstitutionalization is a lot more involved than Reaganomics.
https://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/article/deinstitutional...
The overall situation where we, as a society with the most abundant resources in all of history make living a decent life a puzzle for people facing difficulties, is quite the indictment.
https://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/article/deinstitutional...
The overall situation where we, as a society with the most abundant resources in all of history make living a decent life a puzzle for people facing difficulties, is quite the indictment.
Have you considered moving?
I have dual citizenship so I plan on leaving the US at some point. EU is much more reasonable when it comes to cost of healthcare and living.
I do thing every American should have access to at least basic healthcare, some kind of affordable housing, food and clothes. Unfortunately, that is far from reality.
I myself have used food stamps at some point and everything about it was awful. The facilities were sad, employees rude and lines long.
I have dual citizenship so I plan on leaving the US at some point. EU is much more reasonable when it comes to cost of healthcare and living.
I do thing every American should have access to at least basic healthcare, some kind of affordable housing, food and clothes. Unfortunately, that is far from reality.
I myself have used food stamps at some point and everything about it was awful. The facilities were sad, employees rude and lines long.
Is that Medicare, or Medicaid? My understanding is the home is excluded for medicaid. I thought Medicare was determined by the SSDI that wasn't concerned with income/assets except for fees (covered by medicaid potentially).
I don't think Regan was the one to close all the mental health hospitals. I believe that started closing in droves in the 60s-70s.
I don't think Regan was the one to close all the mental health hospitals. I believe that started closing in droves in the 60s-70s.
The large institutional mental health hospitals were closed and supposed to be replaced by smaller, in-community health centers. Reagan repealed the funding for the successor systems and left it up to the states. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mental_Health_Systems_Act_of...
A better source with more information can be found here:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Mental_Health_Act
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Mental_Health_Act
I completely agree we should increase incomes for people with disability. The thing is, free national park access is something that can be decided within one organization with few side effects. Improving incomes for people with disability is a much bigger challenge.
AFAIK in the US disability is $1,200/month, which is absolutely not enough considering rent <$500/month is rare even in rural areas.
And you can’t work on disability or you lose the $1200/month. Yes, disability is intended to provide income for those who can’t work, but why can’t it be a sliding scale, where more disabled (definitely can’t work) = more income? Work isn’t just for income, and the government should be encouraging people to work wherever they can even if it’s part-time.
EDIT: Forgot to mention, most disabled people probably have a lot of medical bills too, which is ironic because inability to pay can make it hard to get routine care. The saving grace is that the debtors can't extract any money from those who are only relying on the $1200/month.
And you can’t work on disability or you lose the $1200/month. Yes, disability is intended to provide income for those who can’t work, but why can’t it be a sliding scale, where more disabled (definitely can’t work) = more income? Work isn’t just for income, and the government should be encouraging people to work wherever they can even if it’s part-time.
EDIT: Forgot to mention, most disabled people probably have a lot of medical bills too, which is ironic because inability to pay can make it hard to get routine care. The saving grace is that the debtors can't extract any money from those who are only relying on the $1200/month.
That is way too low.
However, money isn't the only way to have access to markets, though it's perhaps the only thing that gives full access. I think EBT/food stamps and Section 8 help a lot with having people get their basic needs met and not spending it on other stuff*. If they have a sufficient monetary amount, they give people a lot of choices of whom to buy from.
* There is a problem of people selling their food stamp benefits for cash https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/fraud
However, money isn't the only way to have access to markets, though it's perhaps the only thing that gives full access. I think EBT/food stamps and Section 8 help a lot with having people get their basic needs met and not spending it on other stuff*. If they have a sufficient monetary amount, they give people a lot of choices of whom to buy from.
* There is a problem of people selling their food stamp benefits for cash https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/fraud
You're also prohibited from having much in the way of savings for emergencies, which is especially cruel. It means you are intentionally put in a precarious situation forever.
That is only for the SSI program. Most Americans who cannot work for medical reasons qualify for the SSDI program, which has no limit on assets.
Also, the SSDI payment is not always $1,200 per month. It can go as high as about $2,000. It can also be a lot lower than $1,200 per month, including $0 (for those that have never worked). But if it is lower than $894 per month, then the SSI program kicks in and makes your total income from both programs $914 per month unless your SSDI payment is $0 because you've never worked, in which case your monthly income is $894 per month.
The $894 figure is the lowest one would get. Some states decide to increase it, so actually a California resident would get at least 1114.21 -- plus food stamps adds about $100 per month. (Social Security ignores income from food stamps when deciding how much to pay you.)
Also, roughly half of recipients also get subsidized housing, where they pay only 30% of their income (minus medical expense) for rent even if they live in an expensive area like SF or NYC.
Someone on a different branch of this comment tree, i.e., a "cousin" of this comment, implies that as soon as Social Security decides you are no longer disabled, you lose the health insurance aspect of Social Security, but that is not true: you continue to receive Medicare for another 3 years or so. If you want to know the exact length, query a search engine for "grace period". (But if you've never worked at all, you don't get Medicare, so you have to rely on Medicaid, which might not continue for 3 years after you are determined to be able to work.)
Also, the SSDI payment is not always $1,200 per month. It can go as high as about $2,000. It can also be a lot lower than $1,200 per month, including $0 (for those that have never worked). But if it is lower than $894 per month, then the SSI program kicks in and makes your total income from both programs $914 per month unless your SSDI payment is $0 because you've never worked, in which case your monthly income is $894 per month.
The $894 figure is the lowest one would get. Some states decide to increase it, so actually a California resident would get at least 1114.21 -- plus food stamps adds about $100 per month. (Social Security ignores income from food stamps when deciding how much to pay you.)
Also, roughly half of recipients also get subsidized housing, where they pay only 30% of their income (minus medical expense) for rent even if they live in an expensive area like SF or NYC.
Someone on a different branch of this comment tree, i.e., a "cousin" of this comment, implies that as soon as Social Security decides you are no longer disabled, you lose the health insurance aspect of Social Security, but that is not true: you continue to receive Medicare for another 3 years or so. If you want to know the exact length, query a search engine for "grace period". (But if you've never worked at all, you don't get Medicare, so you have to rely on Medicaid, which might not continue for 3 years after you are determined to be able to work.)
[deleted]
Exactly. The means testing around disabilities is insanity. Because your bank account went past $2000 you no longer need healthcare? Fun that a well meaning grandparent or cousin can kill their loved one with kindness simply by pushing them over an arbitrary limit with a present.
A family friend of mine -- a crackhead felon (theft) just got a beautiful 1-bedroom section 8 apartment in Weehawken, NJ with a gorgeous view overlooking Manhattan for only $268 a month. She got her disability for depression and anxiety and she sells some pills she gets on the side for extra cash. She got the apartment quick too, only waited a few months after getting out of the county jail -- one of the perks of her family knowing the mayor in that town, I suppose. She sits around all day playing games and facebooking (on her free government tablet)
No wonder disability rates are skyrocketing.
No wonder disability rates are skyrocketing.
This "friend" of yours isn't remotely representative of most people on disability. Being well connected with wealthy powerful people tends to give you all kinds of advantages other people don't get.
The only special treatment she got was being bumped to the front of the list for her section 8 housing because of her impending "homelessness" was faked for the mayor.
Very typical stuff though. I work in lot of lower income (NYCHA) buildings in NYC and see this sorta stuff all the time.
Very typical stuff though. I work in lot of lower income (NYCHA) buildings in NYC and see this sorta stuff all the time.
Felons usually can't get section 8 housing though? Or they have to wait 5 years or something? So how did she do that?
Also, getting disability for depression is extremely difficult. Like to the extent that people who genuinely suffer can't actually get it.
So this story sounds like something extremely rare/lucky, or else she had special treatment all over the place.
(And being bumped to the front of the section 8 list is huge, since that wait can be many years long. That's not a minor thing.)
Also, getting disability for depression is extremely difficult. Like to the extent that people who genuinely suffer can't actually get it.
So this story sounds like something extremely rare/lucky, or else she had special treatment all over the place.
(And being bumped to the front of the section 8 list is huge, since that wait can be many years long. That's not a minor thing.)
This seems more a case of a politically connected individual using their political connections than a representative case of disability fraud.
There are a lot of elements to this story that don't make sense. For starters, how did a felon qualify for section 8 housing so soon after release? Moreover, drug users are generally also barrer from section 8.
There are a lot of elements to this story that don't make sense. For starters, how did a felon qualify for section 8 housing so soon after release? Moreover, drug users are generally also barrer from section 8.
Good. Sounds like access isn't overly restrictive.
that lacks generalizability when we pivot to public policy implementation. Your use case lacks external validity.
Corruption and abuse of benefits lacks generalizability? Why would anyone work for the minimum wage in the current environment when they can make more money with section 8 and disability?
(minimum wage = $15USD x40 x4 = $2400 a month before taxes)
A disability payment will be around $1000, and one third of that will be taken for your free rent. As a side benefit you do not need to work at all.
The idea here is this that this sorta thing actively hurts the very people that deserve to be helped -- the honest working poor. Instead the benefits go to the people who can work the system, who have practiced it over their entire lives, with some even taking informal but advanced classes at the county jail about these things.
(minimum wage = $15USD x40 x4 = $2400 a month before taxes)
A disability payment will be around $1000, and one third of that will be taken for your free rent. As a side benefit you do not need to work at all.
The idea here is this that this sorta thing actively hurts the very people that deserve to be helped -- the honest working poor. Instead the benefits go to the people who can work the system, who have practiced it over their entire lives, with some even taking informal but advanced classes at the county jail about these things.
It'd be wonderful if we just made it free for everyone - it's not like the dues that parks collect come even close to covering their maintenance. Make it free, increase their budget by like 5% and you won't even need to worry about purchasing expensive PoS terminals that will work three hundred miles from the nearest cell towers.
I used to think the same thing about public transport -- make it completely free! However, after a couple of local experiments in making it completely free, I've changed my mind. It should cost _something small_ in order to 1) prevent abuse but also 2) enforce a psychological valuation of the service.
This is basically the paradoxical case - we should raise the price of these various public services but then enable various and sundry loopholes that let people access them for free.
Then they think they’re pulling a fast one and would utilize it.
Then they think they’re pulling a fast one and would utilize it.
How does one abuse public transportation? The bus is gonna go from point A to B no matter what. Does it matter if i want to go back and forth all day long?
Surely there won't be enough people wasting their time like me to fill up the bus and make it unusable for others.
Surely there won't be enough people wasting their time like me to fill up the bus and make it unusable for others.
"Back and forth all day long while doing drugs" is literally one of the failure cases.
"Back and forth begging/busking" is another.
"Back and forth begging/busking" is another.
What a weird argument. First of all, it already happens today. People begging or doing drug just get in the subway and do that.
Second, people can also do drug and beg in public parks. Should we add a fee to get into a public park?
Second, people can also do drug and beg in public parks. Should we add a fee to get into a public park?
That's a misuse of service - it's better to solve that with law enforcement than pricing.
Unfortunately, I don’t think the objectives of the park service are to maximize the number of visitors anymore.
It’s to manage crowds and limit the amount of ecological damage the public does due to the huge number of people wanting to come, esp post-COVID restlessness.
I recall seeing an interview with either a state or federal park employee and they used the wonderful euphemism “Disincentive visitation” when discussing timed entry permits.
Translation: “Fuck off. But if you do come we’re gonna make your life as hard as possible and that will be 39.99 please (Fees not incl.)”
It’s to manage crowds and limit the amount of ecological damage the public does due to the huge number of people wanting to come, esp post-COVID restlessness.
I recall seeing an interview with either a state or federal park employee and they used the wonderful euphemism “Disincentive visitation” when discussing timed entry permits.
Translation: “Fuck off. But if you do come we’re gonna make your life as hard as possible and that will be 39.99 please (Fees not incl.)”
Really busts me up that kind of the one thing the US has going for it is such beautiful national parks, and yet we make it so ridiculously difficult to enjoy them.
If we’re being honest these restrictions are more of an annoyance for the HN demographic (of which I am very much the part). We’re gonna be fine.
They really destroy less fortunate peoples chances to enjoy our beautiful landscapes.
If you didn’t plan your summer last February good luck finding a space that isn’t on the weekday. Then you have to plan kids out of school and two jobs and pets and their after school and…
You know what fuck it just drink beer and watch the game instead.
There will be just as many instagram models with tripods, just not the people who it would mean a lot more to than a picture.
They really destroy less fortunate peoples chances to enjoy our beautiful landscapes.
If you didn’t plan your summer last February good luck finding a space that isn’t on the weekday. Then you have to plan kids out of school and two jobs and pets and their after school and…
You know what fuck it just drink beer and watch the game instead.
There will be just as many instagram models with tripods, just not the people who it would mean a lot more to than a picture.
It’s only difficult to enjoy the most popular ones, in the most popular parts, during the busy season.
Going off season or to side entrances finds miles and miles of … nothing.
Going off season or to side entrances finds miles and miles of … nothing.
There'd probably be people effectively living in the park in their RV if entrance was free. The entrance requirements also help enforce that rangers inform visitors about dangers, closures etc.. upon arrival.
Park entrance costs $80 per year. You think that's stopping RVers?
Why have we put RVers in such a terrible place that living in a national park with no hookups for your home is a preferable choice? Couldn't we solve that problem by just providing reasonable housing subsidies to people who need them? And if that decision would be so preferable then what does it say about the standards of living of those people today?
I think that there's a pretty sizable chunk of the population who would genuinely prefer living in a national park.
Do you mean they'd prefer to be in nature? Because we've got Idaho. There's an awful lot of Idaho... and if we run out there's more than enough Alaska.
Some huge percentage of the USA is BLM land which is basically entirely free to do whatever you want as long as you don’t build permanent structures and move every 30? days or similar.
If you’re quiet and out of the way, I dare say you could live on BLM land permanently and nobody would know, let alone care.
And some BLM land is really impressive.
If you’re quiet and out of the way, I dare say you could live on BLM land permanently and nobody would know, let alone care.
And some BLM land is really impressive.
Technically you have to move your site every 14 days on BLM land, though to your point that is not going to be enforced in some regions of the Mountain West. In some remote areas of Alaska, including the islands of the Inside Passage, there are small, informal off-the-grid permanent settlements on government land. If they aren’t causing trouble such that someone complains then it isn’t worth the government’s time to care.
In the wild parts of the US, even the government tends to adopt the “live and let live” ethos of that type of country.
In the wild parts of the US, even the government tends to adopt the “live and let live” ethos of that type of country.
Yep, this is very doable and plenty of folks do live on public land for long stretches of time. Just be clean and don't mess things up and it's totally fine. Most national forest land also allows camping in disturbed areas.
This mostly applies to the west coast though. The eastern US has very little public land that is freely accessible.
This mostly applies to the west coast though. The eastern US has very little public land that is freely accessible.
Ive researched this for when I was staying in the Manistee National Park in Michigan. Must "leave the park" every two weeks for at least a day. So moving from site to site wasn't technically legal. Couldn't camp too close to trails or to rivers.
Is there modern nomadic community out there? Sounds interesting to hear how they live.
I think you’re reading too much into this. If someone is homeless, parking in a high-traffic national park that is patrolled by rangers and has limits on how long you can stay isn’t going to happen.
An annual park pass isn’t that expensive. People who live in an RV would spend far, far more driving to and from the park for various things they need (gas, supplies) than they’d save on the park pass.
Regardless, having a pass doesn’t eliminate the rules regarding duration of stay. You can’t live in a national park even if you have a pass. If you try to do it in an RV, you’d get noticed and cited.
An annual park pass isn’t that expensive. People who live in an RV would spend far, far more driving to and from the park for various things they need (gas, supplies) than they’d save on the park pass.
Regardless, having a pass doesn’t eliminate the rules regarding duration of stay. You can’t live in a national park even if you have a pass. If you try to do it in an RV, you’d get noticed and cited.
This story has the inevitable tie-in to a big evil Tech corporation:
https://www.wired.com/story/meet-camperforce-amazons-nomadic...
https://www.wired.com/story/meet-camperforce-amazons-nomadic...
Many of the national parks and forests are free. Sometimes even the camp sites are free. It's usually the smaller ones or the high traffic ones that require more staffing to maintain or have historic sites that need to be upkept.
I'm really trying to remember a national park that was "free". There are various small parks/historic sites which are free largely because its a statue/gravesite/etc but I can't remember one of the actual parks having free entrance in quite a white. There are a number which don't have gated entrances, but they still have honor system signs to the effect that you need to put money in the drop box.
The national forests OTOH, yes they are largely still free, but they are also heavily managed, frequently with commercial interests (ex, ski resorts at the top of the mountain, logging rights, etc). Which has resulted in the push to reclassify a number of them as wilderness, which has its own issues if you happen to be anyone but a birdwatcher (ex hunter, fisher, mountain biker, trail maintainer).
The national forests OTOH, yes they are largely still free, but they are also heavily managed, frequently with commercial interests (ex, ski resorts at the top of the mountain, logging rights, etc). Which has resulted in the push to reclassify a number of them as wilderness, which has its own issues if you happen to be anyone but a birdwatcher (ex hunter, fisher, mountain biker, trail maintainer).
Great Smoky Mountains National Park is still free to access. (Though it looks like they added parking passes at $5/day starting in March.)
I think I had this conversation not long ago too. I used to frequent smokey mountains a lot in the 1990's. Even then there were fee lots but plenty of ways to bypass them, which I as a starving college student was pretty good at. OTOH, they don't really have a fee because a couple of major roads that are hard to avoid run right through the middle of the park.
So, to me the recent moves sound more like they are closing all the loopholes around avoiding the parking fees (ex parking on the road rather than in the lot) which were there to replace the entrance fees.
So, to me the recent moves sound more like they are closing all the loopholes around avoiding the parking fees (ex parking on the road rather than in the lot) which were there to replace the entrance fees.
Cuyahoga Valley National Park in Ohio is free
Completely agree. When I went to Yosemite the POS was down and they just opened the gate. The resources needed to run the admission system could be better spent elsewhere.
I agree in principle, though one counterpoint might be that recreation is an easy target for congress when looking for budgets to cut, so having some of the budget come through fees from users can provide some degree of insulation from political whims.
I find it hard to imagine someone who has spent any measurable amount of time at US parks thinking, "you know what this needs? Even more people."
I once read about yellowstone that 95% of visitors never travelled more than 400 feet from thier car or bus. The parks are basically empty. The busy parts are the visitors centers and the easy campgrounds. The actual wilderness is still there for anyone willing and able to put in the effort.
I visited Yellowstone back in the early 80's, and that's probably about right for me, and for good reason. I got there late at night and pulled off on a forest road to sleep and early in the morning I got up to take a pee. I walked about 20 feet from my van and started peeing and then heard a loud "whoosh" noise and then two big billows of what looked like steam blew by me.
I'd been looking at my feet while peeing so I watched the billows blow by and then heard another big whoosh noise. My first thought was there must be some kind of little geyser around so I looked to find the source of the steam and saw it wasn't a geyser, it was a giant bull moose not more than 20 from me and it was snorting at me and basically telling me it was about ready to kill me.
Pretty much every year we hear about someone getting killed by bears there. I have spent many nights in many national forests and bushwhacked many miles off trail in them, but not Yellowstone. I'll leave that to the bears and those giant freaking moose.
I'd been looking at my feet while peeing so I watched the billows blow by and then heard another big whoosh noise. My first thought was there must be some kind of little geyser around so I looked to find the source of the steam and saw it wasn't a geyser, it was a giant bull moose not more than 20 from me and it was snorting at me and basically telling me it was about ready to kill me.
Pretty much every year we hear about someone getting killed by bears there. I have spent many nights in many national forests and bushwhacked many miles off trail in them, but not Yellowstone. I'll leave that to the bears and those giant freaking moose.
400 feet seems short, unless it was “never sleep more than 400 feet from their method of arrival” or similar. Even a short walk down a path will quickly go past 400 feet.
But maybe you can drive right into Old Faithful; I’ve never been.
But maybe you can drive right into Old Faithful; I’ve never been.
This is the satellite photo of Old Faithful: https://maps.app.goo.gl/fXNekEy7SYYPhDQj7
Technically, it's about 600 ft. from the parking lot, but half of that is the distance from the viewing area to the geyser (you never actually walk right up to the geysers, you always want to see them from a bit of a distance).
From what I remember of Yellowstone (it has been two decades since I visited), it's a national park where pretty much everything is pretty damn close to roadside, as the roads are designed to take you by all the interesting things.
Technically, it's about 600 ft. from the parking lot, but half of that is the distance from the viewing area to the geyser (you never actually walk right up to the geysers, you always want to see them from a bit of a distance).
From what I remember of Yellowstone (it has been two decades since I visited), it's a national park where pretty much everything is pretty damn close to roadside, as the roads are designed to take you by all the interesting things.
Anecdotally the majority of tourists I've seen just drive to viewpoints and stand around.
The Grand Canyon is my favorite example. The rim by the visitor center can be packed but once you're a half mile down one of the trails you won't see a soul.
The Grand Canyon is my favorite example. The rim by the visitor center can be packed but once you're a half mile down one of the trails you won't see a soul.
If I can recall from over 30 years ago, yes Old Faithful viewing is within a few hundred feet of a parking area.
For those who naturally wander, it can be hard to understand. But a lot of visitors barely leave parking lots and pull-outs. I don't know about 95%, but I've definitely noticed this at my favorite California parks.
The road-bound will take pictures at the scenic viewpoint on the shoulder of the road and at various entrance signs, and maybe use the restrooms. Then they pile back into the car to go to the next pull-out, restaurant, or hotel parking lot on their itinerary...
For those who naturally wander, it can be hard to understand. But a lot of visitors barely leave parking lots and pull-outs. I don't know about 95%, but I've definitely noticed this at my favorite California parks.
The road-bound will take pictures at the scenic viewpoint on the shoulder of the road and at various entrance signs, and maybe use the restrooms. Then they pile back into the car to go to the next pull-out, restaurant, or hotel parking lot on their itinerary...
We've been to Muir Woods multiple times and it's easily 400ft from most of the parking spots just to get to the main entrance.
It is 100 yards from the road maximum
That would astonish me and I can't find any reference except a blog post that also says "I read that..." without any citations.
I don't believe it and I certainly wouldn't encourage people to form opinions on national park policies based on it.
I don't believe it and I certainly wouldn't encourage people to form opinions on national park policies based on it.
While the exact number may be a little higher this tallies very much with my experience of US national parks. Walk a few hundred yards and even at the busiest sites you’re basically on your own.
While many people with disabilities can’t go very far beyond their car, they represent a minority of visitors. The vast majority of visitors are people who are theoretically physically capable of walking further but just choose not to.
I don’t get it, but it does make the experience for those of us who are prepared to walk a whole lot nicer!
While many people with disabilities can’t go very far beyond their car, they represent a minority of visitors. The vast majority of visitors are people who are theoretically physically capable of walking further but just choose not to.
I don’t get it, but it does make the experience for those of us who are prepared to walk a whole lot nicer!
It's good, everyone gets the experience they want. Old faithful has a parking lot nearby.
I don't know that I'd want to encourage people with little experience in the actual wilderness and not enough interest to read up first to go too far in any case. That's the group that contains the people who think petting the bison is a good idea or who never considered that their cell phone might not work everywhere.
More tourists getting killed just ends up making things worse for everyone, esp the people who get killed.
I don't know that I'd want to encourage people with little experience in the actual wilderness and not enough interest to read up first to go too far in any case. That's the group that contains the people who think petting the bison is a good idea or who never considered that their cell phone might not work everywhere.
More tourists getting killed just ends up making things worse for everyone, esp the people who get killed.
I think it depends on what you mean by empty. I was about 25 miles in last month (backpacking; Hoover Wilderness/Yosemite), and we all remarked at how surprised we were by the number of people we saw every day. It felt pretty crowded.
This is really cool.
Random sidebar…and this is probably a state issue (whoch is unfortunate because my state isn’t very keen on non-private ventures) but one thing I would like to see is easier public transportation to national parks.
I reside in East TN and we have the wonderful Great Smokey Mountains National park but you have to have a car to get there. So, folks fly in to TYS and then drive up to Gatlinburg / GSMNP but once you get there, especially Gatlinburg, the city is pretty walkable. If I recall correctly, they have a trolley for parts of the NP but otherwise I have to burn fossil fuels to get there. I would much prefer a means of public transportation to get me up to the park and rely on public transportation once up there.
It’s probably low on the totem pole for problems to solve but I’d like to do what I can to preserve the area and for one of the most visited NPs, it seems like a win/win for getting people to nature while preserving it for future generations.
Random sidebar…and this is probably a state issue (whoch is unfortunate because my state isn’t very keen on non-private ventures) but one thing I would like to see is easier public transportation to national parks.
I reside in East TN and we have the wonderful Great Smokey Mountains National park but you have to have a car to get there. So, folks fly in to TYS and then drive up to Gatlinburg / GSMNP but once you get there, especially Gatlinburg, the city is pretty walkable. If I recall correctly, they have a trolley for parts of the NP but otherwise I have to burn fossil fuels to get there. I would much prefer a means of public transportation to get me up to the park and rely on public transportation once up there.
It’s probably low on the totem pole for problems to solve but I’d like to do what I can to preserve the area and for one of the most visited NPs, it seems like a win/win for getting people to nature while preserving it for future generations.
Sweden offers everyone who are are allowed to stay in the country and abide to simple courtesy rules access to pretty much all of its land for free. 24/7/365.
This is regardless of who owns the land in question.
This is regardless of who owns the land in question.
When USA allows this, people come in with 4,000 pound (minimum) off road vehicles with off road tires that will destroy all the land they touch. Thankfully there’s large pieces of the desert open for these guys to enjoy and I’ve appreciated that we have both well managed parks with rules and wide open spaces with less.
Off road driving is not legal here. Not through the right that parent mentions, nor can you even do it on our own land. Only certain vehicles for certain purposes are allowed to drive in terrain. Offroading for fun, not allowed.
I was lazy and auto-translated the first paragraphs of the law in question:
"Off-road driving with a motorized vehicle for purposes other than agriculture or forestry is prohibited throughout the country 1. on bare ground, 2. on snow-covered forest land with sapling or young forest, if it is not obvious that driving can take place without risk of damage to the forest, 3. on snow-covered agricultural land, if it is not obvious that driving can take place without risk of damage to the land.
Within the parts of the mountain area determined by the government, off-road driving with a motorized vehicle is prohibited, even on ground other than that specified in the first paragraph."
I was lazy and auto-translated the first paragraphs of the law in question:
"Off-road driving with a motorized vehicle for purposes other than agriculture or forestry is prohibited throughout the country 1. on bare ground, 2. on snow-covered forest land with sapling or young forest, if it is not obvious that driving can take place without risk of damage to the forest, 3. on snow-covered agricultural land, if it is not obvious that driving can take place without risk of damage to the land.
Within the parts of the mountain area determined by the government, off-road driving with a motorized vehicle is prohibited, even on ground other than that specified in the first paragraph."
That's probably a fine trade-off for the other advantages of living in Sweden, but restricting off-road vehicle use on private property seems excessive.
Banning electric bikes also seems like obnoxious oldster nanny-state behavior.
Banning electric bikes also seems like obnoxious oldster nanny-state behavior.
So, I'm relatively speaking politically aligned towards the right - in Sweden, which means I'm on the average somewhat more to the left than Joe Biden.
I agree with that law. Owning the land does not give you the right to abuse it. The land is forever, you are temporary.
Note that there are exceptions for actual forestry use.
I agree with that law. Owning the land does not give you the right to abuse it. The land is forever, you are temporary.
Note that there are exceptions for actual forestry use.
Electric bikes were not a thing when the law was created. But as written, also they are covered, as far as I can tell.
The law can be seen as an environment protection law. Just like you can't pollute the environment on land you own, you can't tear up the soil as side effect of amusement off road driving.
The law can be seen as an environment protection law. Just like you can't pollute the environment on land you own, you can't tear up the soil as side effect of amusement off road driving.
Honda Civics are almost 3,000 pounds, so not sure what you're trying to imply with the supposedly scary 4K figure. Obviously weight is one of the things you want to limit in difficult off-road terrain. It's very scary driving a heavy vehicle up a mountain side where a mud slide could end your life.
I have off-roaded in many national parks around the country. Vehicles are restricted to designated trails for off-roading. Many of them are challenging, rocky terrain and it's basically impossible to drive more than 10mph for a lot of these trails. There are some parks that are more intended for UTVs and ATVs where you will get more muddy flat land (more common in the southeastern U.S. due to climate and geography) and you can typically go a lot faster and it's quite fun, but these are again, UTVs that weigh about 1K-2K pounds and again, these are special trails designated for that purpose.
There are heavy fines and even jail time for people that try to break the rules and take vehicles into unpermitted areas. Nevermind that barriers are usually constructed to prevent or forest is too dense anyway to allow for.
I have off-roaded in many national parks around the country. Vehicles are restricted to designated trails for off-roading. Many of them are challenging, rocky terrain and it's basically impossible to drive more than 10mph for a lot of these trails. There are some parks that are more intended for UTVs and ATVs where you will get more muddy flat land (more common in the southeastern U.S. due to climate and geography) and you can typically go a lot faster and it's quite fun, but these are again, UTVs that weigh about 1K-2K pounds and again, these are special trails designated for that purpose.
There are heavy fines and even jail time for people that try to break the rules and take vehicles into unpermitted areas. Nevermind that barriers are usually constructed to prevent or forest is too dense anyway to allow for.
.. and Toyota Land Cruisers, one of the most globally popular 4x4s are bigger and heavier than a Honda Civic, so it's not clear what point you're making by bringing that up.
FWiW the 2022 Toyota LandCruiser LC300 VX (4x4) is 2630kg (5798.2 lbs in obscure units).
Still, if you're going to cross a big desert area we can at least agree that lighter is better, (failing access to camels).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OI3T_vM3VBI
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robyn_Davidson
NB. width of Australia is approximate width of mainland USofA: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fP4UcVbhR8o
FWiW the 2022 Toyota LandCruiser LC300 VX (4x4) is 2630kg (5798.2 lbs in obscure units).
Still, if you're going to cross a big desert area we can at least agree that lighter is better, (failing access to camels).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OI3T_vM3VBI
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robyn_Davidson
NB. width of Australia is approximate width of mainland USofA: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fP4UcVbhR8o
Sweden does not allow them to do that.
See https://visitsweden.com/what-to-do/nature-outdoors/nature/su... for more.
See https://visitsweden.com/what-to-do/nature-outdoors/nature/su... for more.
Hmm.
Just my own opinion, but that doesn't sound like "everyone who abides to simple courtesy rules".
Pretty sure you wouldn't be able to do that in Sweden or the US.
Just my own opinion, but that doesn't sound like "everyone who abides to simple courtesy rules".
Pretty sure you wouldn't be able to do that in Sweden or the US.
Straw man alert. Free != Lawless
The US has deserts that lack any eco-systems that can be destroyed?
How exceptional.
How exceptional.
The US has deserts large enough that establishing an off-road vehicle park within many of them will not destroy ecosystems.
I'm in global geophysics, have been for decades, I understand the size and georaphy of the USofA.
> will not destroy ecosystems.
Are you certain about that?
I would have said it was more the case that eco-systems in in off-road 4x4 areas will be destroyed where the vehicles routinely drive and the best comprimise would be to have limited areas for total destruction by 4x4's and larger areas for limited 4x4 constrained to pre existing trails.
Even beach driving is problematic: https://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2008/02/28/2175600.h...
> will not destroy ecosystems.
Are you certain about that?
I would have said it was more the case that eco-systems in in off-road 4x4 areas will be destroyed where the vehicles routinely drive and the best comprimise would be to have limited areas for total destruction by 4x4's and larger areas for limited 4x4 constrained to pre existing trails.
Even beach driving is problematic: https://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2008/02/28/2175600.h...
Here's some actual survey research: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fevo.2021.80570...
Turns out various species are differentially impacted, with the only clear consistent effect being (predictably) decreased sward height. Good news: no reports of ecosystem destruction! Hope this helps.
Turns out various species are differentially impacted, with the only clear consistent effect being (predictably) decreased sward height. Good news: no reports of ecosystem destruction! Hope this helps.
So why don't we fine the people with 4,000 lbs vehicles if they're acting irresponsibly? It'd be great for these places to be free to those who respect the maintenance of them and just recoup the cost for people who are destructive.
The US is vast and many of the attractive rural lands effectively have no law enforcement presence of any sort.
That said, the parent is being a bit too pessimistic. There's plenty of negligibly-policed and freely-accessible BLM land in the West that generally doesn't get abused all that much.
But in part because of the abundance of BLM land - the government owns nearly 50% of the Western states! - we don't really need to allow people to trespass on private land to recreate. There are some exceptions to that - mostly around access to water and beaches - but if you just want to go on a scenic hike, you're not out of options around here, and I'm not sure it's useful to hold Sweden as a role model.
As a private landowner, I'm thankful that I can post a "do not trespass" sign. Even well-behaved hikers leave a mark over time. Some trash is inevitably left behind or carried away by wind. Soil erosion is a problem on frequently-accessed trails. And that's before we get to the occasional drunk or rowdy group.
That said, the parent is being a bit too pessimistic. There's plenty of negligibly-policed and freely-accessible BLM land in the West that generally doesn't get abused all that much.
But in part because of the abundance of BLM land - the government owns nearly 50% of the Western states! - we don't really need to allow people to trespass on private land to recreate. There are some exceptions to that - mostly around access to water and beaches - but if you just want to go on a scenic hike, you're not out of options around here, and I'm not sure it's useful to hold Sweden as a role model.
As a private landowner, I'm thankful that I can post a "do not trespass" sign. Even well-behaved hikers leave a mark over time. Some trash is inevitably left behind or carried away by wind. Soil erosion is a problem on frequently-accessed trails. And that's before we get to the occasional drunk or rowdy group.
Maine does not have a right to roam, but trespass is implicitly allowed -- that is to say if law enforcement is called on someone trespassing on private land that has not been posted, they will basically receive a warning and be asked to leave. If they return to that private land after being told not to be on it they will be ticketed. The landowner will be advised to post their land if they do not want people accessing it. Owners are indemnified against lawsuits if an accident happens while a person is trespassing on the owners land.
What does "abide to simple courtesy rules" mean, specifically?
Can you have a family reunion with 30-40 people? Can you stay in one place for a week? Fishing? Hunting?
Can you have a family reunion with 30-40 people? Can you stay in one place for a week? Fishing? Hunting?
https://www.naturvardsverket.se/en/topics/the-right-of-publi...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_to_roam#Sweden
Family reunion with 30-40 people? - Yes, if you don't disturb anyone's home or the land.
Can you stay in one place for a week? - Sure.
Fishing? Hunting? - generally no, unless you get a permit. Fishing permits are easy to get. Fishing recreationally in the ocean does not require a permit.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_to_roam#Sweden
Family reunion with 30-40 people? - Yes, if you don't disturb anyone's home or the land.
Can you stay in one place for a week? - Sure.
Fishing? Hunting? - generally no, unless you get a permit. Fishing permits are easy to get. Fishing recreationally in the ocean does not require a permit.
Means dont destroy, don’t disturb.
Stay away from peoples homes, and dont bother gardens/farms.
Other than that you can enjoy.
Not sure if you need a hunting or fishing license, but a family reunion is fine, so long as you abide by the above.
Stay away from peoples homes, and dont bother gardens/farms.
Other than that you can enjoy.
Not sure if you need a hunting or fishing license, but a family reunion is fine, so long as you abide by the above.
Just FYI, "irregardless" is not a word. The word you want is "regardless". Yes, I know that "irregardless" has now made it into dictionaries and whatnot, but that is just because it is misused so often. (Consider that dictionaries now consider "figuratively" to be a valid meaning for the word "literally" because that has also been misused so much.) "Irregardless" is the result of confusing "regardless" and "irrespective".
Dictionaries are descriptive rather than prescriptive. Dictionaries record the current usage, not some rules of language.
I would say irregardless is a word. It hasn't made it into dictionaries because it's been misused, it's made it into dictionaries because it's been in use!
Irregardless of your thoughts on the matter; people use literally differently than you do. Why are you correct and they are wrong?
I would say irregardless is a word. It hasn't made it into dictionaries because it's been misused, it's made it into dictionaries because it's been in use!
Irregardless of your thoughts on the matter; people use literally differently than you do. Why are you correct and they are wrong?
Thanks! Fixed. I actually wrote regardless at first but it seemed wrong when I revisited the comment.
200 years of use isn't long enough for you? It's a word.
Posting anon because I dont want to be judged.
I worked 80hr weeks for most of my 20s. I'm 43 now, fairly senior, but lost my youth. I have severe arthritis and most of my cartridge is gone. Walking is tiring after about a half mile and impossible after a mile. Dr says i'm too young for a knee replacement because you cant get 2 in your life.
Advice -- please enjoy some of your free time in your youth, you may not be able to enjoy your seniority/money once you have it.
I worked 80hr weeks for most of my 20s. I'm 43 now, fairly senior, but lost my youth. I have severe arthritis and most of my cartridge is gone. Walking is tiring after about a half mile and impossible after a mile. Dr says i'm too young for a knee replacement because you cant get 2 in your life.
Advice -- please enjoy some of your free time in your youth, you may not be able to enjoy your seniority/money once you have it.
I encourage anyone who visits parks to start the minigame of collecting park stamps!
They are a blast to seek out and find. We have been to so many random new places like wildlife sanctuaries in the quest to try and fill out books. Extra fun when mapping out paths on road trips to hit all of the parks in an EV, lots of constraints.
A good fan site with lots of info: https://www.parkstamps.org/
They are a blast to seek out and find. We have been to so many random new places like wildlife sanctuaries in the quest to try and fill out books. Extra fun when mapping out paths on road trips to hit all of the parks in an EV, lots of constraints.
A good fan site with lots of info: https://www.parkstamps.org/
I wish I could just buy an annual subscription to the national parks. Last time I checked, it was $85 a year. I'd happily 'donate' that on years I don't visit the parks at all. Just set up recurring billing!
But, nope. Gotta buy one every year.
But, nope. Gotta buy one every year.
If you have an REI membership, you can buy one online from them for the same $80/yr. They'll either mail it to you for free or you can pick it up in store within an hour if you live nearby.
You can also just walk in and get one in the moment. I get my annual parks pass every year from REI. Pays for itself in no time with the car/parking situation alone.
Can you not just buy it when you show up for the first time every year?
While the various fee waiver and discount programs are nice, the entry fees are just not that relevant in the grand scheme of planning and executing a national park trip. Transportation and lodging dominate the cost structure by a wide margin.
I have a similar (or same? I got it over a decade ago and things change) pass for disabilities from military service. One flash of it and my driver's license and I get access to every single park and half off camping. I've only gotten grief once when a campground manager did not believe I was old enough to be disabled. I straightened him out pretty quick. Entry fees aren't expensive per se, but I have certainly saved a good amount of money. It makes quick trips to my local national monument more likely when I don't have to fret over visiting for just a few hours.
Great program, but disappointing that the blind are invisible on the splash page. National parks are an extremely sensory rich environment. Birding by ear in particular is very popular.
How much does it usually cost to gain access to these parks, roughly?
I'd expect this scheme to more than pay for itself pretty rapidly, regardless. Based on what I've read about improved physical and mental health outcomes for people on long term illness benefit here when the government started paying them to go on holiday once a year. (also heard it about other countries, we were certainly not the first)
I'd expect this scheme to more than pay for itself pretty rapidly, regardless. Based on what I've read about improved physical and mental health outcomes for people on long term illness benefit here when the government started paying them to go on holiday once a year. (also heard it about other countries, we were certainly not the first)
annual pass is $80/yr. individual park day passes run around $10-40 for a day pass depending on the park, in my experience
Could easily make it free for all Americans for relative pennies compared to how much was allocated to foreign countries in the last year.
Anyone over 62 can pay the one year fee and get it for the rest of their life.
4th graders can also get a free pass.
4th graders can also get a free pass.
62 and older can already get a pretty cheap Federal Lands pass (which is what this is as well, not just national parks) for one-time $80 I think. So this is not a huge departure.
Certainly there are plenty of folks under the age of 62 to whom this applies, and might save them the money.
$80 is correct. This is an amazing deal. And if you don't like your own odds, a Senior Annual Pass is $20, which is $5 less than one parking fee at Cape Cod National Seashore and $15 less than one private car entry to Yosemite.
What is the regular rate for an average joe without any disability or army ties?
The inter-agency America the Beautiful annual passes cost $80.[1]
[1]: https://www.nps.gov/planyourvisit/passes.htm
[1]: https://www.nps.gov/planyourvisit/passes.htm
$80 a year. The disability, military, or age 62 will get you a pass that's valid for life, and only those who age into it have to pay anything at all.
Typically you have to visit three parks within the year to pay for it. If you live in the East, it's probably not something you'd get every year. If you live in much of the West, it's probably something you'd be crazy not to get every year.
Typically you have to visit three parks within the year to pay for it. If you live in the East, it's probably not something you'd get every year. If you live in much of the West, it's probably something you'd be crazy not to get every year.
In general, it's something like $20-40 to go into a national park--maybe for up to 7 days--though it varies.
What about the caregivers who support those who are permanently disabled? It's a case of it takes two for those that are disabled and unable to transport themselves.
My son is in a wheelchair and has had a pass for years through this program. If anyone in the vehicle has a pass the whole carload goes in on it for the same 'free'. It was actually a ranger when we were going into a park that turned us onto the program, they set us up and got us in all in one go at the gate, mailed the card a few days later.
Why can't this be US "residents" (with disabilities) and not just citizens? Residents also pay taxes no?
residents don't vote, politicians don't care about them.
I wonder if being deaf or hard of hearing is considered a disability in this context?
To prove a permanent disability, one option is a statement by a licensed physician, which must include:
- that the individual has a PERMANENT disability
- that it limits one or more aspects of their daily life
- and the nature of those limitations.
You need to pay to visit a national park?? The land of the free is very expensive.
It depends on the park and the activity. For example, Great Basin National Park has no entrance fee, but does have fees for a cave tour, campsites, and RV dumps.
In my experience, the vast majority of public land (forests and BLM land) is free to enter and recreate on if you aren’t using services like a campsite. National parks are more likely to charge entrance or parking fees but you are also more likely to get things like trash service and paved roads.
That being said, it’s still pretty cheap. You can get an annual pass for $80 that covers you and everyone in your car.
In my experience, the vast majority of public land (forests and BLM land) is free to enter and recreate on if you aren’t using services like a campsite. National parks are more likely to charge entrance or parking fees but you are also more likely to get things like trash service and paved roads.
That being said, it’s still pretty cheap. You can get an annual pass for $80 that covers you and everyone in your car.
BLM land is often entirely free, but doesn’t have “campsites” as many would expect. State and national parks often have campsites with running water, flush toilets, even hot showers, and quite in the middle of nowhere.
BLM campsites are often a flat piece of ground that looks identical to the last seven thousand square miles.
BLM campsites are often a flat piece of ground that looks identical to the last seven thousand square miles.
Sometimes they will have a tiny retaining wall/perimeter to make it flat.
Given that no one is paying for your transportation to or lodging in the park, it's expensive in any case regardless of a typically modest admission fee. That's almost surely true in most places.
Admission localizes the expense to people who attend. If it were "free" to visitors they'd still be paying.
The big national parks are basically amusement parks at this point. There are still plenty of free areas to go with less amenities, and many national parks are still free.
You also need to pay for clothes and food. The land of the free is very expensive.
That’s wonderful, now, if only they would make them more handicap accessible…
Honestly, the bar is very little to get the lifetime pass if you go to a busier park. My wife just had to show the disabled parking pass and they gave it to her without any of the supporting documentation. Was way easier then we expected and hoped she had the right paperwork. I keep my annual pass renewed so I can go locally without her.
1. Why do parks cost money? Ever. For anyone?
2. How is this news? We really messed up when you need to pay to go to nature...while you're also paying taxes.
Parks cost money because they need to limit the number of people who show up. The ones you have to pay for are overcrowded.
this is great, i think veterans should get the same treatment.
Seems fair
why do we need national parks as opposed to state parks? Why federalize everything?
If you'd left them to the states, they'd have mostly been broken apart and sold off years ago, for starters. Especially when they see a budget shortfall.
What leads the national government to make better choices? unlimited budget, less democratic oversight?
Yeah they aren’t guaranteed to survive state budget crises because states can’t print money.
This is a confusing situation then right? Taxation is the government using coercion to claim resources and labor. That's not to say it's evil, but the pool to claim resources from in a given year is fixed. So it's not clear to me it's a good thing that the federal government has a super power in that regard that states don't have. Anyway.. no particular point to be made here.
Yet free health care is socialism. It's great they are getting free visits to national parks, but I'm sure a better health care system would be way more effective.
is Leslie Knope to thank?
I'm curious what qualifies as a "permanent disability".
I was shocked to find out that ADHD qualified as a disability that would let you get Paxlovid. To verify, go to https://www.paxlovid.com/who-can-take and click on "Disabilities". But having seen that, I'm tempted to tell my son that he might be able to get a free lifetime pass.
But that opens up a question. Have we as a society come to define disabilities so broadly that the term has basically become meaningless?
I was shocked to find out that ADHD qualified as a disability that would let you get Paxlovid. To verify, go to https://www.paxlovid.com/who-can-take and click on "Disabilities". But having seen that, I'm tempted to tell my son that he might be able to get a free lifetime pass.
But that opens up a question. Have we as a society come to define disabilities so broadly that the term has basically become meaningless?
No we haven't, and ADHD is disabling for many people in a meaningful way. The criteria here is that a doctor says it is permanent and it "limits one or more aspects of their daily life".
It is also supposed to be a "severe" limitation, but I doubt someone with ADHD would be interrogated about this, everyone involved just wants more people to visit the parks.
It is also supposed to be a "severe" limitation, but I doubt someone with ADHD would be interrogated about this, everyone involved just wants more people to visit the parks.
I think the implication of the parent poster is that it's difficult to imagine why ADHD could put you at increased COVID risk to the point of needing Paxlovid. That makes no sense to me but I'm all ears as to the logic here.
Without looking it up, I can imagine the cognitive effects of Covid might be more severe for someone with ADHD. After looking it up, it seems there is some association between ADHD and worse outcomes: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/10870547211003....
It's also possible that ADHD makes it more difficult to scrupulously comply with self-quarantine measures, in which case it's a good public health decision to make Paxlovid available and reduce community spread. I'm not actually sure if Paxlovid reduces transmission though.
It's also possible that ADHD makes it more difficult to scrupulously comply with self-quarantine measures, in which case it's a good public health decision to make Paxlovid available and reduce community spread. I'm not actually sure if Paxlovid reduces transmission though.
Thanks very much, that's the kind of medically appropriate implication I was looking for: "Conclusion: ADHD is associated with poorer outcomes in COVID-19 infection."
I'm sure that ADHD is comorbid with a variety of lifestyle and health problems that make COVID somewhat worse. But in general it does not directly affect health. Why not simply provide it to those with the comorbidities?
I consider community spread mostly a nonissue. We've known for many decades that if you can't get the replication rate below 1, the correlation between replication rate and how many get it is chaotic. We can't get the replication rate of COVID below 1, so there is little correlation between policies and outcomes. Obviously this does not apply if you are at risk or a caregiver of someone at risk. That's why saner countries than the USA (Germany is my favorite example) do not recommend vaccination against COVID for the general public.
I consider community spread mostly a nonissue. We've known for many decades that if you can't get the replication rate below 1, the correlation between replication rate and how many get it is chaotic. We can't get the replication rate of COVID below 1, so there is little correlation between policies and outcomes. Obviously this does not apply if you are at risk or a caregiver of someone at risk. That's why saner countries than the USA (Germany is my favorite example) do not recommend vaccination against COVID for the general public.
> Why not simply provide it to those with the comorbidities?
I don't know, I would guess because they're harder to define and doctors generally diagnose conditions rather than individual symptoms or behaviors.
I don't know, I would guess because they're harder to define and doctors generally diagnose conditions rather than individual symptoms or behaviors.
ADHD makes it more difficult to support yourself independently, live a "normal life" and keep a steady income - so for pretty much the same reasons as most of the other disabilities.
Again, I see 0 relation between this and Paxlovid. There are about a million things that make it difficult to support yourself: being newly divorced is a huge hardship, as is being newly laid off, as is not having health insurance in the US (see today's stories about Mary Lou Retton needing to crowdfund for her medical care on GoFundMe).
Point being, if that's the bar, they should get rid of the nonsense requirement of needing a "disability" to get Paxlovid. Otherwise they should restrict it to disabilities that actually have a medically demonstrated increased risk of severe illness or death from COVID.
Point being, if that's the bar, they should get rid of the nonsense requirement of needing a "disability" to get Paxlovid. Otherwise they should restrict it to disabilities that actually have a medically demonstrated increased risk of severe illness or death from COVID.
> There are about a million things that make it difficult to support yourself: being newly divorced is a huge hardship, as is being newly laid off, as is not having health insurance in the US (see today's stories about Mary Lou Retton needing to crowdfund for her medical care on GoFundMe).
Don't disagree with any of these also being very significant, personally I wouldn't mind if these folks also got the pax. But
a. these aren't considered "permanent" in the general sense (you can get rehired/remarried), and b. permanent disabilities are much "easier" for a govt to classify than to spend resources everytime someone needed assistance
And > Otherwise they should restrict it to disabilities that actually have a medically demonstrated increased risk of severe illness or death from COVID.
ADHD does have a medically increased risk of severe illness or death from COVID. Perhaps not "directly" like someone on immunosuppressants, but as someone w/ adhd and another chronic health condition (T1 diabetes), adhd makes it several times more difficult to handle my health (and T1D has life threatening complications within arm's reach of poor management).
Don't disagree with any of these also being very significant, personally I wouldn't mind if these folks also got the pax. But
a. these aren't considered "permanent" in the general sense (you can get rehired/remarried), and b. permanent disabilities are much "easier" for a govt to classify than to spend resources everytime someone needed assistance
And > Otherwise they should restrict it to disabilities that actually have a medically demonstrated increased risk of severe illness or death from COVID.
ADHD does have a medically increased risk of severe illness or death from COVID. Perhaps not "directly" like someone on immunosuppressants, but as someone w/ adhd and another chronic health condition (T1 diabetes), adhd makes it several times more difficult to handle my health (and T1D has life threatening complications within arm's reach of poor management).
As someone with ADHD I can't imagine that I would've made it to 25 without severely screwing up my T1D care - that requires pretty constant vigilance and, well, there's a reason I voluntarily don't drive.
I agree with you. But T1 diabetes is something which should suffice for Paxlovid.
BTW if you haven't checked out OpenAPS, I highly recommend it based on friends who have used it. It greatly reduces the self-discipline needed for T1 diabetes maintenance.
BTW if you haven't checked out OpenAPS, I highly recommend it based on friends who have used it. It greatly reduces the self-discipline needed for T1 diabetes maintenance.
> OpenAPS
Thanks, I've been wanting to get on a pump forever. Hopefully it'll be sooner than later. I'm 99% sure I'll use a looping system (either Tandem's or one of the DIY ones), heard a lot of good stuff about them.
Thanks, I've been wanting to get on a pump forever. Hopefully it'll be sooner than later. I'm 99% sure I'll use a looping system (either Tandem's or one of the DIY ones), heard a lot of good stuff about them.
I wonder if it's ADHD or just the side effects of continual stimulant usage that causes worst COVID outcomes. Stimulants can be hell on a lot of bodily system functions.
Stimulants at therapeutic (pharmaceutical) doses aren't as terrible on the body as one might expect. Especially when you compare it with something like cocaine (which does funky stuff to the heart/Calcium channels) or recreational doses (several times the avg/median prescribed dose). They can and often do have side effects etc, but Jeff blowing coke at a party is much more likely to have a problem.
This is just an American with ADHD who emigrated to Canada speaking but... yea, why don't we lower the bar and remove that nonsense requirement. It'd be great if everyone who needed help could get it in a reasonable manner. Maybe you have severe mobility issues and need physical assistance showering and doing daily hygiene tasks - maybe you're a neurotypical person who just lost a family member, went through a rough divorce and was diagnosed with cancer all in the same week. It'd be great if there was social assistance to help you out - especially if you weren't shamed for using them.
But, specifically on the topic of Paxlovid, ADHD people tend to have less stable, shorter and poorer lives - there is a strong correlation between the illness and the need for financial assistance. ADHD people tend to also be less proactive about health issues and delay treatment more than normal people (because going to the doctor is hard and there are so many considerations) so perhaps the Paxlovid allowance is because people with ADHD are more likely to have more advanced COVID cases - I can't tell you why they made that decision but those are two pretty solid reasons to consider it.
But, specifically on the topic of Paxlovid, ADHD people tend to have less stable, shorter and poorer lives - there is a strong correlation between the illness and the need for financial assistance. ADHD people tend to also be less proactive about health issues and delay treatment more than normal people (because going to the doctor is hard and there are so many considerations) so perhaps the Paxlovid allowance is because people with ADHD are more likely to have more advanced COVID cases - I can't tell you why they made that decision but those are two pretty solid reasons to consider it.
Stubbing your toe makes it harder to walk up stairs, but we still build ramps and elevators for people in wheelchairs.
As a person with ADHD, I was about to argue that ADHD is not something that would, absent other health issues, qualify someone for something like Paxlovid.
But your argument completely 180'd me. I've got a lifetime of tools to deal with my ADHD, but me from 10 years ago absolutely would have gotten COVID and not taken it seriously (item 12435346 on the list of shit I'd not be tracking well), which is precisely the kind of additional risk Paxlovid was made for.
I heard on a podcast that ADHD can sometimes reduce life expectancy by 13 years. Compared to obesity, which reduces lifespan by 10 years, and type I diabetes, which reduces lifespan by 3-4 years, it's a real disability that needs to be taken much more seriously than it currently is, IMO.
But your argument completely 180'd me. I've got a lifetime of tools to deal with my ADHD, but me from 10 years ago absolutely would have gotten COVID and not taken it seriously (item 12435346 on the list of shit I'd not be tracking well), which is precisely the kind of additional risk Paxlovid was made for.
I heard on a podcast that ADHD can sometimes reduce life expectancy by 13 years. Compared to obesity, which reduces lifespan by 10 years, and type I diabetes, which reduces lifespan by 3-4 years, it's a real disability that needs to be taken much more seriously than it currently is, IMO.
> Require close contact with those who may be infected, such as a caregiver or family member
I believe more that we've grown to understand how debilitating ADHD can be and that is why it's considered a disability.
Consider how it affects people's life trajectory through school and work, the opportunities out of reach due to the condition. It's essentially a situational cognitive impairment, when I think about it that way it seems profoundly disabling.
Consider how it affects people's life trajectory through school and work, the opportunities out of reach due to the condition. It's essentially a situational cognitive impairment, when I think about it that way it seems profoundly disabling.
I never felt disabled until I got a significant other who wasn't as familiar with my ADHD symptoms. When we get up to go do an errand I tend to execute my todo list very quickly thinking I will lose the opportunity. I'll do dishes, put in laundry, clear away trash, send emails, pay bills, schedule appointments, etc. All the things I should have been doing in the hours before we do the errand. It's become very clear to me how much this frustrates my partner while they're waiting for me by the door to get this stuff done. They can't get me out of the house sooner because I'll just say "just one more minute!" and "almost done..." over and over. I work from home, so my partner will get frustrated if I work past the end of my day. Computers/technology is the one area I can focus very well, so I might dig into something interesting for hours. Except then I've infringed on the time we have to be together (my partner).
When I was living with family they were used to this stuff, and just let me be if I was obsessed with something. They let me satisfy those last-minute compulsions where I procrastinated and was unable to execute on my todo list earlier. etc etc.
I thought I had light ADHD but it effects my relationship, friends, and work responsibilities so much. I hate that I do everything at the last minute, with only a suitable stress to make my thoughts order themselves. And it appears entirely un-ordered when I'm doing x-y-z quickly.
Why couldn't I do it all earlier?
When I was living with family they were used to this stuff, and just let me be if I was obsessed with something. They let me satisfy those last-minute compulsions where I procrastinated and was unable to execute on my todo list earlier. etc etc.
I thought I had light ADHD but it effects my relationship, friends, and work responsibilities so much. I hate that I do everything at the last minute, with only a suitable stress to make my thoughts order themselves. And it appears entirely un-ordered when I'm doing x-y-z quickly.
Why couldn't I do it all earlier?
I developed the habit of doing those things when I walk in the door, not when I walk out.
This also frustrates my wife, but I think less so than it would be to have the signal being an errand I'm already late for.
This also frustrates my wife, but I think less so than it would be to have the signal being an errand I'm already late for.
When I lived with family it felt normal. My family actually lied about my symptoms on a medical survey because my mom thought if I was diagnosed with AD?D I'd be unemployable somehow, like employers could get that in a background check?
Getting around other people made it more obvious I had some issues. Like, my partner and I will go on walks and they'll get annoyed if I point out an interesting animal or thing I'm seeing if they're in the middle of a topic. At work I always set reminders on my phone, sent emails to myself, and left stickies on my desktop. My supervisor pointed out he'd never seen someone do that as much as I do, and started requiring me to show up with a notepad in meetings. He'd tell me to do 2 things, and then have to ask me what the first thing I told him was as I left - then the notepad became necessary.
I worked to get onto an employee advocacy group at work and we do a lot of writing to identify systemic issues and propose solutions. I had 2 months to create a paper covering issues with hiring and on the last day - after I turned in the paper - I hit reply-all to add an additional thing that was critically important. Something I knew was an issue before I started the paper. For 2 months it was completely gone from my head. So I have whiteboards around my room, and I'm trying to move to using digital whiteboards to remember these things and organize them so I can even keep my supervisor and coworkers in the loop. "This is my MS Team Whiteboard for Monday stuff, buwhahaha"
I just remember being 25 and feeling like this didn't affect me so much. It still feels like I'm joking when I talk about it. ADD /sounds/ like a non-serious condition. But all these relationships have suffered because I'm forgetful and disorganized, and people are tired of my excuses. :-( I felt normal before.
2 days ago I had a big argument because my partner says I should be taking my medication. I usually don't take it on the weekends, because I shouldn't need to "focus" then, right? I hate that the meds for ADD are addictive, and sometimes it works when I need it - other times it kicks in a day later and it feels like a double-dose. That scares me.
Getting around other people made it more obvious I had some issues. Like, my partner and I will go on walks and they'll get annoyed if I point out an interesting animal or thing I'm seeing if they're in the middle of a topic. At work I always set reminders on my phone, sent emails to myself, and left stickies on my desktop. My supervisor pointed out he'd never seen someone do that as much as I do, and started requiring me to show up with a notepad in meetings. He'd tell me to do 2 things, and then have to ask me what the first thing I told him was as I left - then the notepad became necessary.
I worked to get onto an employee advocacy group at work and we do a lot of writing to identify systemic issues and propose solutions. I had 2 months to create a paper covering issues with hiring and on the last day - after I turned in the paper - I hit reply-all to add an additional thing that was critically important. Something I knew was an issue before I started the paper. For 2 months it was completely gone from my head. So I have whiteboards around my room, and I'm trying to move to using digital whiteboards to remember these things and organize them so I can even keep my supervisor and coworkers in the loop. "This is my MS Team Whiteboard for Monday stuff, buwhahaha"
I just remember being 25 and feeling like this didn't affect me so much. It still feels like I'm joking when I talk about it. ADD /sounds/ like a non-serious condition. But all these relationships have suffered because I'm forgetful and disorganized, and people are tired of my excuses. :-( I felt normal before.
2 days ago I had a big argument because my partner says I should be taking my medication. I usually don't take it on the weekends, because I shouldn't need to "focus" then, right? I hate that the meds for ADD are addictive, and sometimes it works when I need it - other times it kicks in a day later and it feels like a double-dose. That scares me.
People think disability as having no leg or being blind. If you ask any random gen-z, they will tell you they have ADHD. That's why ADHD as a disability lost its weight.
> People think disability as having no leg or being blind.
These are the "visible" disabilities. ADHD, amongst other conditions, are more invisible[1]. I have diabetes but "look" normal. I know a guy with epilepsy. They too, unsurprisingly, don't "appear" disabled. (I know this wasn't your main point but I think it's important for people to know.)
1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_disability
These are the "visible" disabilities. ADHD, amongst other conditions, are more invisible[1]. I have diabetes but "look" normal. I know a guy with epilepsy. They too, unsurprisingly, don't "appear" disabled. (I know this wasn't your main point but I think it's important for people to know.)
1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_disability
> That's why ADHD as a disability lost its weight.
ADHD as a disability was never respected, there was a 2 year time period post 2018 in which people sort of took it seriously but not really.
Pre-acceptance period we had "Is ADD real?" articles on the regular, now post-acceptance we have "Are ADHD sufferers faking it?" articles on the regular. Nothing substantial has changed for people with ADHD, the common man still does not try to understand.
ADHD as a disability was never respected, there was a 2 year time period post 2018 in which people sort of took it seriously but not really.
Pre-acceptance period we had "Is ADD real?" articles on the regular, now post-acceptance we have "Are ADHD sufferers faking it?" articles on the regular. Nothing substantial has changed for people with ADHD, the common man still does not try to understand.
Have they been diagnosed medically?
Because plenty of people say they are OCD too, but they don't mean the diagnosed condition. And it's quite different to "being tidy and needing things to be ordered" that the common vernacular makes it out to be.
Same as ADHD. Plenty of people who say they are "a bit ADD" mean something else.
Because plenty of people say they are OCD too, but they don't mean the diagnosed condition. And it's quite different to "being tidy and needing things to be ordered" that the common vernacular makes it out to be.
Same as ADHD. Plenty of people who say they are "a bit ADD" mean something else.
My very strong belief is that a large fraction of those who are "medically diagnosed" do not actually have ADHD.
ADHD was originally a diagnosis of exclusion - lack of executive control not explainable by any other known condition. But you can lack executive control for a wide variety of reasons including depression, sleep deprivation, electrolyte imbalances, and so on. Often doctors don't look - they just shove you out the door with Adderall. The side effects of which include loss of appetite and insomnia - both of which can make symptoms worse in the long run!
If we're going to treat ADHD as the serious disorder that it can be, we should treat diagnosis and treatment as more than an opportunity to prescribe profitable drugs. But instead we have a combination of on the one hand not taking it seriously, and on the other treating it like something serious at the oddest of moments.
ADHD was originally a diagnosis of exclusion - lack of executive control not explainable by any other known condition. But you can lack executive control for a wide variety of reasons including depression, sleep deprivation, electrolyte imbalances, and so on. Often doctors don't look - they just shove you out the door with Adderall. The side effects of which include loss of appetite and insomnia - both of which can make symptoms worse in the long run!
If we're going to treat ADHD as the serious disorder that it can be, we should treat diagnosis and treatment as more than an opportunity to prescribe profitable drugs. But instead we have a combination of on the one hand not taking it seriously, and on the other treating it like something serious at the oddest of moments.
Given how common it was (still is?) to abuse Adderall in college, I'm going to go out on a limb and say a lot of people have been "diagnosed" with ADHD, but that doesn't necessarily mean much.
[deleted]
The Paxlovid.com website is from the for profit company Pfizer, which makes Paxlovid, so yes, they'll list every kind of disability that could conceivably be a reason to take paxlovid and make them money.
But yeah ADHD can count as a disability, in some people. That's based not what you have, but if what you have substantially limits at least one major life activity.
But yeah ADHD can count as a disability, in some people. That's based not what you have, but if what you have substantially limits at least one major life activity.
While they publish that list, they did not come up with it. That list is from the emergency use authorization granted by the FDA.
You're free to guess whether the FDA is basing that on science, politics, or corruption. I've seen sufficient evidence that they do all three that I don't have a strong opinion. (In this case, I don't think that the science is there.)
You're free to guess whether the FDA is basing that on science, politics, or corruption. I've seen sufficient evidence that they do all three that I don't have a strong opinion. (In this case, I don't think that the science is there.)
> Have we as a society come to define disabilities so broadly that the term has basically become meaningless?
I would say so. There ought to be a distinction between losing your legs and having ADHD. Most people with ADHD don't even know they have it. And it's also incredibly easy to fake.
I would say so. There ought to be a distinction between losing your legs and having ADHD. Most people with ADHD don't even know they have it. And it's also incredibly easy to fake.
There is a difference one is only physical and the other is cognitive.
As long as we have qualified doctors diagnose disabilities, I‘m quite sure the actual amount of faking or fraud will be negligible.
As long as we have qualified doctors diagnose disabilities, I‘m quite sure the actual amount of faking or fraud will be negligible.
Based on my experiences with the system, I'm quite sure that the actual amount of faking and fraud is extreme.
In other news, we have a national Adderall shortage because it was widely prescribed to kids whose problem was being unable to concentrate during lockdown due to stress and depression. As a result, by default teenagers lose their diagnosis when they graduate. I learned this when my son's psychiatrist had to give him very explicit instructions about how to document his disability so that the diagnosis he received in grade 1 will follow him into his adult life without having to prove it again.
In other news, we have a national Adderall shortage because it was widely prescribed to kids whose problem was being unable to concentrate during lockdown due to stress and depression. As a result, by default teenagers lose their diagnosis when they graduate. I learned this when my son's psychiatrist had to give him very explicit instructions about how to document his disability so that the diagnosis he received in grade 1 will follow him into his adult life without having to prove it again.
> In other news, we have a national Adderall shortage because it was widely prescribed to kids whose problem was being unable to concentrate during lockdown due to stress and depression.
This is an exceptionally cynical take on the situation, one that tugs the rage strings a little too neatly for me to think this is an accurate reflection of reality.
Drug companies have said it's part caused by increased demand but supply has also been affected by unpublished limitations on handling controlled substances, instituted by the federal government in response to the opiate crisis.
This is an exceptionally cynical take on the situation, one that tugs the rage strings a little too neatly for me to think this is an accurate reflection of reality.
Drug companies have said it's part caused by increased demand but supply has also been affected by unpublished limitations on handling controlled substances, instituted by the federal government in response to the opiate crisis.
I'm reporting on what my son's psychiatrist told us at the same time as she wrote my son's final prescription as a minor. She knew about it because she was a child psychiatrist in a system where that policy change was made.
She also told us that, BECAUSE that policy change had been made, it was no longer automatic to have a childhood diagnosis follow you into adulthood. She then walked us through the documentation that we needed to get so that my son's long-standing diagnosis actually would transfer into adulthood.
I wound up having to fill that prescription twice. Both times I personally experienced the shortage.
You might be right that there are factors other than increased demand. But demand definitely has increased. And I have no reason to doubt the psychiatrist.
She also told us that, BECAUSE that policy change had been made, it was no longer automatic to have a childhood diagnosis follow you into adulthood. She then walked us through the documentation that we needed to get so that my son's long-standing diagnosis actually would transfer into adulthood.
I wound up having to fill that prescription twice. Both times I personally experienced the shortage.
You might be right that there are factors other than increased demand. But demand definitely has increased. And I have no reason to doubt the psychiatrist.
> As a result, by default teenagers lose their diagnosis when they graduate.
I believe you misunderstood what happens and why the coaching was necessary. The laws governing children in K-12 schools are different from those governing adults.
Children are covered under the IDEA (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act).
Adults are under the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act).
Lots of colleges document the differences. Bryn Mawr's page looks good. [1]
[1]: https://www.brynmawr.edu/inside/offices-services/access-serv...
I believe you misunderstood what happens and why the coaching was necessary. The laws governing children in K-12 schools are different from those governing adults.
Children are covered under the IDEA (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act).
Adults are under the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act).
Lots of colleges document the differences. Bryn Mawr's page looks good. [1]
[1]: https://www.brynmawr.edu/inside/offices-services/access-serv...
She covered both.
My son needed to provide specific documentation from his school to his university if he wanted the possibility of accommodations.
Separately she walked through what my son would need to do to get an adult diagnosis that would let him continue to be prescribed Adderall.
My son needed to provide specific documentation from his school to his university if he wanted the possibility of accommodations.
Separately she walked through what my son would need to do to get an adult diagnosis that would let him continue to be prescribed Adderall.
To take another example, schizophrenia is in a whole different league than ADHD and arguably worse, or on par with, losing one's legs.
> As long as we have qualified doctors diagnose disabilities, I‘m quite sure the actual amount of faking or fraud will be negligible.
There is a ton of people who get prescribed Adderall for its cognitive enhancement properties. It's incredibly easy to get diagnosed[0].
[0] https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/mouse-man/201007/n...
> As long as we have qualified doctors diagnose disabilities, I‘m quite sure the actual amount of faking or fraud will be negligible.
There is a ton of people who get prescribed Adderall for its cognitive enhancement properties. It's incredibly easy to get diagnosed[0].
[0] https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/mouse-man/201007/n...
"there were a ton of people who did" you mean, this source is over a decade old and the diagnostic criteria have been updated since
Still an issue today.
> 55% were classified by the SAMS as likely to be malingering or exaggerating their symptoms.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10550887.2020.17... (2020)
> 55% were classified by the SAMS as likely to be malingering or exaggerating their symptoms.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10550887.2020.17... (2020)
I assume you have access to the study text, what does "likely" equate to here?
[deleted]
At the very least, we should be aware of potentially perverse incentives. The more we reward disability, the more incentive there is to get yourself declared as disabled.
Hopefully it will be an equal amount of incentive for people with undiagnosed disabilities to get diagnosed and receive treatment or support. Even if just to be productive members of society for longer!
I would definitely consider ADHD as a debilitating disability.
> Have we as a society come to define disabilities so broadly that the term has basically become meaningless?
We’re getting close, but it’s okay. Expansion of the term has helped people and we’ll eventually come up with new common language to distinguish more and less catastrophic forms of disability.
We’re getting close, but it’s okay. Expansion of the term has helped people and we’ll eventually come up with new common language to distinguish more and less catastrophic forms of disability.
I disagree - I think as a culture we're coming closer to realizing that everyone needs help sometime and that we should have social programs available to help with that. Some people need more access to those programs than other people and some people have specific needs that others don't - we should just help people in their time of need, make things more accessible, and remove the social shaming associated with it
Sure, except you’re not disagreeing. :)
If disability now means needing help, and help is something that everybody needs sometime, then disability really refers to everybody at some time.
And inasmuch as everybody should have the help they need, and statute already says that disabled people can get help, it works out well in practice. Everybody can claim that they’re disabled when they’re disabled and get the help they need. Sounds great!
But disabled used to mean something much more narrow and uncommon, and there’s still going to be need to find new language for that.
If disability now means needing help, and help is something that everybody needs sometime, then disability really refers to everybody at some time.
And inasmuch as everybody should have the help they need, and statute already says that disabled people can get help, it works out well in practice. Everybody can claim that they’re disabled when they’re disabled and get the help they need. Sounds great!
But disabled used to mean something much more narrow and uncommon, and there’s still going to be need to find new language for that.
That is extremely difficult to provide a blanket term for - we're talking about such a wide spectrum of issues when we use the 90's definition of disabled. That would include people who are perfectly neurotypical but require physical assistance (i.e. someone with arthritis who needs ramps to change elevation at a reasonable speed), people who are neurodivergent but perfectly physically able and everyone inbetween. A lot of those folks just went unserved in the old system and struggled financially to keep themselves alive and fed while walking a much harder road than the rest of us.
I think a blanket term for disability isn't useful and it's much more productive to focus on forms of impairment - there's no real similarity in treatment and support between a person who was hit by a car and needs a wheelchair and someone otherwise normal looking who is prone to sudden violent outbursts due to a neurological disorder. And, unfortunately, one of those people is much more likely to be looked on with sympathy and the other shamed and feared - but both of them can live normal lives with proper care.
I think a blanket term for disability isn't useful and it's much more productive to focus on forms of impairment - there's no real similarity in treatment and support between a person who was hit by a car and needs a wheelchair and someone otherwise normal looking who is prone to sudden violent outbursts due to a neurological disorder. And, unfortunately, one of those people is much more likely to be looked on with sympathy and the other shamed and feared - but both of them can live normal lives with proper care.
ADHD can be debilitating when severe.
It's a truly awful condition that is not the "can't concentrate need to play games all day!" Condition the 00's characterised it as.
It's a truly awful condition that is not the "can't concentrate need to play games all day!" Condition the 00's characterised it as.
Huh so i can get an ADHD diagnosis in 30 mins for cost of an office visit, and get a free lifetime pass to national parks? Pretty based
Sorta, in exactly the same way you can get an oxycodone prescription in 30 minutes for the cost of an office visit and flip it on the street for cash. What you're positing is just medical fraud. And, sure, it happens. But not for park passes.
Getting diagnosed with ADHD because you "can't focus" is comically easy. Millions of college kids, software engineers, investment bankers, and kitchen staff do it every year.
Per a quick google, only $9M adults in the US are even estimated to have ADHD, in total. Much less diagnosed, and certainly not per year. You're parroting something you imagined someone to have said.
In practice genuine clinical diagnoses aren't at all common. It's certainly not a "rare" disorder, but it's not remotely abused or abusable in the way you imagine.
In practice genuine clinical diagnoses aren't at all common. It's certainly not a "rare" disorder, but it's not remotely abused or abusable in the way you imagine.
According to research, 1 in 4 adults may be faking it[0]. Studies have also shown that it's easy to fake[1].
[0] https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/adults-who-claim-...
[1] https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/mouse-man/201007/n...
[0] https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/adults-who-claim-...
[1] https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/mouse-man/201007/n...
Both of these sources are over ten years old and refer to diagnostic criteria defined in 2007, this is not the state of the world today.
Can you show any research indicating that it is not easy to fake with current diagnostic criteria?
Nope!
There's nothing published along those lines, given the criteria were updated in 2017 there's been plenty of time to test the prior methods again but either no one's tried or the results werent exciting enough to publish.
There's nothing published along those lines, given the criteria were updated in 2017 there's been plenty of time to test the prior methods again but either no one's tried or the results werent exciting enough to publish.
Which means that there is no particular reason to believe that it can't still be faked. Given the nature of the disorder, it is hard to see how it could be otherwise.
Given the rate at which prescriptions are being handed out, it is extremely unlikely that they are only giving prescriptions to people who actually have the disorder.
Given the rate at which prescriptions are being handed out, it is extremely unlikely that they are only giving prescriptions to people who actually have the disorder.
> Data from the analytics and research company IQVIA shows that the demand for Adderall has risen nearly 27% in recent years, with prescriptions jumping from 35.5 million in 2019 to 45 million last year.
Probably even higher now. That's nearly 15% of the population. Are stimulants like Adderall prescribed for conditions that aren't ADHD? Do ADHD diagnosis not include medication? My point was stimulants are being abused and are easily acquired (in the name of ADHD).
Probably even higher now. That's nearly 15% of the population. Are stimulants like Adderall prescribed for conditions that aren't ADHD? Do ADHD diagnosis not include medication? My point was stimulants are being abused and are easily acquired (in the name of ADHD).
>My point was stimulants are being abused and are easily acquired (in the name of ADHD).
You say this in such a matter of fact way. Doctors regularly gate-keep people with ADHD from a diagnosis because of drug seekers. You are speaking like a person with no experiences in the subject, and considering your original post we know you are not arguing in good faith here at all.
You say this in such a matter of fact way. Doctors regularly gate-keep people with ADHD from a diagnosis because of drug seekers. You are speaking like a person with no experiences in the subject, and considering your original post we know you are not arguing in good faith here at all.
You are dead wrong.
It is estimated that around 9 million adults have ADHD.
https://www.forbes.com/health/mind/adhd-statistics/
But during COVID, rules were loosened about being able to diagnose ADHD by telehealth. The result was on the order of 2 million new prescriptions per year.
https://spanberger.house.gov/posts/spanberger-puts-more-pres...
It is also true that there are people being kept from a diagnosis because of drug seekers. But that just means that the drug seekers have to look around until they find a compliant doctor.
But hey. When I pick up my son's medication, I now have to show my driver's license. So at least we're catching the ones who shop around, find 5 compliant doctors, and then sell the extras on the black market!
(My son doesn't need medication picked up very often. Unfortunately for him, he can't tolerate the side effects of more than sporadic use. But he would struggle to get through major exams without it.)
It is estimated that around 9 million adults have ADHD.
https://www.forbes.com/health/mind/adhd-statistics/
But during COVID, rules were loosened about being able to diagnose ADHD by telehealth. The result was on the order of 2 million new prescriptions per year.
https://spanberger.house.gov/posts/spanberger-puts-more-pres...
It is also true that there are people being kept from a diagnosis because of drug seekers. But that just means that the drug seekers have to look around until they find a compliant doctor.
But hey. When I pick up my son's medication, I now have to show my driver's license. So at least we're catching the ones who shop around, find 5 compliant doctors, and then sell the extras on the black market!
(My son doesn't need medication picked up very often. Unfortunately for him, he can't tolerate the side effects of more than sporadic use. But he would struggle to get through major exams without it.)
What you are saying does not match my and many other peoples reality. I personally have been denied a diagnosis even tho I have had done 3 previous assessments. This was even when I changed back to the same provider I had previously after a move. It seems every time I change insurance providers the new one does not believe that I am anything but a drug seeking addict. This is still the narrative for many people with ADHD. I am sorry that as a parent this is an aspect you dont see, but your kid will need to deal with it and many other struggles that you will never experience first hand.
I'm sorry that you are struggling with the concept of objective reality.
The statistics that I quoted are real. This isn't a question of matching your perception of reality. It is a question of what is actually true.
The number of people prescribed ADHD medications is several times the estimated number of people with ADHD. I isn't hard to find people with questionable ADHD diagnoses. I already said that there are people with real diagnoses who struggle to get diagnosed properly. I'm sorry that you are one of them. My daughter happens to be another.
Oh, and here's another point from reality. ADHD is genetic. My son got it from me. I am also likely where he got his inability to tolerate regular use of Adderall. So the next time you find yourself struggling to get a prescription, reflect on how you are getting to temporarily experience a bit of the struggles that I live with.
Maybe that thought will help you to not jump to conclusions in the future.
The statistics that I quoted are real. This isn't a question of matching your perception of reality. It is a question of what is actually true.
The number of people prescribed ADHD medications is several times the estimated number of people with ADHD. I isn't hard to find people with questionable ADHD diagnoses. I already said that there are people with real diagnoses who struggle to get diagnosed properly. I'm sorry that you are one of them. My daughter happens to be another.
Oh, and here's another point from reality. ADHD is genetic. My son got it from me. I am also likely where he got his inability to tolerate regular use of Adderall. So the next time you find yourself struggling to get a prescription, reflect on how you are getting to temporarily experience a bit of the struggles that I live with.
Maybe that thought will help you to not jump to conclusions in the future.
I was not gonna reply but I got kind of curious. How often does this statistics argument work for ya in general? I was wondering how many people turn around and go "wow you are right!"
This particular one? It is the first time I made it.
Statistical arguments in general? I get a pretty good response. But there is a selection bias. I rarely bother interacting again with anyone who can't be convinced by data when they encounter it. (And conversely, I try to be convinced by data when I encounter it.)
Statistical arguments in general? I get a pretty good response. But there is a selection bias. I rarely bother interacting again with anyone who can't be convinced by data when they encounter it. (And conversely, I try to be convinced by data when I encounter it.)
Unclear, your doctor would have to state that your ADHD is a permanent disability "that severely limits one or more major life activities." I'm not sure they'd be willing to do that after one 30 minute visit.
If you as an individual applied for this with a 30-minute ADHD diagnosis they might still give you the pass, because what's the point in arguing with you, but if a ton of people followed your lead then they'd probably start enforcing that criteria.
If you as an individual applied for this with a 30-minute ADHD diagnosis they might still give you the pass, because what's the point in arguing with you, but if a ton of people followed your lead then they'd probably start enforcing that criteria.
Being American should be considered a disability.
[deleted]
wly_cdgr(1)
> The great economist Milton Friedman provides a starting for point. In his best-selling book Capitalism and Freedom, Friedman argues that there may be an economic rationale for public provision of neighborhood parks, but there is no such rationale for national parks. In his words, “The entrances to a national park like Yellowstone… are few; most of the people who come stay for a considerable period of time and it is perfectly feasible to set up toll gates and collect admission charges. This is indeed now done, though the charges do not cover the whole costs. If the public wants this kind of an activity enough to pay for it, private enterprises will have every incentive to provide such parks.” As usual, Friedman’s logic is impeccable, but privatizing national parks, especially the crown jewels, is a political non-starter. [1]
It might be a political non starter but sooner or later USA will have to consider selling off the national parks to more private entities. US federal government is needlessly sitting on vaste amount of land and not putting it for good productive use.
Roads in Yosemite remain terrible, poorly maintains, has horrible connectivity and fees are sky high. Not to mention there are hardly any proper resorts and recreational opportunities inside the park itself. Some of the national parks like Pinnacles appears to be government move to hurt some very specific landowners.
[1] https://www.perc.org/2015/07/20/back-to-the-future-of-americ...
It might be a political non starter but sooner or later USA will have to consider selling off the national parks to more private entities. US federal government is needlessly sitting on vaste amount of land and not putting it for good productive use.
Roads in Yosemite remain terrible, poorly maintains, has horrible connectivity and fees are sky high. Not to mention there are hardly any proper resorts and recreational opportunities inside the park itself. Some of the national parks like Pinnacles appears to be government move to hurt some very specific landowners.
[1] https://www.perc.org/2015/07/20/back-to-the-future-of-americ...
I wish NPS would think of privatizing. It need not involve just selling off the parks but involving more private enterprise providing services.
Yuck, please no! The privately-run concessionaires inside the parks are already terrible, providing poorly-maintained lodge rooms at cutthroat prices and overpriced terrible restaurants. At least most of the private guiding companies are good.
These parks are our nation's shared treasures, they should just be free like the D.C. museums. The last thing they need is more privatization. The NPS does a fine job at providing the visitor services that AREN'T totally commercialized (rangers, upkeep, lotteries, etc.)
These parks are our nation's shared treasures, they should just be free like the D.C. museums. The last thing they need is more privatization. The NPS does a fine job at providing the visitor services that AREN'T totally commercialized (rangers, upkeep, lotteries, etc.)
> The NPS does a fine job at providing the visitor services that AREN'T totally commercialized (rangers, upkeep, lotteries, etc.)
Some of those aspects of park operations have already been contracted out to a significant extent
https://www.wsj.com/articles/national-park-fees-booz-allen-6...
https://www.thebignewsletter.com/p/why-is-booz-allen-renting...
Some of those aspects of park operations have already been contracted out to a significant extent
https://www.wsj.com/articles/national-park-fees-booz-allen-6...
https://www.thebignewsletter.com/p/why-is-booz-allen-renting...
Actually all those problems are precisely because NPS does not privatize instead once it figures out it can not provide basic services it grudgingly invites private players with very little freedom to run their business or pricing.
The NPS doesn't control concessionaire prices. All of the problems with the private concessionaires of that want to make a profit, so they put as little money in as possible while setting prices as high as possible.
What makes you think privatizing would fix any of that? It'd just be another Universal / Disney / etc. with overpriced foods AND overpriced admissions
Edit: And this also totally misses the point of the parks to begin with. They're there not just to entertain visitors but to preserve these landscapes for posterity. Privatizing them would totally go against that. We don't need anymore land barons exploiting the masses and preventing them from experiencing the places they have a birthright to.
Edit: And this also totally misses the point of the parks to begin with. They're there not just to entertain visitors but to preserve these landscapes for posterity. Privatizing them would totally go against that. We don't need anymore land barons exploiting the masses and preventing them from experiencing the places they have a birthright to.
National parks in the US have a strong focus on preservation/conservation. Those in Canada put a lot more emphasis on recreation.
Having been to the Canadian ones, it is quite easy to see extremely well managed private businesses in parks. I didn't have a single poor experience (compared to the US ones).
Of course, making management of the whole park private? No way.
Having been to the Canadian ones, it is quite easy to see extremely well managed private businesses in parks. I didn't have a single poor experience (compared to the US ones).
Of course, making management of the whole park private? No way.
A good way to make a bad situation worse. The park service has already been doing that with campsite management and concessions[1]. Unfortunately we aren't willing to budget enough to take care of the parks properly (and visitors continue to trash them).
1: https://www.outsideonline.com/2404058/interior-department-pr...
1: https://www.outsideonline.com/2404058/interior-department-pr...
What type of services? Will taxes be reduced as people will have to pay for those services or are they going to be subsidized?
I'm only ever a tourist in the US but I visit National parks and I'd hate to see public land go private for-profit, ads everywhere, and whatever else shit they can think of.
Let the vastness be vast and devoid.
I'm only ever a tourist in the US but I visit National parks and I'd hate to see public land go private for-profit, ads everywhere, and whatever else shit they can think of.
Let the vastness be vast and devoid.
Concession operations in national parks have existed since 1872, when the Yellowstone Park Act authorized the Secretary of the Interior to grant leases to private persons to develop visitor accommodations and facilities. [1]
[1] https://www.nps.gov/yose/learn/management/concessions.htm
[1] https://www.nps.gov/yose/learn/management/concessions.htm
Privatizing ownership would be the end of the NPS.
As far as I know almost every service provided inside the park for money is a private enterprise.
I think you're underestimating just how extremely unprofitable NPS is. Nobody but a complete sucker or die hard altruist would join a private partnership with a national park... though the most likely outcome would be that someone would find (or intentionally insert) some loop hole to exploit natural resources within the parkland and just turn it into resource extraction. Alternatively, I suppose you could make it so severely exclusive that you could turn parks into an exclusive resort for the super rich and start charging outrageous sums to visit them while pulling down your maintenance costs to just some luxury spa.
Either way it'd be awful and likely just lead to bankrupted parks in disrepair.
Either way it'd be awful and likely just lead to bankrupted parks in disrepair.
Privitization would make the park an amusement park at the expense of access to nature. Actual nature access is a liability nightmare. There are 12-15 deaths per year a Yosemite, just to give an example. That's more people per two years than have died at disney land in its entire existence, even though disney gets an order of magnitude higher visitors.
This is exactly how you end up with yet another a golf course or ski resort. The average American does not need or desire that.
Some of the NPS facilities have been contracted out to private entities and they are the ones that suck.
I completely disagree but if the current regime lasts it’s inevitable. The burgeoning federal debt will be used politically (not operationally!) to force selling federally assets especially land and leases to the politically well connected.
Bush II actually did a lot of that already. Much of the fee yielding aspects of the big parks have already been sold/leased. I'm not sure any of the lodges or concessions are still run by the park service, and at the larger parks the campgrounds/etc are also run by various private companies taking their slice.
Even the reservation system as we were recently discussing now has a corp entity eating the majority of the "profit".
And the NPS tries to put a positive spin on the whole thing, cause we all know big corps are more efficient (/snark) https://www.nps.gov/orgs/csp/index.htm
Even the reservation system as we were recently discussing now has a corp entity eating the majority of the "profit".
And the NPS tries to put a positive spin on the whole thing, cause we all know big corps are more efficient (/snark) https://www.nps.gov/orgs/csp/index.htm
Is this sarcasm? If not, why?
To do what exactly? There are plenty of private companies that offer services already: tours, guides, gear rentals, etc.
There's already a ton of that in terms of lodging options, etc.
Didn't booz allan just make a ton of money off a nps contract?
Yes, IIRC, they own the NPS lottery website. And they take a giant slice off the top of every bid placed for those restricted passes.
They get the ENTIRE bid and they got in trouble for skirting fee review laws. RECREATION.GOV is one of the most egregious bastardizations of the American public lands. You should be as outraged as if you found out toxic waste was being dumped on the National Parks themselves.
You MUST use recreation.gov and you MUST agree to the privacy policy which INCLUDES connection to Google's tracking servers. That is IF you want to use the public lands we are "preserving" for you to use in the first place.
It's utterly absurd and no one cares.
You MUST use recreation.gov and you MUST agree to the privacy policy which INCLUDES connection to Google's tracking servers. That is IF you want to use the public lands we are "preserving" for you to use in the first place.
It's utterly absurd and no one cares.
[deleted]
You’ve got to be kidding
Shit take
This feels like a shitpost
I think it'd be great to encourage kids to visit the parks through passes like these. Sponsor a lottery/giveaway or a contest featuring children's park-themed art or creative writing as chances to win lifetime park passes for them and their family.
Also - fans of US national parks specifically can enjoy a game with some spectacular art called simply "Parks" [1]. and there's a simpler spinoff called "Trails"[2].
[1] https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/266524/parks
[2] https://keymastergames.com/products/trails