TVSF - The Very Special Forum!

Here is a link to some awesome photos:
http://www.hiking-photos.com/photo.php? ... onal_Parks

7 May 2006. To save mouseclicks, I have arranged alphabetical links to photos of American national parks in other folders.

Photos from Grand Canyon.

http://www.deadbuzzard.net/grand_canyon_photos.htm

Yellowstone (the world's first national park, I believe) and Yosemite National Parks are perhaps the most famous NPs in the US. Understandably, they are very crowded during the Summer.

As an alternative to Yosemite, nearby King's Canyon and Sequoia NPs may be better choices for some people. Serious hikers may want to avoid the Grand Canyon during the Summer, because the bottom is hotter than Hades at that time of year. And there is more than 1500 m of elevation gain on the way out!

The hiking opportunities are every bit as good in some of the lesser-known National Forests as they are in the more-famous NPs. NPs are supposed to be managed for preservation and recreation. NFs are administered under a multiple-use philosophy, which includes these objectives among others. But Nature is always Nature. I do most of my day-hikes in the El Dorado NF and in the Tahoe NF.

I have heard about the SuperVolcano under Yellowstone Park. Is there any news on the TV or radio about it?. Is there a risk for erruption?

Guess what?

I think volcanos is very fascinating (and dangerous). We don't have any here in Scandinavia. The nearest volcano must be in Italy, France or Russia.

You have several great national parks "over there" and if i visit USA (not unthinkable) i will certanly visit one (or more) of them.

I can't give a good answer to your question about the risk of volcanic eruption in Yellowstone. It is geologically active, in terms of geysers and sulfur vents, but that activity is relatively constant. If there was a big change, I would be nervous about visiting. Right now, I would feel a little safer there than at the ski area in Mammoth, California.

To put things into perspective, there was some warning before Mt St Helens blew its top in the early 80s. Less than 100 people were killed.

Mt Lassen National Park, a 3.5-hour drive North for me, is just as volcanic as Yellowstone, and not nearly as crowded. A little further North is the gorgeous snow-topped volcano, Mt Shasta and its smaller twin, Mt Shastina, in the Shasta-Trinity National Forest. Most of the geology in the Cascade range--extending from Lassen at the Southern tip up into British Columbia--is volcanic.

Thanks for the info Larry.

In addition to the Cascade Range, there are 2 main areas for volcanoes in the US: Alaska and Hawaii. Besides Mt Lassen and Mt Shasta, I have also visited Crater Lake National Park (Oregon), and Mt Rainier National Park (Washington state), all of which are in the Cascades.

There is a small, less-well-known, and currently inactive volcanic area in Northern Arizona: the San Francisco Peaks. It is a 1-hr drive from Flagstaff, in the Coconino National Forest. If I remember correctly, there is a small ski area on the slope of one of the 3 peaks. And there are a few little-known lava-tube caves nearby. If you visit the Grand Canyon, you may want to check this out while you're in the area. [/code]

I went to see Grand Canyon - it's awesome. It's too big to get it in your head...I mean it's difficult to get it's real even it's right there in front of your nose. All those colors! And amazing how quicly weather conditions change, in few minutes. It's indeed a mountain upside down. All I regret is I didn't take this hike with mules.

When I was a teenager, my parents took us to the Grand Canyon during the Summer. We did take the mule ride down. For me, mules are not very comfortable for sitting for a long time; horses are better in that respect.

Starting out, the temperature was comfortable on the South Rim. Going down, it got to be quite hot, and we didn't have much water. The physical discomfort and the people-pressure of the large group detracted from what could have been a great Nature experience.

Several years later, I revisited the Grand Canyon--this time in the Winter, and alone. I did a 3-day backpack, going to the bottom, exploring a side-canyon, and then hiking back out. The second time, it was cold on top and comfortable at the bottom. It was so much more enjoyable that way!

I spoke with a lady who live very close to Grand Canyon. (via ICQ)

When i asked about Grand Canyon She said.......

To me it's like a big hole.

To me Gotha Channel is like some sort of big ditch, why? because i see it every day, year after year. Other people who visit Töreboda and Gotha Channel say.......

Oh, what a lovely place.

And it IS, but when you see it every day, you hardly think of it that way. But SOMETIMES i can stand and looking at the boats and say to myself, Wow, what a lovely place this is.

ENJOYING THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL REDWOODS

You are planning a vacation in the U.S., which will definitely include some time in the Bay Area (around San Francisco). You would also love to see Redwood National Park, further up the coast. But your time is limited, and RNP is a long drive from San Francisco. What to do? Go in the opposite direction, to Big Basin Redwoods State Park, near Santa Cruz. The drive is much, much shorter. I have done day-hikes in both places, and BBRSP is every bit as gorgeous as RNP. Here is a link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Basin_ ... State_Park

The coastal redwood ecosystem stretches from the Southernmost part of Oregon down to just south of Santa Cruz, with a gap in the San Francisco Bay area. The weather is rainy in the Winter months, but dry in the Summer.

Walking in a redwood forest is like stepping 80 million years back in time. When I'm there, a part of me expects to see a friendly brontosaurus noshing on the ferns.

I have a small tips, if you can take the heat.............

http://www.nps.gov/deva/

If you want to visit Death Valley in the Summer, don't bother to bring sunscreen; use barbeque sauce instead!

I can imagine that.

he he

You can read reviews of National Parks in the U.S. on epinions.com. That was surprising to me, because epinions.com is best known for reviews of consumer products. Anyway, here are some reviews for the relatively uncrowded Lassen Volcanic National Park in California:
http://www.epinions.com/park-Parks-All- ... ional_Park

Do you have many national parks in California?

While visiting San Francisco and that area I stayed in Berkeley. They have Tilden National Park and I went to have a walk. There was a huge eucalyptys forest. At the first sight it looked pretty, exotic in a way. Nothing but slim, silvergrey trunks as far as the eyes could reach. And the smell. Bare ground full of leaves and peaces of bark. I guess Larry knows well what I'm talking about.

I talked afterwards with my friend about that and her opinion was that bringing eucalyptus to country was a huge mistake. That it's some kind of weed of the trees, invading everywhere, growing fast and killing all the other species. She said there was (2001) some kind of programme to get rid of that useless thing.

For some reason this thought hit my mind this morning. How it is Larry, are they doing something about it over there?

Christer wrote:Do you have many national parks in California?

The National Parks in California that I know about are Kings Canyon, Sequoia, Yosemite (these 3 are in the Sierra Nevada Mountains), Lassen Volcanic, Death Valley, and Redwood. I think that Joshua Tree (in the Southern Cal desert) has been upgraded from a National Monument to a National Park. Point Reyes National Seashore (aproximately 1 hour North of San Francisco) is also administered by the National Park Service.

Add to that the National Forests, which are operated under a multiple use philosophy, which includes more than preservation, conservation, and tourism. The National Forests have a lot of natural beauty too. Although some National Forests have ski areas, they are generally less touristy than the National Parks.

In addition to these, we have a multitude of State Parks, most of which I have never visited. I think that the nearest State Park to me (40 minute drive) is the Auburn State Recreation Area, in the Sierra foothills, aka the Gold Country. So there you have it, a long winded answer to your question.

Hannele wrote:While visiting San Francisco and that area I stayed in Berkeley. They have Tilden National Park there and I went to have a walk there. There was a huge eucalyptys forest. At the first sight it looked pretty, exotic in a way. Nothink but slim, silvergrey trunks as far as the eyes could reach. And the smell. Bare ground full of leaves and peaces of bark. I guess Larry knows well what I'm talking about.

I talked afterwards with my friend about that and her opinion was that bringing eucalyptus to country was a huge mistake. That it's some kind of weed of the trees, invading everywhere, growing fast and killing all the other species. She said there was (2001) some kind of programme to get rid of that useless thing.

For some reason this thought hit my mind this morning. How it is Larry, are they doing something about it over there?

I have heard of Tilden Park, but have never been there. I didn't even know that it was a National Park. In some ways, I like the Bay Area, but don't go there very often, because the traffic is murder.

I think that the eucalyptus trees are a mixed bag. If you buy a house in a new development in a grassy area of the Central Valley, a eucalyptus tree may be a good choice for your front yard, because they grow very quickly. The problem is when there are a lot of them in close proximity, as in certain parts of the Bay Area. High concentrations of eucalyptus trees are more of a fire hazard than the native trees. If you really want to be popular with your California neighbors, plant bamboo. Talk about weeds!

Yes, I think a single tree is not a problem. But I still remember how horrible and unnatural it finally looked without any, any other plants growing in that forest. My friend told also that eucalyptus is completely useless for wood processing because of the crooked way it grows. That way it's also economical waste to have large eucalyptys forests..and indeed not to mention the fire hazard.