When we were growing, most family vacations were trips to our National Parks: Yellowstone, Death Valley, Grand Canyon, Redwood, Zion, the Petrified Forest, on and on. Mostly camping trips, no doubt mostly because we weren’t at all rich.
I know there are national parks in Canada, too, and various African countries, but I don’t think I’ve ever heard anyone mentioning going any place similar in Europe or Asia. Do they not exist? Was everything already ‘developed’ before the idea of setting aside natural land for the public came along?
Or is camping not just an ‘old world’ type holiday so it doesn’t get talked about?
There are plenty, but it’s a fairly new concept overall. No one lived anywhere near the US parks, but people had lived in areas of Europe for centuries.
I always heard that all the land in England was owned by the Nobles by virtue of a grant from the King and was basically considered their park to do what they saw fit. Like letting people live on the land as long as the worked the feudal system by being a serf. You were not even allowed to hunt without permission because all of the game belonged to the King and his henchmen. so basically feudal England was one big national park where everyone lived in harmony except for those pesky merrymen that went about robbing the rich. Of course I could be wrong . . .
Yes, per the Ken Burns documentary The National Parks: America’s Best Idea (I just watched the first episode), the idea of a national park was invented in the U.S. in 1872, with the creation of Yellowstone National Park. Interestingly, the idea of setting aside a national park was largely a reaction to the overcommercialization of Niagara Falls.
One factor might be that in parts of Europe (UK and the Nordics, Switzerland, etc) you have the right to roam even lots of privately-owned land, which may reduce the impetus somewhat.
The UK has 15 National Parks (13 in England and Wales and 2 in Scotland, but they’re not how Americans might think of national parks - wild, uninhabited spaces. Of course, parts of them are pretty empty and rugged, but they also include numerous towns and villages, working agriculture and industry.
Obviously the UK is pretty crowded, but it is certainly possible to go wild camping, at least in Scotland, which has different access laws. The Highlands are empty enough that you can go hiking for days on end and set up camp out of sight of any other people.
The US is unique in that we invented the concept that public lands and all that they contain should have standing in their own right. Wilderness is the most strict example of leaving public lands alone. National parks are another.
This is probably the biggest one we have in the Netherlands, at 55 km². Yellowstone is almost 9000 km²…
There’s a fair amount of camping in many parts of Europe, but usually at camp grounds which often have lots of facilities and aren’t all that outdoorsy.
While Yellowstone was the first national park, the first place to be called a national park was the National Park (later renamed the Royal National Park), established just south of Sydney, New South Wales, in 1879. And, of course, there are now hundreds of national parks throughout Australia.
Thailand has an extensive system of national parks, 127 of them. Camping is a popular activity, but I find the climate here too oppressive for that myself. (I was never a big camper even back in the US.)
Whats in a name ? It was only National by name, Australia becomes a country in 1901, while Yellowstone was created by a national government… with the law stating clearly the purpose … which is consistent.
Royal National Park was established by the colony of New South Wales, which became a state of Australia in 1901, but it’s still owned and managed by the state government, not the federal government. The name is a little odd, since there is no earthly way in which anyone in 1879 thought that New South Wales was a “nation”. Or is today, for that matter.
But there are other instances. In 1882 the Art Gallery of New South Wales became “the National Art Gallery of New South Wales” . (It reverted to the original name in 1958.) The National Gallery of Victoria was founded under that name in 1861; the colony was only ten years old at the time, and by no stretch of the imagination a nation. It’s still operated, under that name, by the State Government of Victoria.
I think what’s going on here is that, in the nineteenth century in Australia, “national” became a word signalling some government property which was dedicated to public (as opposed to official or governmental) use, benefit, recreation, etc. There wasn’t any particular nation being celebrated - most white Australians, if asked at the time, would have said they belonged to the British nation. The result is that we have so-called “national” institutions being run by colonial governments, and even to day we have “national” institutions being run by state governments.
What iljitsch and SanVito said. Another commonish location for camping in Spain is fields rented from farmers, which usually won’t be inside a national park (but may be).
Spanish government’s website on our National Parks (Spanish language only, apparently there’s no budget for translators). Map here.
I’m happy to know that kids in the old world also have to survive for stretched with no TVs and dishwashers. Actually, I fear I didn’t appreciate camping and the views and all nearly as much as I should have, looking back.
I’m happy to know that kids in the old world also have to survive for stretches with no TVs and dishwashers. Actually, I fear I didn’t appreciate camping and the views and all nearly as much as I should have, looking back.
Poland has Białowieża Forest (which extends into Belarus and is a national park there as well), one of the last bits of ancient primeval forest left in Europe. It’s enjoyed various protections over the centuries (largely as a nobles-only hunting preserve) though the wars of the 20th century didn’t do it any favors. It’s back to being protected though.
