Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
|
Apr 17, 2012 - 06:42pm PT
|
Accessible to mom & pop & the kids doesn't have to mean paving and fencing everything while providing "expected" "amenities" like pizza and beer.
I've been living in Yosemite since before 1980. The amount of paving has not increased and the amount of Food and beer has been reduced.
Fencing, yeah, and I'm against it
peace
Karl
|
|
Mark Hudon
Trad climber
Hood River, OR
|
|
|
Apr 17, 2012 - 06:54pm PT
|
So, no more sitting out in El Cap meadow gazing up at the cliff!
Get out of your car, take a snapshot, get back in, and go.
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
|
Apr 18, 2012 - 02:03pm PT
|
Humpty Bumpty climbed up the wall
and bumped the thread
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Apr 18, 2012 - 02:48pm PT
|
Karl,
I'd sent similar comments during the scoping phase. I have a particular concern that the tail not wag the dog -- the Merced River is important because it flows through Yosemite Valley, not the other way around. It bothers me, therefore, that we're developing a Valley master plan in the context of Wild and Scenic River litigation.
I've been attending meetings, submitting comments, and following outcomes on this issue since the 1970's, and I have yet to hear a cogent argument for banning commercial activities in the Valley. The meetings prior to the 1980 GMP reminded me of something out of Animal Farm, with the "sheep" chanting "no commercial development."
Well, I depend on the ability to have food, equipment, gasoline, etc., and, if I'm feeling particularly plutocratic, lodging. In America, we buy all of that. Why is it better for the Valley experience if we get our food (and, or course, our beer) elsewhere? Oh yes, I forgot -- the Valley is for those who have all the time, and all the health, to enjoy it exclusively on muscle power. The ordinary working stiffs only part is to pay taxes to keep themselves out.
Sorry for the sarcasm, but this process both angers and sickens me.
John
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Apr 18, 2012 - 03:16pm PT
|
khanom, I think we disagree why Yosemite Valley, in particular, was set aside. President Lincoln set it aside long before the National Park Service existed, because he and congress wanted it to remain accessible to ordinary citizens, and not just to the elite.
Ordinary citizens require services and motorized access to get there. What is it about "commercialism" that detracts from wilderness? It's the "commercial" part, not the "development" part, of the mantra that I question.
I happen to think that plenty of wilderness experiences still exists for the climber in the Valley. Go climb, say, the Ski Jump. It's only 5.7, but you'll feel the isolation, uncertainty and adventure (and some rather loose rock) in a way that's missing from a regimented backpack through most of the designated wilderness in Yosemite.
John
|
|
Elcapinyoazz
Social climber
Joshua Tree
|
|
|
Apr 18, 2012 - 03:29pm PT
|
Ordinary citizens require services
Require? Seems a little strong. All we "require" is food, water, shelter.
What is it about "commercialism" that detracts from wilderness?
This line of questioning indicates to me that you don't understand the meaning of "wilderness", a place where man is a visitor who does not remain. Clearly, commerical facilities do not meet this criteria. But given that the YV floor is not designated wilderness, possibly a moot point.
EDIT: Here's the actual definition from the Wilderness ACt of '64
"“A wilderness, in contrast with those areas where man and his own works dominate the landscape, is hereby recognized as an area where the earth and community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain.”
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Apr 18, 2012 - 03:55pm PT
|
I didn't say "wilderness" experience,El Cap, I said Valley experience. It's precisely this seeming desire to force the Valley into the Procrustean bed of the 1964 Wilderness Act that I find so objectionable.
John
|
|
PellucidWombat
Mountain climber
Berkeley, CA
|
|
|
Apr 18, 2012 - 03:57pm PT
|
Oh yes, I forgot -- the Valley is for those who have all the time, and all the health, to enjoy it exclusively on muscle power.
Sounds to me like a lot of the extreme viewpoints should consider the difference between a National Forest, National Park & a Wilderness Area.
I might be mistaken here, but as far as I understand, the purpose of a wilderness area is to keep things wild, hence NO development. If it is enjoyed, it is done so purely by muscle power. National Parks are supposed to have some amount of development to make the outdoors available to the masses while balancing preservation ideals. They operate in a strange combination of preservation with government-directed development. This is not as strict as wilderness, but better protection than national forests, which operate in a combination of preservation with government sanctioned but fairly independent commercial development.
So while a lot of the development in the Valley is unpleasant for those that want a wilderness experience, you've gotta realize that it is a national park!
Also, I think the Half Dome gondola & Half Dome to El Cap zip lines would only be feasible if the Valley were a National Forest. Snowbird Ski resort is in a National Forest, and they were able to decapitate a mountain top, build a tunnel with a people mover through the mountain, and nearly built a roller coaster across Little Cottonwood Canyon (fortunately public outcry got the state to deny them permission for doing this).
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
|
Apr 18, 2012 - 04:16pm PT
|
Allowing commercial activity in a National Park fundamentally changes the character and experience of a place that is being preserved precisely to provide access to unadulterated nature. You know, nature, natural, wild. It's not Disney land, and it's not there to make money for anyone.
You haven't read the mission of National Parks which is different than pure wilderness areas or national forests. In any case, there has been commercial activity in Yosemite since humans got there. I don't know how the Indians traded but John Muir herded sheep there and lived in a sawmill.
Essentially we are hugely compromising the very reason Yosemite National Park exists in the first place. The commercial nature of the valley (increasing or not) visibly compromises what people go there to see and experience.
Without camping and food and such, only rough it people would visit Yosemite or any natural wonder and support for environmentalism and nature could take a hit. and that's about our survival as a species, not just how pretty nature is untrammeled
There are plenty of place in Yosemite you can go where it's extremely beautiful and noone is there. It just takes muscle power and some skills. Theres even climbing!
But guess what? Even the ones crying for a pristine valley don't go there.
I hate to mention it but Tenaya Canyon is one such place. It's actually upper yosemite valley and whenever I go, i don't see a soul and it's wildly beautiful. Why must the purists have everywhere undeveloped when they don't even visit the places that ARE undeveloped.
Course you better have a rope and some sense if you go there but isn't that the argument here, that these wild places belong to those with the health and skills to work it out?
peace
Karl
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Apr 18, 2012 - 04:35pm PT
|
Actually, designated wilderness and National Parks and/or National Forests are not incompatible. A great deal of YNP is designated wilderness, but the Valley is not and, I contend, should not be. Treating it as if it were -- particularly as a result of litigation in which most of its users and would-be users have no voice -- falls outside the spirit of the Park, in my opinion.
Also, the goals of the Parks and Forests differ. Parks are for preservation. Forests for conservation. Nonetheless, if an area is designated wilderness then, as El Cap points out, the Wilderness Act controls. Some rather wild places in the Sierra -- the Minarets, say, or Mt. Humphreys, are in no park, but are in designated wilderness, so development restrictions apply.
John
|
|
chill
climber
between the flat part and the blue wobbly thing
|
|
|
Apr 18, 2012 - 05:43pm PT
|
I'm taking the lead on this one. Using my connections through the Yosemite Conservancy...
Fatty, let's face it, your view of your importance to the outcome of this issue, as in the rest of your life, is vastly overinflated.
|
|
Elcapinyoazz
Social climber
Joshua Tree
|
|
|
Apr 18, 2012 - 05:48pm PT
|
I didn't say "wilderness"
Your words:
What is it about "commercialism" that detracts from wilderness?
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
|
Apr 18, 2012 - 08:17pm PT
|
Sorry Khanom
I felt that when you wrote
Allowing commercial activity in a National Park fundamentally changes the character and experience of a place that is being preserved precisely to provide access to unadulterated nature. You know, nature, natural, wild.
that you didn't understand the National Park Mission because virtually all significant national parks allow commercial activity.
Even stranger, there's plenty of pure nature right in Yosemite Valley. Most people seem to complain about crowds and such because they go where all the other crowds go, the deli, curry, or some other commercial areas. Take out all the food and hotels and there will still be a line on Nutcracker so what are we really talking about. Do we want to picnic in curry village?
You take out the ice rink and it makes ZERO improvement in anyone's wilderness or nature experience
peace
Karl
|
|
Reilly
Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
|
|
|
Apr 18, 2012 - 08:21pm PT
|
If ya wanna be a purist then you're gonna haveta join a tribe and kick all
the honkeys and non-bloods out.
|
|
Fluoride
Trad climber
West Los Angeles, CA
|
|
|
Apr 18, 2012 - 08:26pm PT
|
This is why I only go to Tuolmne anymore. Less crowds, killer routes and not having to spend 2 hours in traffic in the valley. Loved my days in the Valley but with less time for crap, Tuolumne's more bang for the buck.
Plus, camping in then Valley has become more hassle than it's worth.
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Apr 18, 2012 - 11:02pm PT
|
Sorry El Cap. You're right. I did ask about wilderness, although I was thinking of wilderness as a concept, not as defined by the Wilderness Act of 1964. By the Act's definition, I see the point.
So let me re-phrase: How does commercial development detract from the Valley experience?
John
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Apr 18, 2012 - 11:33pm PT
|
You walk 5 minutes out off the valley floor and stay off a major trail on a typical busy summer day and you'll see nobody.
You Drama Queens just love to have drama .....
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
|
Apr 19, 2012 - 01:02am PT
|
The camping and traffic is a hassle but due to the reduction in parking and camping, not from too much of it
peace
Karl
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Apr 19, 2012 - 01:05pm PT
|
Actually, I agree there is not enough parking or camping and that that contributes to the traffic problems. Might sound contradictory of me to say that, but I do believe the park can better support the current number of visitors while continuing to improve visitor experience.
Absolutely agree, Khanom! After sleeping on it, I think my detour about "commercial" is something of a red herring, distracting from the issue you highlight in this quote. That issue transcends everything else, to my mind, namely, is the NPS really trying to support and enhance the visitor experience?
Thanks for helping focus my thoughts.
John
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!