Cali moves to save Yosemite.

[Old Rocks]

But ol' Flat has the answer to that. Like PC, he would just sell to the highest bidder.

 

[Sunshine]

I marked Yosemite off my bucket list when I learned people are contracting hantavirus there.

Hantavirus Frequently Asked Questions - Yosemite National Park

 

[Dot Com]

Hey... I've got an idea.. Why don't we let Yosemite KEEP the gate reciepts?? Instead of those funds disappearing into another death drone?

Pretty soon the Park Service would see those visitors as the prime reason they have a job. And all of a sudden --- visitors wouldn't be considered a blight on the landscape.

Who knows? Maybe the infrastructure would get more eco-friendly. In fact --- Let the Forest Service charge a small surcharge for mule rides up to Nevada Falls, or nightime history lectures or floating down the valley. Or guided tours.

Trailhead volume for packers is ALREADY highly limited. So the bulk of the park is NOT overrun in any way..

Not really a problem of "saving Yosemite" from the onslaught of tourists.
The bigger problem as the OP suggests --- is saving the tourists from the dangers of being in Yosemite.
The more you limit access to the wilderness, the less prepared humans are gonna be to behave properly in that setting..

again w/ the hyperbole This is a "grown-ups" thread Bucko. At least it was 'til you & your conservative (read- environment-destroying) thugs showed up on the scene. Lets try to keep the level of discussion at least around the High school -level Mkay?

IOW's- rw whining on my threads is frowned upon

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Yeah -- that's right...... Renting a tube to float down the valley is EXTREMELY damaging to the park..

And those stone bridges were just some bad FDR idea..

Riding a mule up towards Nevada Falls --- should never be an experience that common folks without joining the Park Service.

And for 2 decades now -- they've been threatening to oust the 150 or so householders grandfathered into Wawona.. My best bud has a cabin in there. Right in the park.. Next to the Wawona Elementary school.. On the Merced.

Chase all that humanity the hell out of there and make it hard to bring Granny to the valley with ya.

Good plan..

start right out w/ hyperbole? we're having a serious discussion here.

You should check out the links I provided for the river near me below the OP link. Awesome interactive graphics.

Not hyperbole at all.. One of the highlights of my entire life.. Taking kids and nieces and nephews floating down the middle of the valley on a tube.. ((BTW -- not dangerous at all after the spring floods.))

In fact MANY of the highlights of my life occured in that magic place..
But I had the advantage of having access to a full private cabin in that park.. And I don't believe that you should be rich enough to have the concierge at the Ahwannee Hotel fetch you some tubes for a float down the river. Or rich enough to have a private packer bring in some mules for a couple days up in the High country.

Go ahead -- deprive folks of that contact.. You could always join the NPService to get the real experience.

Yeah....If I cant get "in" nature I really dont care to go. And if it's so damn crowded I feel like I'm in NY it's a no go as well.
I want solitude when I'm in the boonies.

 

[orogenicman]

The simple fact is that there are more visitors than the ecology of the park and surrounding lands can handle. And it is doing real damage to the park. Making a political hay out of it does not solve the problem. It needs to be addressed from a conservation point of view.

 

[FA_Q2]

The simple fact is that there are more visitors than the ecology of the park and surrounding lands can handle. And it is doing real damage to the park. Making a political hay out of it does not solve the problem. It needs to be addressed from a conservation point of view.

It does not look like they are doing that though. The way to limit visitors is NOT to reduce the businesses catering within the park but to increase the cost and/or reduce the total allowed in the park. That actually reduces traffic. Reducing business only makes staying in the park less of a comfort.

Why have they chosen this tactic then? It seems rather inane.

 

[FA_Q2]

I marked Yosemite off my bucket list when I learned people are contracting hantavirus there.

Hantavirus Frequently Asked Questions - Yosemite National Park

!

Is it really that much of a problem though. I want to hike back up Yosemite falls with my family. I did that climb the first time when I was around 10 and would love to repeat it with my family this time though it is going to be tough – I’ll have to carry the young one myself

 

[orogenicman]

The simple fact is that there are more visitors than the ecology of the park and surrounding lands can handle. And it is doing real damage to the park. Making a political hay out of it does not solve the problem. It needs to be addressed from a conservation point of view.

It does not look like they are doing that though. The way to limit visitors is NOT to reduce the businesses catering within the park but to increase the cost and/or reduce the total allowed in the park. That actually reduces traffic. Reducing business only makes staying in the park less of a comfort.

Why have they chosen this tactic then? It seems rather inane.

Why should it be a comfortable place? It is, after all, a wilderness, and should stay that way.

 

[FA_Q2]

The simple fact is that there are more visitors than the ecology of the park and surrounding lands can handle. And it is doing real damage to the park. Making a political hay out of it does not solve the problem. It needs to be addressed from a conservation point of view.

It does not look like they are doing that though. The way to limit visitors is NOT to reduce the businesses catering within the park but to increase the cost and/or reduce the total allowed in the park. That actually reduces traffic. Reducing business only makes staying in the park less of a comfort.

Why have they chosen this tactic then? It seems rather inane.

Why should it be a comfortable place? It is, after all, a wilderness, and should stay that way.

Irrelevant.

 

[Dot Com]

The simple fact is that there are more visitors than the ecology of the park and surrounding lands can handle. And it is doing real damage to the park. Making a political hay out of it does not solve the problem. It needs to be addressed from a conservation point of view.

It does not look like they are doing that though. The way to limit visitors is NOT to reduce the businesses catering within the park but to increase the cost and/or reduce the total allowed in the park. That actually reduces traffic. Reducing business only makes staying in the park less of a comfort.

Why have they chosen this tactic then? It seems rather inane.

Why should it be a comfortable place? It is, after all, a wilderness, and should stay that way.

^ that. I go to the woods to get away from the creature comforts of civilization.

 

[orogenicman]

It does not look like they are doing that though. The way to limit visitors is NOT to reduce the businesses catering within the park but to increase the cost and/or reduce the total allowed in the park. That actually reduces traffic. Reducing business only makes staying in the park less of a comfort.

Why have they chosen this tactic then? It seems rather inane.

Why should it be a comfortable place? It is, after all, a wilderness, and should stay that way.

Irrelevant.

Actually, it is more that relevant. It is the crux of the matter.

 

[Flopper]

start right out w/ hyperbole? we're having a serious discussion here.

You should check out the links I provided for the river near me below the OP link. Awesome interactive graphics.

Not hyperbole at all.. One of the highlights of my entire life.. Taking kids and nieces and nephews floating down the middle of the valley on a tube.. ((BTW -- not dangerous at all after the spring floods.))

In fact MANY of the highlights of my life occured in that magic place..
But I had the advantage of having access to a full private cabin in that park.. And I don't believe that you should be rich enough to have the concierge at the Ahwannee Hotel fetch you some tubes for a float down the river. Or rich enough to have a private packer bring in some mules for a couple days up in the High country.

Go ahead -- deprive folks of that contact.. You could always join the NPService to get the real experience.

Yeah....If I cant get "in" nature I really dont care to go. And if it's so damn crowded I feel like I'm in NY it's a no go as well.
I want solitude when I'm in the boonies.

The secret of enjoying our national parks is to visit during the off season. I have visited many of our great parks and all of our most treasured memories have come from visits when parks were free of crowds.

 

[gslack]

In a bad drought year, I went and stood under Yosemite Falls. It was down to a trickle.

I then hoofed it up the 3000' ascent to the top. Brutal switchback trail. Walked down the mostly dry creekbed to the lip. Turns out you can't peer over the lip into the valley, because it's a gradual curve as opposed to a sharp edge.

Never did the half-dome trail. I did go up the 4-mile trail. Beautiful day in the valley, raging snowstorm at the top.

And go buy "Death in Yosemite" to get a fine accounting of all the deaths in the park.

You dishonest little drama queen...

Yosemite Falls - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In years of little snow, the falls may actually cease flowing altogether in late summer or fall. A very small number of rock climbers have taken the opportunity to climb the normally inaccessible rock face beneath the falls, although this is an extraordinarily dangerous undertaking; a single afternoon thunderstorm could restart the falls, sweeping the climbers off the face.

Do you even have any honesty left in you or is it all dependent on how poorly the AGW movement is going?

You guys keep trying to claim the moral and ethical highground but do so by lying and exaggerating or misleading the facts...

 

[flacaltenn]

It does not look like they are doing that though. The way to limit visitors is NOT to reduce the businesses catering within the park but to increase the cost and/or reduce the total allowed in the park. That actually reduces traffic. Reducing business only makes staying in the park less of a comfort.

Why have they chosen this tactic then? It seems rather inane.

Why should it be a comfortable place? It is, after all, a wilderness, and should stay that way.

^ that. I go to the woods to get away from the creature comforts of civilization.

Yosemite VALLEY is NOT a wilderness and shouldn't ever be.. It should be platform where you can take Granny and the kids to ENJOY the views.. Would be OK with me if you banned ALL CAMPING in the Valley and made it a day trip. But then the only overnighters would be the rich paying $400/night to stay at the Ahwanee with reservations going out 2 years. Or a couple hundred packers up on the trails.. Without Granny or the kids. Or the 100 or so private cabins grandfathered in up in Wawona.

If you want WILDERNESS -- go next door to Hetch Hetchy or Tahoe Forest or get in line and get a Yosemite permit. There is PLENTY of wilderness and the High Country trails at Yosemite are NOT being damaged by the limited permits issued for 80% of the park available land.

Folks get married in the Valley.. They legally scatter ashes in the Valley.. And there is no damage being done to the Valley that Nature hasn't exceeded with floods and rock falls.

Expecting the Valley portion to remain "wilderness" just means you really haven't explored it or looked at how little enviro compromise is required to "allow" public access.

That's really it ain't it? You want to disallow the maximum number of folks from ever seeing it --- don'tcha?

 

[orogenicman]

Yosemite VALLEY is NOT a wilderness and shouldn't ever be..

I have no doubt that John Muir would wholeheartedly disagree with that statement.

 

[flacaltenn]

Yosemite VALLEY is NOT a wilderness and shouldn't ever be..

I have no doubt that John Muir would wholeheartedly disagree with that statement.

John Muir should have bought the place all for his-self then...
He's famous for PUBLICIZING the place.. Maybe he should have burnt the photos..

Like I said --- I'm pretty familiar with the folks on BOTH SIDES of this argument. Suffice it to say --- I KNOW how the John Muir folks celebrate in Yosemite..

John Muir Heritage Society Fall Colors in Yosemite Valley | Yosemite Conservancy

On Friday, October 25, the annual Fall Colors John Muir Heritage Society event will begin with a Welcome Reception at The Ahwahnee. On Saturday, the event will continue with a Yosemite Conservancy Update, a special NPS program and guided walks. JMHS members will then gather on Saturday evening for a reception and dinner in The Ahwahnee. On Sunday and Monday, guests will have an opportunity to tour Yosemite Conservancy projects and learn from National Park Service project managers.

This John Muir Heritage Society event is for donors who generously give $1,000 or more annually.

Yeah -- that's a little much.. But let's not put words in Muirs mouth...
MUCH of his writings on Yosemite, when he was young and old, was WRITTEN for visitors and a desire to SHARE the land with others.. NOT to wall it off for "wilderness".

Let our law-givers then make haste before it is too late to set apart this surpassingly glorious region for the recreation and well-being of humanity, and all the world will rise up and call them blessed.

Thousands of tired, nerve-shaken, over-civilized people are beginning to find out that going to the mountains is going home; that wildness is a necessity; and that mountain parks and reservations are useful not only as fountains of timber and irrigating rivers, but as fountains of life.

I'm sure Muir would be greeting a busload of students coming into the valley with open arms. As a teachable moment. And not see it as a threat..

 

[FA_Q2]

Why should it be a comfortable place? It is, after all, a wilderness, and should stay that way.

Irrelevant.

Actually, it is more that relevant. It is the crux of the matter.

No it is not. That is an arrogant view in that you are essentially demanding that people must enjoy the place the way YOU want them too. Sorry but your opinion of how the area should be enjoyed is literally irrelevant. You are not that important.

The real matter is the DAMAGE to the area by visitors. That was what the OP focused on. The real damage is not really caused by the fact that there are bicycles or lodging or any other amenities available but instead the damage is directly from the level of traffic that was seen. You reduce that through prices and direct caps on visitors. Closing business does nothing as traffic levels are the real problem.

So, what is your problem with the place? Are you simply demanding that people enjoy Yosemite the way you want them to or are you worried about the ecological damage?

 

[orogenicman]

Irrelevant.

Actually, it is more that relevant. It is the crux of the matter.

No it is not. That is an arrogant view in that you are essentially demanding that people must enjoy the place the way YOU want them too. Sorry but your opinion of how the area should be enjoyed is literally irrelevant. You are not that important.

The real matter is the DAMAGE to the area by visitors. That was what the OP focused on. The real damage is not really caused by the fact that there are bicycles or lodging or any other amenities available but instead the damage is directly from the level of traffic that was seen. You reduce that through prices and direct caps on visitors. Closing business does nothing as traffic levels are the real problem.

So, what is your problem with the place? Are you simply demanding that people enjoy Yosemite the way you want them to or are you worried about the ecological damage?

I thought it was obvious that my concern is about the ecological damage being done. Are we clear now?

 

[flacaltenn]

Actually, it is more that relevant. It is the crux of the matter.

No it is not. That is an arrogant view in that you are essentially demanding that people must enjoy the place the way YOU want them too. Sorry but your opinion of how the area should be enjoyed is literally irrelevant. You are not that important.

The real matter is the DAMAGE to the area by visitors. That was what the OP focused on. The real damage is not really caused by the fact that there are bicycles or lodging or any other amenities available but instead the damage is directly from the level of traffic that was seen. You reduce that through prices and direct caps on visitors. Closing business does nothing as traffic levels are the real problem.

So, what is your problem with the place? Are you simply demanding that people enjoy Yosemite the way you want them to or are you worried about the ecological damage?

I thought it was obvious that my concern is about the ecological damage being done. Are we clear now?

Let's define terms.

Is a parking lot ---- ecological damage?

Is bus access --- ecological damage?

Is renting a bike or a mule --- ecological damage?

There is only 5% of Americans QUALIFIED and equipped to go on a "wilderness" experience..
All the others are HIGHLY likely to die in process...

Why would you want to exclude 95% from the National Parks??

 

[FA_Q2]

Actually, it is more that relevant. It is the crux of the matter.

No it is not. That is an arrogant view in that you are essentially demanding that people must enjoy the place the way YOU want them too. Sorry but your opinion of how the area should be enjoyed is literally irrelevant. You are not that important.

The real matter is the DAMAGE to the area by visitors. That was what the OP focused on. The real damage is not really caused by the fact that there are bicycles or lodging or any other amenities available but instead the damage is directly from the level of traffic that was seen. You reduce that through prices and direct caps on visitors. Closing business does nothing as traffic levels are the real problem.

So, what is your problem with the place? Are you simply demanding that people enjoy Yosemite the way you want them to or are you worried about the ecological damage?

I thought it was obvious that my concern is about the ecological damage being done. Are we clear now?

Not when you are claiming that the crux of the issue is HOW people decide to enjoy Yosemite and ignoring that this is not an effective way at controlling the traffic thought the place which IS the crux of the issue.