orogenicman
Darwin was a pastafarian
- Jul 24, 2013
- 8,546
- 834
- 175
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.
How it should be enjoyed is your issue, not mine. If you want to control the traffic, get rid of the entertainment and let it revert back to it's former wild state. The fact is that people are "loving" that park to death, and that needs to change.