PDA

View Full Version : National Parks Case May Affect Access



R
01-28-2007, 11:23 PM
I will say that I want to hear other uutahers thoughts on this before I form a solid opinion...

>>By GARANCE BURKE

YOSEMITE NATIONAL PARK, Calif. (AP) - The plunging waterfalls and soaring crags chiseled by the Merced River draw millions of visitors each year, but the crowds are precisely what threatens the waterway and the park.

Efforts to safeguard the Merced have spawned a court battle over the future of development in Yosemite National Park's most popular stretch. The case may come down to the challenge facing all of America's parks: Should they remain open to everyone, or should access be limited in the interest of protecting them?

In November, a federal judge barred crews from finishing $60 million in construction projects in Yosemite Valley, siding with a small group of environmentalists who sued the federal government, saying further commercial development would bring greater numbers of visitors, thus threatening the Merced's fragile ecosystem.

"The park's plans for commercialization could damage Yosemite for future generations," said Bridget Kerr, a member of Friends of Yosemite Valley, one of two local environmental groups that filed the suit.

The government is appealing, fearing the ruling could force the National Park Service to limit the number of people allowed into Yosemite each day, a precedent it doesn't want to see echoed in other parks.

"I don't think we've ever had a ruling with these kind of implications," said Kerri Cahill, a Denver-based planner for the park service. "It's going to have a direct influence on the public who care about these places."

The case has Yosemite's most loyal advocates sharply divided over how to balance preservation with access to public lands. Even environmentalists can't agree on how to minimize the human footprint - some believe cars should be kept out entirely; others say visitors should have to make reservations in advance.

Yosemite was the first land in the country set aside for its scenic beauty, declared a public trust in 1864 by Abraham Lincoln. Its 1,200 square miles of granite peaks and towering waterfalls became a national park in 1890, and with few exceptions its gates have been open to all ever since, though backcountry permits are limited to minimize the human impact on wilderness areas.

The Merced itself is protected under the federal Wild and Scenic Rivers Act.

The current fight began when the Merced flooded in 1997, wiping out campgrounds and parking lots and damaging rooms at the popular Yosemite Lodge. The park service drew up a $442 million remodeling plan that included moving campgrounds, rerouting a key access road, rebuilding employee housing and upgrading hotel rooms on the valley floor.

Kerr's group and Mariposans for the Environment and Responsible Government sued, claiming aspects of the park's plans - including blasting part of the river canyon - threatened the Merced.

The groups also fear the costs of park upgrades would be passed on to visitors in the form of price hikes for hotel rooms and campsites, turning Yosemite into a playground for the rich.

Park officials say no such rate increases are planned. Accommodations now range from about $20 per night for a campsite to nearly $1,000 for a suite in the deluxe Ahwahnee Hotel.

Park spokesman Scott Gediman called the plaintiffs a "fringe group" pushing a radical agenda.

"They want us to set a quota for the number of visitors coming into the park, which is something we just don't want to do," he said.

Well-known conservation groups like the Sierra Club and Nature Conservancy aren't directly involved in the fight, though the Sierra Club was among more than 60 organizations that signed a legal brief supporting an earlier version of the suit.

Gediman said the number of visitors is falling and crowding isn't a problem except at the height of summer, when there's bumper-to-bumper traffic near popular sites like El Capitan, the 3,000-foot granite monolith rising from the valley floor.

In 1996, when the park had a record 4 million visitors, rangers shut gates when all parking spaces were filled. But last year, the nation's third-most popular park hit a 16-year low with 3.36 million visitors.

"This is the United States' version of the crown jewels, so why wouldn't we protect it as best we can?" said Peter Newman, a natural resources management professor at Colorado State University who filed a legal brief supporting the park service. "I've just never heard of any other plan that has been so contested."<<

DiscGo
01-29-2007, 07:40 AM
That really is tough. Everyone should be welcome to the parks but I think the National Parks should have more restricted access. I went on a 5 days trip last August when a friend came in from Washington. We went to all of the National Parks in Utah, a couple of State Parks, and the San Rafael Swells. The only place my friend enjoyed camping was the Swell.

Honestly with all the generators and the 20 foot campgrounds, the camp sites are so much louder than my neighborhood at home. The whole point of going to the outdoors is to escape civilization and it is kind of lost when it is so busy. My brother went to Yellowstone for the first time this summer and he did not enjoy it because it was like going to the mall (there were so many people).

My opinion is that campers should not be allowed in the park campgrounds, and that the campgrounds themselves should only house half the people they currently do. I propose that would greatly reduce the noise pollution and campers would have an increased sense of nature. The nice thing about Arches is there is a lot of great camping in the Moab area that not being able to camp in Arches is not a problem. Most of the big parks don't have a real town as close as Moab is to Arches but you could certainly make campgrounds outside of the parks to host more people.



That is my opinion and I really hope that it is not offensive to anyone on the site. It seems like every topic lately has someone being offended and that is not my point.

Rev. Coyote
01-29-2007, 07:50 AM
I've never been to Yosemite (mainly due to the crowds), but it sounds like there's an opportunity to make some positive changes. I'd say take it in the direction of more camping/less Disney and more trails/less roads.

Scott P
01-29-2007, 08:05 AM
Tough subject. In summer the Yosemite Valley and surrounding areas often seems more congested with traffic than I-15 through SLC during rush hour, but on the other hand no one wants to be turned away if they drove all the way out there to see it.

Either way, whether people are restricted or not no one will be happy. The real solution is to visit during Winter, Spring, or Fall. Maybe there could be a way to encourage this.

Rev. Coyote
01-29-2007, 08:09 AM
Tough subject. In summer the Yosemite Valley and surrounding areas often seems more congested with traffic than I-15 through SLC during rush hour, but on the other hand no one wants to be turned away if they drove all the way out there to see it.


The great thing about places like Yosemite, the Grand Canyon, Yellowstone, etc., is they keep the masses at bay. Means the lesser-known haunts will remain that way.

DiscGo
01-29-2007, 08:12 AM
The real solution is to visit during Winter, Spring, or Fall. Maybe there could be a way to encourage this.

Yeah it really is a tough call but it really is nice that most of us live close enough to Utah that we can visit the parks in the "off season".

price1869
01-29-2007, 08:12 AM
Two words:

Shuttle System

More words:

The shuttle system in zion is the most wonderful thing that a national park could ask for, and since Yosemite and Zion have very similar geographies, it would work perfectly there too. I've been to both. I wish there was a way for them to put a shuttle in yellowstone too. I probably wouldn't cost them the $442 mil either.

Rev. Coyote
01-29-2007, 08:21 AM
Two words:

Shuttle System

More words:

The shuttle system in zion is the most wonderful thing that a national park could ask for, and since Yosemite and Zion have very similar geographies, it would work perfectly there too. I've been to both. I wish there was a way for them to put a shuttle in yellowstone too. I probably wouldn't cost them the $442 mil either.

Bingo.

Scott P
01-29-2007, 08:30 AM
Two words:

Shuttle System

Yosemite already has a new shuttle system. :2thumbs: See below for the link:

http://www.nps.gov/archive/yose/trip/shutmap.pdf

Keep in mind also that Yosmite is known to often have 50,000 visitors a day on summer weekends which can fill every parking lot, shuttle system or not.

Jaxx
01-29-2007, 09:37 AM
This kindof reminds me of the Lake Powell Dam issue. The people filing the law suit want Yosemite to be more of an intimate experience. Much like it would be if we drained Lake Powell. The thing about both issues is that there is alot of money being spent at hotels/stores at both locations and the old saying is more true i think in these situations then we want to admit "the one with the gold makes the rules."
They are building or have plans to build a big resort on the shore of Lake Powell in the Bullfrog area I believe. If this happens then it almost gaurantees the level of the lake for a long time, who wants to stay at a resort that is half a mile from the lake?
I went to Yosemite about 7 years ago as a scout. It was the middle of summer and it was very busy, but I had tons of fun doing the hikes that we did and watching the rock climbers. It wasn't like when we go to some of the Utah camping areas, and you only see a couple other people the whole weekend, but that is what we expected when we planned the trip.
Has anyone noticed how much nicer people are when you are camping/hiking. Everyone says "Hi" to each other as they pass. If we were walking in downtown SLC and the same 2 people passed each other I bet they wouldn't even make eye contact. Sorry that is off topic. Im done now.

R
01-29-2007, 10:10 AM
Sub question: Does anyone else find the "Wilson Arch Resort Community" to be an abomination? I know that's private property, but ick.

If you happen to live in Wilson Arch Resort, please click here: http://www.hamsterdance.com/

Rev. Coyote
01-29-2007, 10:21 AM
Sub question: Does anyone else find the "Wilson Arch Resort Community" to be an abomination? I know that's private property, but ick.

If you happen to live in Wilson Arch Resort, please click here: http://www.hamsterdance.com/

I've seen worse. However, there's a commercial component yet to come just across the road from Wilted Arch.

RedMan
01-29-2007, 07:45 PM
When I lived in SFO, I got up really early one day (3am) and drove to Yosemite. I hiked up to the base of half dome to see the sunrise.

I seems arrived 100 years too late.