Opinion | Yosemite's Merced Wild And Scenic River Plan: Brought To You By Billionaires And Their Politicians

Alternate Text
This quiet reach of Merced River will be opened up to private boating under the new river plan/Barbara Moritsch

I chose a sandy spot near a copse of willows south of the river near Sentinel Bridge. What better place to sit and ponder the recently released plan to protect the Merced as it flows through Yosemite National Park?

The river made its way down valley with a distinctive gurgle, in harmony with the clatter of small rocks tumbling downstream. The trill of a red-winged blackbird was followed by the rapid chip, chip, chip of a Steller’s jay. A common flicker flew across the water just as a pair of mergansers winged their way upstream. In the still-naked branches of a black cottonwood, a kingfisher perched, motionless, ready to strike for a meal—becoming a flash of black, white, and gray when he made the dive.

As I prepared to sit, a small brown beetle with white dots splashed across its back scurried to get out of the way. It was April 10th, the turning of spring. The air temperature was close to 80 degrees and the cerulean blue sky was without a cloud. A soft breeze carried odors of resinous cottonwood buds and already drying pine needles. A smattering of concern—fire season could come early to this drought-afflicted region. Up above us all, Upper Yosemite Fall, a wide ribbon of sparkling white, made its long, rapid descent, as it has for so many cycles of so many seasons.

The Merced Wild and Scenic River Comprehensive Management Plan/EIS, released in March of this year, was a great disappointment. The plan’s Executive Summary provides an overview of the selected (preferred) alternative, which became the final plan on March 31 (final, that is, unless further legal action is brought against the National Park Service). The overview’s first sentence reveals how far the planning process strayed from its intended path: “The Final Merced River Plan/EIS proposes actions that will improve the visitor experience in the park.”

That sentence has very little, if any, connection to the intent of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, or to the stated purpose of the plan: “…to preserve the Merced River in free-flowing condition and to protect the water quality and the outstandingly remarkable values (ORVs) that make the river worthy of designation.”

The claim that the plan will “improve” the visitor experience in the park also is highly debatable. A bit of history puts the plan in context. On November 2nd, 1987, Congress designated 122 miles of the Merced as a Wild and Scenic River, from its headwaters in Yosemite National Park to Lake McClure. Yosemite contains 81 of these miles. After designation, the NPS had three years to complete a river management plan. Almost a decade later, on January 1st, 1997, the Merced River rose up in glorious flood, pulling down buildings, tearing up roads, and creating havoc in Yosemite Valley.

After the waters receded, the park started rebuilding the heavily damaged El Portal Road, a primary access route. A lawsuit was filed, questioning the adequacy of the park’s assessment of the road project’s environmental impacts. A U.S. District Court told the NPS to prepare the long overdue river management plan by 2000 to ensure that projects were done in a way that protected the river.

In 2000, a plan was completed. Litigation ensued. The park lost. In 2005, a new plan was completed. Litigation ensued. The park lost again.

Alternate Text

The future of some of the valley's historic stone bridges is still in question; for the time being, they will be spared./Barbara Moritsch.

The crux of the issue was the failure of the NPS to specifically address user capacity (i.e., human carrying capacity) in the river corridor. The 2014 river plan does address user capacity, but in a frightful way. The second sentence of the overview states the plan will accommodate peak visitation levels of no more than 18,710 people at one time in Yosemite Valley. Based on models, this will result in approximately 20,100 people per day in the valley as cars and buses enter and exit the valley. This is roughly equivalent to the number of people now present on the very busiest of summer holiday weekends.

According to the Central Sierra Environmental Resource Center, a whopping 7,190 vehicles jammed into Yosemite Valley on July 2, 2011, a record for the number of vehicles in the valley in one day.

The average vehicle occupancy for day visitors is 2.9 people per car, and higher for overnight visitors. Even using the lower multiplier, this number of vehicles translates to 20,851 people in the valley in one day. This was July 4th weekend. This was a record-setting number of people. The new river plan would allow almost this many people to jam into Yosemite Valley every day of the year. And this is entirely possible, even likely, given that every year the valley’s “shoulder seasons” of spring and fall creep ever closer to winter.

This is not management that will protect the Merced River or the quality of a visit to Yosemite.

The overview says there will be marked improvements in circulation, parking availability, and traffic flow in the valley. A new and improved (i.e., larger) day-use parking lot near Yosemite Village will be fully integrated with pathways to visitor services, restrooms, and food service. This parking area is intended to give visitors a “sense of arrival.” Silly me—I always thought the views of Bridalveil Fall, El Capitan, Yosemite Falls, Half Dome, and the river did a pretty good job of that.

Under the new plan, in Yosemite Valley, there will be 37 percent more camping (from 466 to 640 sites), 5 percent more lodging (from 1,034 to 1,082 units), and 8 percent more parking (I couldn’t figure out how these numbers were derived), plus expanded picnic and day-use opportunities at Yosemite Village, Church Bowl, and Happy Isles.

Valley visitors will still get to ice skate in the winter, swim in the swimming pools, and rent bikes and rafts. This plan to “protect” the Merced River also will allow rafting in “new and challenging river reaches” in areas of the west valley that were previously off-limits. Say goodbye to the quiet, contemplative experiences that used to be available in the west valley.

Why did this 17-year-long, multi-million dollar planning effort result in the status quo plus more stuff in Yosemite Valley? The NPS never really proposed to do anything serious to protect the Merced, but in the draft they did call for a few minor changes to visitor use that would have improved the health of the river.

There was an immediate and strong backlash to these proposals. Politicians representing economic interests got the public up in arms, telling people the government was trying to destroy “their Yosemite experience” and threatening to pursue a “legislated solution” if the NPS tried to make those changes.

The hands of the NPS were tied.

Alternate Text
The river plan does not call for adequate monitoring of the impacts of increased visitation on Yosemite Valley's wildlife or vegetation./Barbara Moritsch

The magnitude of opposition to the draft plan was way out of proportion to the proposed changes, in part because Americans for Prosperity, a Koch brothers-backed organization, was instrumental in stirring up that opposition, consistent with their ongoing efforts to cripple the federal government’s ability to protect public lands in any way they can.

What if the NPS had written and aggressively supported a plan that would truly protect and benefit the river? Would a heavily-armed militia have arrived at the park gates, ready to take drastic action to protect people’s “rights” to use Yosemite Valley however they see fit?

It’s possible, given people’s angry reactions to the government shutdown, and the recent standoff with Cliven Bundy over grazing on public lands.

How can the NPS do its job and protect our park lands under these conditions?

Evidence of political meddling is included on page 24 of the project’s Record of Decision: “On Tuesday, July 9, 2013, a hearing by the House of Representatives Subcommittee on Public Lands and Environmental Regulation exposed for a larger national audience the conflicting public and political opinions being considered in this planning effort. Witnesses (carefully selected, I’m sure...) and committee members presented support for the following:

• Continuation of Yosemite Valley recreational and commercial services.

• Replacement of campsites damaged during the 1997 flood and retention of campsites within the floodplain.

• Protection of Sugar Pine Bridge and other historic resources.

• Consideration of the park’s diverse visitors including those with physical disabilities and those of limited economic means.

• Exclusion of the 81 miles of the Merced River in Yosemite National Park from Wild and Scenic River designation.

• Adoption of the No Action alternative.

This was the coup-de-grace that killed the Merced River planning process, and may be the real reason the plan essentially maintains the status quo relative to activities, adds even more campgrounds, lodging units, and parking places, and allows an obscenely high user capacity in an already over-crowded, over-used Yosemite Valley.

Almost 27 years after being formally recognized for its superlative qualities as a wild and scenic river, the Merced finally has a plan for its Yosemite segments. This river deserves the very highest levels of protection as it meanders, cascades, and splashes its way through one of the world’s greatest natural treasures. In fact, the ROD for the plan even states that: “The National Park Service Organic Act...begins with the overarching mandate to preserve park resources in an unimpaired condition.”

Alternate Text
Day use parking will increase under the new river plan/Barbara Moritsch

In this light, the Merced River plan is not even in keeping with the intent of NPS enabling legislation. The plan will only ensure that more people can do more activities in and around the river, and spend more money doing so—contributing to the further degradation of what should be clean and healthy ecosystems.

I had high hopes for the plan as a means by which we could make a firm commitment to true and lasting protection of Yosemite Valley. Maybe my hopes were too high. Maybe it wasn’t the job of the river plan to be the agent of protection—but it could have been.

But the planning process was hijacked by economic/political interests, and ultimately used to increase development and use in Yosemite. How can a plan to add more campsites, lodging, parking, and people possibly be in the interest of the health and well-being of the river and its environs? It can’t.

This plan represents just one more missed opportunity to do the right thing for nature in Yosemite Valley.

I watched a pair of mallards dabbling in the shallows in search of food, and I wondered: Do the animals, birds, and bugs care about this planning debacle? Do they understand this was a missed opportunity? Do they know that their care-taker, the NPS, no longer has the ability to protect them, and that it is human short-sightedness and greed that are destroying their habitat? If they do, they are far too forgiving.

Do the pines and the oaks, the grasses and the sedges care when they are cut down, scraped away, or trampled to death? Do the rocks care when they are blown up or moved? Do the soils care when they are covered by pavement?

We can’t yet know the answers to these questions; therefore, it’s up to us to care. It’s our job to ensure all the native living and non-living entities in Yosemite Valley are protected forever from the incessant desires of ever-increasing numbers of humans. Maybe it wasn’t the job of the river plan to afford this kind of protection, but it could have been. For now, we must wait and see if this 2014 plan is, in fact, the final plan.

Let’s hope not.

Barbara Moritsch worked for the National Park Service as an ecologist and interpretive naturalist in five Western parks, including Yosemite. She holds Bachelor’s and Master’s degrees in natural resources and environmental science. She is the author of The Soul of Yosemite: Finding, Defending, and Saving the Valley's Sacred Wild Nature.

Comments

As long as Yosemite sucks as many dollars as possible into a few private and corporate pockets all is well. Thank you for trying, again, to warn us, Barbara.
The biggest problem with Yosemite Valley is that there are too many cars and parking lots. The only visitors who should drive into the valley are those with camping reservations. Everyone else should be shuttled in. The valley would be much more peaceful and beautiful.
Thank you Barbara for so eloquently pointing out the sad failure of the latest Merced River Plan. I agree with everything you say, both as a former resident of the Merced River Canyon, and as a member of Friends of Yosemite Valley (lead plaintiff in the river plan litigation). I’m sad to report that the greed and corruption is deeper than many of us would have ever imagined when we first got involved in our local grassroots effort to steer the river planning process away from destruction and overdevelopment and towards legitimate resource protection and social equity. It has been my experience that Yosemite’s managers and/or the powerful players who influence the decision-making there, will go to great lengths to discredit and silence citizens and seem to fall back on management “discretion” to justify disingenuous plans like this. Those of us involved in opposing the park in federal court were not angry fringers and we were not compensated for the time we invested in Yosemite’s tedious, convoluted, and at times exceedingly unpleasant “public” planning process. We dedicated years of involvement in these plans because we simply wanted to protect the river for future generations, for the beetles, the birds, the bears, and the humans who travel to Yosemite because they value its unique natural and cultural resources. It seems the NPS addressed our concerns and federal court directives only in an attempt to avoid litigation rather than with any duty to the river or equitable access for visitors. In many cases the plan ignores science and common sense; it is also tone deaf to legitimate socio-economic concerns for visitors who might prefer to stroll on a trail or picnic by the river rather than visitors with enough cash to rent rafts by the day, trailer in their own horses, dine in pricey restaurants or those who would rather do their swimming in a motel pool. I can't help but see connections between the absurdity of the final Merced River Plan and of the State Department's suspect environmental review of the Keystone XL pipeline that claims TransCanada’s monster project will NOT contribute significantly to climate change . . . My involvement with Yosemite planning taught me that the existence of the Wild and Scenic River Act may help delay some really bad stuff from happening, but only if citizens take the time to pay attention and aren’t afraid to be persistent. Apparently there is nothing in place to motivate commercial interests—or the government agencies beholden to commercial interests—to do the right thing in Yosemite. I'm a hopeful person by nature but it is painfully obvious that Yosemite planning has been broken for a long time. And I know I am not alone when I say my visitor experience will NOT be “improved” by this recent iteration of the Merced River Plan.
Thank you, b.kerr for a cogent look at the bigger problem that besets far too much of American decision making at all levels. One thing that might help would be if people like you who may have inside knowledge would (or could) name the names of people and organizations that cause or contribute to the corruption. But too often those people and their key players are carefully hidden behind layers of cloaking that make identifying them almost or completely impossible. As a result, people like us are left swatting in helpless frustration at a nebulous smokescreen that shrouds an almost endless supply of money that can be used to purchase whoever and whatever is needed to accomplish the goals of profiteers.
Thanks for the thanks Lee. And I agree with your statement: "But too often those people and their key players are carefully hidden behind layers of cloaking that make identifying them almost or completely impossible." But I'm not sure what to make of your use of the phrase "people like you" and your suggestion that sounds like I may owe it to everyone else to name names . . . I have my theories and am knowledgeable about Yosemite, I lived and worked there for 2 decades. I understand that there are a lot of good and well-intentioned National Park Service employees, but I am a park service outsider and was basically run out of town because park administration worked hard to make it nearly intolerable for my family and me when I became active with Friends of Yosemite Valley. Perhaps it's time for others to speak up about Yosemite planning? I think a big part of the problem is something referred to by park service insiders as the Yosemite Way. I realize I may be idealistic in my thinking about how the NPS ought to protect and preserve our national parks, and I know money has an especially dark grip on our government right now, but I don't believe the hands of the NPS are tied completely, I know they are complicit.
b.kerr, sorry about my choice of words there. Maybe instead of "you" it should have been "us." But then there is the exposure to personal risk speaking up too often produces -- ala Ranger Danno -- and you in your Yosemite experience. Those who hold the power and money think nothing of running over those who speak with a steamroller. And even then it's virtually impossible to follow the machine's tracks back to them. Perhaps you need to write a book . . .
Lee--Start here by watching this video of the subcommittee meeting I mentioned in the article. I have just started to listen to it--the dialogue starts at about the 44 minute mark. Interesting the first thing the Chairman implies is Yosemite should be managed by the state of California. Yeesh. Notice all of those "selected" to speak supported "using" Yosemite, not protecting it. http://naturalresources.house.gov/calendar/eventsingle.aspx?EventID=341314
And then check out this piece: http://mcclintock.house.gov/2013/08/the-truth-about-yosemite.shtml McClintock stirred up the public, not in the interest of the Merced River, Yosemite, or the quality of the visitor experience, but to make sure the free flow of money generated by the park continued to flow uninterrupted. Corrupt.
Thank you Barbara. I was not able to open the video for some reason. I kept getting a message telling me that I did not "need to log in again." But the propaganda blurp from McClintock opened just fine. Didn't have to read far before starting to see the inflammatory trigger words like "leftist environmental groups." Three swimming pools? Youch. But I guess we have to agree with the gentleman that it would be a terrible shame to force families who can afford to stay in any of Yosemite's accommodations to let their kids experience wading in a naturally flowing stream without a lifeguard. Goodness, what were we thinking?
In all comers of this nation the NPS is complicit with leftist environmental groups. Visitors are increasingly becoming the lowest priority. The NPS highest priority is their bureaucracy and justifying it. Can't totally blame them as this current leftist administration is not interested in creating non-government jobs.
Lee--So sorry! My mistake--I posted the wrong link for the hearing. I have corrected it in the comment above. It is worth a listen, very revealing.
Beachdumb - congratulations again on proving that you chose a perfectly apt nym.
Thanks Rick, I just call them as I see them. Sad part is that as dumb as you think I am, I am completely correct. I watched the hearing video and the same DOI/NPS tactics used at Yosemite were also used at CHNSRA. The same complicity of NPS with leftist environmental groups. So I stand by my very accurate statement.
Based on it's legislated mission it shouldn't be surprising that the NPS often sides with environmental groups. In the olden days when the Republican party included some environmentalists like Richard Nixon the NPS often sided with conservatives or at least was represented by them. Nowadays most environmental groups are progressive (a more accurate title than leftist). There is no room for environmental concerns in todays Republican party. Beachdumb may not be dumb but he certainly hates the NPS and anyone who thinks preserving park resources is as important as enjoying them.

Not so sure the NPS sided with environmental groups, leftist or otherwise, at Yellowstone on the snowmobile issue.

And I think the Merced River plan shows the agency didn't roll over for "leftist environmental groups."

I'm sure there are other examples, but it's safe to say that nothing in this world is 100 percent...except for death. And with cloning, even that's coming into question.

[quote]except for death. [/quote] And taxes - the saying goes ;) Unfortunately, there is no cloning to prevent that.
I wouldn't say I hate the NPS, but I do dislike what they have become. I am certainly for the preservation of resources when there is a need. What I find appalling is lies and deceitfulness of the environmentalists, which they profit from. They push their agenda with no regard for its effects on humans or economics. The environmental organizations have poisoned the process and because of this case the only common sense action was no action.
Aren't offshore tax havens a form of cloning?
beachdumb - in the real world there is no black, there is no white, there are only variations on grey. Your absolutism is jarring in it's unrealistic polarity. It's hard to tell the difference between your "I wouldn't say I hate the NPS" and the venom of your comments. Since I do give a shit about the environment, even though I am not a card carrying environmentalist organization kinda guy, it is nearly impossible not to take offense at your statements like "What I find appalling is lies and deceitfulness of the environmentalists, which they profit from. They push their agenda with no regard for its effects on humans or economics."
[quote]Aren't offshore tax havens a form of cloning?[/quote] No, they are a form of following the tax law. Nevertheless the top 1% pay 37% of all taxes and the top 5% 59% of all taxes. http://taxfoundation.org/article/summary-latest-federal-income-tax-data-2012 Please Lee, tell me why Person A should pay more than Person B in taxes. There is an answer, but you won't like it. [edit] Oh, and let me know where these "tax havens" exit. I'm guessing they are as fictitious as the millions the NRA contributed to the Colorado recalls.
Rick, Why would you take offensive to such a statement - excect for the fact it is absolutely true - i.e "hide the decline". I'm with you on no "black or white" but it is your side that wants to claim the absolute - see the previous statement about banning cars and parking lots. Is that really necessary to "protect" the valley? Is there anyone on the other side saying "pave the whole place and let every car in"? No!
Good question, ec. Why did I pay a higher effective tax rate than one of our recent Presidential candidates? But back to the issue at hand. My daughter wants to take her family to visit Yosemite -- where she was born -- and is trying to figure out when might be the best time to avoid the crowds and find a decent place to camp? Does anyone have any good advice?
Barbara Moritsch thank you and the "Traveler" for this thought provoking and sensitive post. From my own involvement and perhaps limited understanding of the issues, I am in much agreement with your opinion piece. I think you are correct in stating that the MRP planing efforts reached a decision making level where the political considerations carried the day. In fact, once all the best science and public input is collected, it must, at some point, be melded in with the political process. Actually, I am acquainted with 4 of the persons Congressman McClintok selected to go the congressional hearing you have posted. The concept of visitor capacity was artfully dodged, and in my own view, this is my biggest disappointment with the approved EIS for the Merced River corridor. This issue was the crux of a successful ecological river restoration effort. I could say much more, but you expressed it very well. I do think the NPS planning team and managers did what became politically possible, I do not fault them. Planning efforts involving many NPS areas, Ozark Scenic Riverways, Everglades, Isle Royal, Big Bend, Yellowstone, Point Reyes, well the list is quite lengthly as you know, are pitted against local interests, economic concerns, the tourism industry in general, etc., it is a tough job for the NPS personnel involved to forge a consensus particularly in this polarized political climate. My own concern is that much of this fifteen year effort (and 3000 plus pages of the approved EIS) will sit on a bookshelf for many years collecting mainly dust.
Lee, a great time to go, but you miss the waterfalls is September, first two weeks of October. Often, on Sundays through Thursdays, you can find a campsite, perhaps not the Valley, but at Crane Flat, White Wolf, Yosemite Creek, Tuolumne. Those campgrounds usually close by the 1st of october. Tamarack is another out of the way great little place. The trick is get into one of them before noon. The Valley is tough until after October 15th. Winter campsiets in the Valley are easy, but when spring comes and the weather is nice, its tough. I never have a problem on the Tioga Road, but again, Sunday through Thursday, get there fairly early.
[quote]Why did I pay a higher effective tax rate than one of our recent Presidential candidates? [/quote} That is an easy one (if it is in fact true you paid more than 15%). Because their investment returns had already been taxed at the corporate level. In aggregate they paid directly or indirectly at a much higher rate. But why did they (at least Romney) pay millions more than you did?
Thanks, Ron. That's basically what I've told them. Jennifer was welcomed into the world at the old hospital by Dr. Avery Sturm on January 13, 1970 and was the first baby in Mariposa County. So now she would really like to go see the place. Between the park's website and the option of campground reservations, I hope she will be able to learn what she needs to know to enjoy it.
Lee, what a great post, Dr. Avery Sturm, he was simply an outstanding person. Both our kids were born at the old LMH as well. Your daughter is still going to love the place, all things considered, I think the NPS is doing a good job. There will be some traffic congestion on peak summer days in Yosemite Valley, but it is still worth every effort. Very best Lee, tell your daughter she is going to have a great time. My own daughter camps quite a bit both in the Valley and at Tuolumne Meadows. she still does some rock climbing.
Hi, Lee. I agree with Ron about less crowded times and camping, although I have found September to be pretty busy these days as well. October/November Sunday through Thursday seem like the best options if she would like to try for a valley campsite.
Calling McClintock corrupt simply because one does not like his ideas reflects poorly on the accuser. AFAIK, he wants to defend the locals right to make a living, and for better and for worse, Yosemite is the economic engine of the region. That certainly does not make him corrupt, unless of course, you have proof. As for the conspiracy theory of large corporations hiding in the background somewhere to make billions off of Yosemite... What a joke! While I'm pretty sure that all concessions within the park, who probably pay big bucks to the NPS to have the right to operate there, have a vested interest in seeing more people come in, I highly doubt that they are the evil monster corporations dreamed up in this thread. As for the overcrowding of Yosemite, it could easily be regulated by time of use pricing. Jack up the entrance price during high season until the number of visitors fall to the right number. Maybe the price should be $100, not $25 during the summer. Seems to me that the biggest to Yosemite is the number of visitors, not the ice rink.
Zebulon, I agree, calling Mr. McClintok corrupt is wrong unless specific allegations can be posted. I do not agree with Congressman McClintok's positions on most issues, but I have not seen any evidence to date that he is on the take. On the issue of just raising the fee, you are right, it has been suggested on many occasions, 100 dollars seems to be the most common starting point. I disagree with this approach, primarily because it discriminates against persons in the lower income levels. It is already expensive to travel to Yosemite for many citizens, transportation, lodging, food, etc. I have always felt that, unless you have a reservation, there maybe some days you just might have wait, one car in, one car out. This is an equitable approach that works in some other areas. I do see the private sector issue here, the super bowl being one, the stadium can hold so many people, demand drives the price. But this is a public park, not primarily a profit center. Shuttles would help also, and the day will come when we probably see that.
I agree, rmackie. Ideally, all of our national parks would be free.
Ideally, everything would be free. But we live in reality not some imaginary world.
Which is another way of saying that the ideal of free national parks is realistic.
Justinh: I'm pretty sure that ecbuck never said or meant that. :) rmackle: the time of use pricing would simply allocate a finite resource (there's only one Yosemite after all) to those who value it the most. Finite resources can be found everywhere in public and private places. In CA, we already have TOU pricing for bridges and HOV lanes that were built by the state. It'd work a whole lot better than waiting in line for hours at the entrance of Yosemite for somebody else to leave. That'd be a complete waste of everybody's time, especially those travelers that came from far away for the trip of their lifetime. If anything, it could also make the park cheaper off season. Time of use pricing is not a private sector issue. It's simply a rational allocation of finite resources to those that value it the most.
Maybe the implication was indeed unintentional, Zeb. It's fortunate, then, that I was talking about the parks, not "everything."
[quote] Maybe the implication was indeed unintentional [/quote] An oxymoron at its best. To simplify it for you Justin, ideally everything, including the National Parks, would be free. However, there is a wide gap between the ideal and reality. If there are parks, someone must pay for them unless you have figured out some way to have them operate at no cost.
Where exactly is the oxymoron? How is "ideally everything being free" relevant to the ideal of national parks in particular being free? Or, to put it simply, how are these statements logically connected?
[quote] Where exactly is the oxymoron? [/quote] Implying something is an intentional act. One can't imply something unintentionally. Now you may have inferred something from the comment, but that is your action not mine. [quote]How is "ideally everything being free" relevant to the ideal of national parks in particular being free? [/quote] Because it is just as quixotic.
"Implying something is an intentional act." The IMPLICATION (of a statement) is an intentional act? (Even if the usage here were "imply," why can't, according to that definition, one imply something unintentionally (e.g. "I didn't mean to imply that . . .") "Because it's just as quixotic." So, that's the LOGICAL CONNECTION? That's how the statements are RELEVANT to one another? Airtight logic, as usual.
Thank you. I am glad you agree.
I'll take your matching irony as agreement with me. (Off to class--have a nice day.)
Zebulon, interesting point, I am not sure however, that allocating use of a public park or other "commons", for example clean air or water, can be based solely on ones ability to pay although in the real world this is often the case. I think it is impossible to say that when one can afford to pay the market price, that person perhaps values/ appreciates the park more, but I do think you have a point. I remember former Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt making the same point , in so many words, if they are willing to pay the money at Disney World, they can pay the money here. I believe this is mixing apples and oranges. It is an interesting and contentious issue, I meet visitors who have been quite successful financially (what is one of the rules about money, "it is better to have some of it than none of it"), they always dismisses my concern by saying, Ron, I do not have to worry about it, I have the means to stay in the Ahwahnee no matter the cost. You have a point about cars being lined up at the entrance gates, but that can be effectively dealt with in the gateway communities, at least in my view, by having the road signs updated, etc., and by the way, very good for business in those towns. It works extremely well at places like Mammoth Cave for reservations for cave walks. In any case, an interesting discussion.
The American people are used to limits. If I want to go to a concert tomorrow night and it is sold out, I don't go. If I want to see the latest hit movie and the theater says there are no more seats available, I go at another time. We make reservations all the time for restaurants, hair cutting, nails etc. What's wrong with having a reservation to go to Yosemite? I see that as merely an extension of what we do all the time. If there are no more reservations to get into Yosemite on August 15, you plan your trip for another time. I would rather have a Yosemite with fewer cars and people than is the case now. I don't think people would bitch much once the system was established sort of like getting a permit to climb the cables at Half Dome. Rick
Thank you, Rick. I agree 100%. I think most visitors would welcome this approach. I think outcry from some of the individuals and corporations making money off of Yosemite are the reason this hasn't happened yet.
I find this "ideally everything should be free" commentary from the queen of the profit motive to be ironically amusing.
And of course Rick, you totally missed the boat. The whole point is that "ideally" doesn't exist. We would all like it but some of us (obviously not you) realize its a fantasy. (And please call me King of the profit motive not queen).
Rick S. While not totally in opposition of your proposal, there is one short coming in your argument. For restaurants, theaters or concerts the answer to limited capacity is building more capacity. Your prescription in the face of higher demand is to limit capacity. Not saying limitation aren't warranted but might the absolutism proposed by some "no cars or parking lots" be more the source of people's resistance then Barbara's claim of commercialism?
Barbara, you sure seem to have an issue with people making money off Yosemite. Since when making a legitimate profit a problem? Let's put things into perspective: the current fee to get into Yosemite is $20 per car for a week. Even if we jacked it up to $100 a week, it'd still be a fraction of what people spend to go to Yosemite. How much is gas from the San Francisco bay area for a round trip? Anywhere from $50 to $100. A night at the Ahwahnee is at least $500. A night at other in park places starts at $100. Let's be real: going to Yosemite is not cheap and not exactly available to the poorest groups as it is already.
"satisfying one's conception of what is perfect; most suitable" The sense in which I was using the word. Obviously.
Zebulon--No, I don't have an issue with people making money off of Yosemite, but that is not the purpose of the park. If making money off the park results in degradation of park resources or the quality of a visitor's experience, then the money-making needs to take a back seat. At present, it seems to be the driver.