Recent comments

Another excellent and provocative post, Kurt. There is one point of good news...I think the cozying up of ARC to NPS and vice-versa has diminished measurably under the current Director, compared to her predecessor. But there is still too much of it!

Bill Wade
Chair, Executive Council
Coalition of National Park Service Retirees

That's an awesome photo.

Stones River, by the way, is facing monumental threats because of development at Middle Tennessee State University, (located just across town, it's the fastest growing university in America), in the city of Mufreesboro, and in the Greater Nashville Mess of a Meglapolis itself. For example, TDOT has considered building a highway interchange in the park, and NPCA consistently puts STRI on its list of "10 Most Endangered Parks"

Stones River might be 'just' another battlefield in the park system, but it's one worth preserving.

http://www.civilwarnews.com/archive/articles/highway_ballam.htm

http://www.npca.org/magazine/2002/april_may/ten_most.html

---
jr_ranger
"What lies behind us and what lies before us are tiny matters compared to what lies within us." - Emerson
http://tntrailhead.blogspot.com

I have had the privilege of visiting Yellowstone on snowmobile twice. I love this trip. There are no crowds, it's like having a private pass to the park. I have to admit, before I went on the trip, I was ambivalent. I'm a conservationist at heart, so I was leaning toward the snowmobile ban. Now, I have to say that I support the limited use. Our guides were very conscientious, and shared a very environmentalist perspective. The guides keep their groups on the same main roads that the regular season traffic travels. The machines are the most clean running that are available. I have to wonder why they are not restricting the number of cars/camper/motorcycles to 540 during the regular season? Also, I wonder if anyone has a statistic for how many snowmobiles actually enter the park each day vs. the number permitted to.

Well, that is the Boiling River, a thermal run off which flows into the Gardner River. In the pools where the run-off meets the Gardner, over tiny little waterfalls, the water is as warm as bath water.

Now, it was cold getting in and out! However, while you were in it, it was really like the most wonderful bath ever.

The Boiling River is a bit too popular for its own good; even when I first went in it back in 1993 in the middle of the night (at the time, I didn't know that a hefty fine would go with that), we still came across some drunks we were convinced would fall in the "boiling" part of the hot spring (this was at 3 AM). On a summer day, you'll barely find room for yourself to sit (in the spring, forget about going there, the high river makes it too dangerous, and the area is closed). The area and the land around it is a bit fragile. I wonder how it has changed over the years; I don't notice a difference in the last 14 years since I was there; so perhaps it's holding up okay. If it isn't, I would like to know so I don't add to a problem.

Jim Macdonald
The Magic of Yellowstone
Yellowstone Newspaper
Jim's Eclectic World

Mr. Patterson should be removed from office. The State of Texas agreed when the land was donated to it that the land would be preserved as a state park. Now, Texas (read: Ye Old Land Commissioner) is going back in its word.

“We feel strongly that the state's intended sale of the Christmas Mountains sends the wrong message to foundations like Rick King Mellon, one of the few in the country which have focused substantial resources on land and water conservation to assure perpetual protection of these assets in the public domain,” Conservation Fund Executive Vice President Richard Erdmann wrote in a July 16 letter to Patterson.

“Should this sale proceed, the Richard King Mellon Foundation has informed us that it would find it very difficult for it to consider the state as a potential beneficiary of any future conservation contributions on its part."

If Mr. Patterson will not honor his commitment and do what is right, the Governor needs to step up to the plate and ask for his resignation.

---
jr_ranger
"What lies behind us and what lies before us are tiny matters compared to what lies within us." - Emerson
http://tntrailhead.blogspot.com

Mark,

Thanks for the comment. If I recall, the Record Flood of 1997 is what wiped out part of the Yosemite Lodge and the campsites you refer to. The valley was under 8 feet of water from the overflowing Merced. The park intended to rebuilt them but a lawsuit by the "Friends of Yosemite Valley" and "Mariposans for the Environment and Responsible Government" opposed it, seeking a capacity number from the park. Injunctions have halted the park from this work but allowed the road and sewer repairs you mentioned. Supporting the NPS are the following non-profits that are not a direct part of the case: The Yosemite Fund, The Access Fund, The American Alpine Club, California Trout, Friends of the River, National Parks Conservation Assn, and The Wilderness Society. The 9th District court has not yet rendered an opinion in the appeal of November 2007.

For more information go to the Park Planning website www.nps.gov/yose/planning/litigation.

Rick D
www.hikehalfdome.com

I have mixed feelings about many of the elements here.

On one hand, after speaking with many locals in Estes park, I understand that the elk population is out of control, that they can be a nuisance, and even dangerous to the locals (calving in people's gardens and attacking the resident who is unaware of their presence).

On the other hand, they're majestic animals. As a photographer, they're a staple in my fall schedule. They're the most prominent wildlife in RMNP. It's a shame they can't be relocated. It's also a shame that they can't reintroduce wolves into the park to help naturally manage the population.

Another concern is the placement of fences in the park. Another eyesore in one of the most beautiful places in the world - but at least it will cost a small fortune.

Hey, how about instead of putting up fences, we just pave the entire park - that way there will be no place for the elk to graze and they'll go elsewhere? No ugly fences, just miles of concrete.

Although some of our Stones River staff members have fire management training, our park does not have the internal capacity to manage prescribed burns. Because of this, we work closely with the excellent fire management staff of the Natchez Trace Parkway. They bring their equipment and highly trained crew to Stones River, and they plan and supervise the prescribed burns at the areas we have identified. Those members of our staff who are trained work right alongside Natchez Trace staff and are able to gain additional training and valuable experience from this partnership.

Thank you for your article about the Yosemite User Capacity Symposium. To my knowledge, your article is the only one published in a news paper.

I believe that the park has not released an actual news release article to the media on this upcoming event because they would like to control what information about this subject gets to the media. After the event, I am guessing the park service will spin an article to the media news people that puts their perspectives in a good light, as they relate to the changes in the park they intend to make, and are making. The park service has already stated that they do not want a carrying capacity, and will find a way around it, as is the case with their faulted V.E.R.P. system, which allows for growth as perspectives change over time. The changes they have made to Yosemite Valley and are making will be to the intended exclusion of average Americans who want to camp in Yosemite Valley, and the increase of the foreign day trip visitors that arrive on tour buses from San Francisco each day by the droves, swarming the park with people wandering all over the park by the tens of thousands each day. That is where the park service is headed with their new development plans for Yosemite Valley, with the removal of campgrounds and campsite is the Valley over recent years.

If you'll notice, the park has managed to eliminate three and a half entire campgrounds from the Valley recently, while they have invested in the development of spectacular tour bus friendly infrastructures that enables the Valley to accommodate ten times the amounts of daily visitors that it ever did on the busiest of days at any time in the past. Specifically, I am referring to the strengthening and widening of various roads into and out of the valley, that they say will accommodate the large tour buses better, the expansion of paved trails at the Lower Yosemite Falls area, that they say will accommodate more people, which they feel is a positive statement. Clearly their new Yosemite Lodge plans will accommodate more people and is going forward as planned, along with their new city like sewer expansion project, which has been underway now for ten years.

However, the U.S. court of appeals is now reviewing the issue of a Carrying Capacity for our beloved Valley, for all the right reasons. The park service had wanted to eliminate the requirement of a “carrying capacity” in their latest Merced River Plan, but the public created a law suit to hold their feet to the fire. The public won the law suit in regards to the issue of a “carrying capacity”, because we the public understand what they meant by their statement that the park service wanted to "accommodate all who want to come", something of a mantra they have used over time. This is a term they use which actually means that they intend to update the park to accommodate as many people as possible, on any given day, to accommodate a burgeoning foreign tour bus industry. The park service is paving the way for these new tourist businesses capitalizing on Yosemite National Park, while eliminating campgrounds* for Americans who like to recreate there by way of the most popular method of visiting the park; which is camping.

Campers bring their food with them, they often have kids and campfires, and they don't meet the modern "green" compliance requirements the park wants to aspire to. This is where the public needs to jump in. Many of us either like to camp or we want to protect the rights of future Americans who will want to camp in Yosemite Valley, like many of us have done. We can be "green". More often than not, we are environmentally concerned. We are okay with limiting the number of footprints on the ground, to preserve and protect our park.

If the park would replace the campgrounds they removed, they should establish a use carrying capacity for the park around the inclusion of those park visitors first, before they decide to establish a carrying capacity that might include five-million international tour bus visitors in the park per year. The park service's manipulation of the demographics of the visitors, targeting visitors who spend money over Americans who just want to camp, is wrong. Please consider attending this symposium, if you want to contribute your views to their so called efforts to establish a plan for moving forward with a Carrying Capacity for our park. Join the efforts, if you agree, with the Yosemite Valley Campers Coalition, or www.yosemitevalleycampers.org, in their effort to protect camper’s interests in Yosemite, by setting a limit on how many people can swarm into Yosemite Valley each day or year, but only after the campsites that they removed in 1997 without public comment are replaced.

Mark Sutherlin

* The campgrounds removed, as mentioned above consist of Upper and Lower Rivers Campgrounds, half of Lower Pines Campground and the Yosemite Valley Group Campground.

I totally agree with Kath's comment. The only suggestion I would add to it is this: while making that last half mile of the climb, there are areas of large gaps between chains. Some of the gaps are in spots where the chains would certainly add to the stability and safety of the climber. If the chains were continuous to the top, with short or no gaps, I believe the safety would be improved significantly.

Kurt, you do say it like it is! Pure greed!! I wish I could write with such flair and poise..."the pen is mightier then the sword"!

Kurt, I was just gonna say what the article said in the last sentence, so rather than repeat it.... Well said!