California Assemblyman Tom McClintock wrote an excellent editorial in the August 24th Wall Street Journal about plans that the National Park Service is making to reduce the "amenities" in Yosemite Valley.
Tom McClintock: Yosemite National Park: Closed for Preservation - The NPS has been working on this plan for quite a while, and it now over 2500 pages. Here is a link to it. It is called the Merced River Plan, and it is obviously too much for one person to read and fully comprehend. Here is a link to a "summary fact sheet." It appears to me that the issue is that the River was added to the list of "wild and scenic rivers" that require protection. This created a conflict between the goals of a National Park, and the goals of maintaining a wilderness-type of river. Apparently the goal of the NPS plan is to do more to "preserve" the natural state of Yosemite Valley, and reduce the impact and "footprint" of the millions of visitors each year. By eliminating swimming pools and ice skating rinks, they think they can reduce the number of people and the length of the stay of the visitors there. Of course Tom McClintock's district includes Yosemite National Park and the "gateway communities" that service the park, so the economies of those communities will be severely affected by any downturn in tourism to that area. Brian H. Ouzounian is the co-founder of the Yosemite Valley Campers Coalition. on August 1st, wrote an editorial in the New York Times that complains that the NPS Merced River Plan will destroy the Affordable Family Vacation. I agree with him! We want to make our National Parks as accessible as possible to families. It appears that fewer American families are visiting the National Parks. They are spending more time "online" and less out doors. I think it is important that children learn up close and personal about the natural history of our country. Being able to actually touch rocks, antlers, streams and trees is very important to children's understanding of the world.
After 20 years, my family returned to Yosemite Valley this past summer. I did notice some changes! However I thought most of them were for the better. The traffic and parking throughout the park made a lot more sense! One thing I did notice was that it seemed that most visitors were from foreign countries. I saw very few typical American families in the park -- that clearly demonstrates that Yosemite is a HUGE international tourist draw. People may come and visit San Francisco or LA --but they can visit cities anywhere. There is only one Yosemite Valley --and it could never be duplicated! It is not just a National Treasure, but is an INTERNATIONAL treasure! If foreign visitors are willing to take those long bus rides into Yosemite at a fairly high expense, it is clear that Yosemite is bringing in lots of foreign travel dollars, and that it would bring in even more if we could manage it properly.
I concur completely with the concept of preservation. I agree we should preserve these National Park treasures for "all time" Yosemite National Park is HUGE -- and much or most of that land can and should be preserved from damage. However does this small area of the Valley is unique. I'm not sure it needs to be restored to a wilderness-type of environment. Yes any development or improvements need to be carefully planned to minimize the impact on the environment. But I believe it could be done in such a way that more people from all over the world could enjoy a visit to the park.
One of the problems of Yosemite Valley is too many vehicles, and the long, twisty drive to get into the valley. I believe that all cars (and trucks) could be banned from all of the entrance roads into the valley, and all cars be banned from the actual valley floor. Instead, a very large "Incline" cable car could connect the top to the bottom for moving freight and people in and out of the valley. The ride on the car would itself be an adventure. While on the valley floor, a series of people movers following the current roadways would afford visitors a way to get around the park. Yes such a system of incline cable cars and people movers would require a lot of planning, and would be a huge undertaking to construct. However it doesn't seem that it would be all that much more complicated than the construction of the current roads and tunnels.
One of the recommendations of the Merced River Plan is to eliminate the swimming pools -- which will force more families, and children to swim in the Merced river. This will likely result in more pollution to the river from people, and injuries or drownings in the river. Another one is to eliminate bike rentals in the park. That would mean that the many tourists that come on busses would not have access to bikes, and would need to use shuttle busses? People who want to use bikes would need to bring them (on trailers) or rent them outside the park (a long drive). How does that improve the environment?
I also think we need to "follow the money" and find out who is going to gain from the changes proposed in the Merced River Plan. By eliminating camping, bicycles, swimming pools and other amenities in Yosemite Valley, will that "scarcity" make the prices of the remaining services all that much higher? Who will profit? It's is clear that the vendors who have NPS franchises in the park are gouging the visitors with extremely high prices. We camped outside the park. We didn't spend any money there--everything was too expensive! It seemed to me when we visited that there was probably need for more "competition" -- more bike rental companies, more, competing lodging alternatives, not less. If the NPS does issue these franchises, they should exercise control over the fees charged. Otherwise we may find out that there are some franchise holders are making unfair profit at the expense of US Citizens.
Tom McClintock: Yosemite National Park: Closed for Preservation - The NPS has been working on this plan for quite a while, and it now over 2500 pages. Here is a link to it. It is called the Merced River Plan, and it is obviously too much for one person to read and fully comprehend. Here is a link to a "summary fact sheet." It appears to me that the issue is that the River was added to the list of "wild and scenic rivers" that require protection. This created a conflict between the goals of a National Park, and the goals of maintaining a wilderness-type of river. Apparently the goal of the NPS plan is to do more to "preserve" the natural state of Yosemite Valley, and reduce the impact and "footprint" of the millions of visitors each year. By eliminating swimming pools and ice skating rinks, they think they can reduce the number of people and the length of the stay of the visitors there. Of course Tom McClintock's district includes Yosemite National Park and the "gateway communities" that service the park, so the economies of those communities will be severely affected by any downturn in tourism to that area. Brian H. Ouzounian is the co-founder of the Yosemite Valley Campers Coalition. on August 1st, wrote an editorial in the New York Times that complains that the NPS Merced River Plan will destroy the Affordable Family Vacation. I agree with him! We want to make our National Parks as accessible as possible to families. It appears that fewer American families are visiting the National Parks. They are spending more time "online" and less out doors. I think it is important that children learn up close and personal about the natural history of our country. Being able to actually touch rocks, antlers, streams and trees is very important to children's understanding of the world.
After 20 years, my family returned to Yosemite Valley this past summer. I did notice some changes! However I thought most of them were for the better. The traffic and parking throughout the park made a lot more sense! One thing I did notice was that it seemed that most visitors were from foreign countries. I saw very few typical American families in the park -- that clearly demonstrates that Yosemite is a HUGE international tourist draw. People may come and visit San Francisco or LA --but they can visit cities anywhere. There is only one Yosemite Valley --and it could never be duplicated! It is not just a National Treasure, but is an INTERNATIONAL treasure! If foreign visitors are willing to take those long bus rides into Yosemite at a fairly high expense, it is clear that Yosemite is bringing in lots of foreign travel dollars, and that it would bring in even more if we could manage it properly.
I concur completely with the concept of preservation. I agree we should preserve these National Park treasures for "all time" Yosemite National Park is HUGE -- and much or most of that land can and should be preserved from damage. However does this small area of the Valley is unique. I'm not sure it needs to be restored to a wilderness-type of environment. Yes any development or improvements need to be carefully planned to minimize the impact on the environment. But I believe it could be done in such a way that more people from all over the world could enjoy a visit to the park.
One of the problems of Yosemite Valley is too many vehicles, and the long, twisty drive to get into the valley. I believe that all cars (and trucks) could be banned from all of the entrance roads into the valley, and all cars be banned from the actual valley floor. Instead, a very large "Incline" cable car could connect the top to the bottom for moving freight and people in and out of the valley. The ride on the car would itself be an adventure. While on the valley floor, a series of people movers following the current roadways would afford visitors a way to get around the park. Yes such a system of incline cable cars and people movers would require a lot of planning, and would be a huge undertaking to construct. However it doesn't seem that it would be all that much more complicated than the construction of the current roads and tunnels.
One of the recommendations of the Merced River Plan is to eliminate the swimming pools -- which will force more families, and children to swim in the Merced river. This will likely result in more pollution to the river from people, and injuries or drownings in the river. Another one is to eliminate bike rentals in the park. That would mean that the many tourists that come on busses would not have access to bikes, and would need to use shuttle busses? People who want to use bikes would need to bring them (on trailers) or rent them outside the park (a long drive). How does that improve the environment?
I also think we need to "follow the money" and find out who is going to gain from the changes proposed in the Merced River Plan. By eliminating camping, bicycles, swimming pools and other amenities in Yosemite Valley, will that "scarcity" make the prices of the remaining services all that much higher? Who will profit? It's is clear that the vendors who have NPS franchises in the park are gouging the visitors with extremely high prices. We camped outside the park. We didn't spend any money there--everything was too expensive! It seemed to me when we visited that there was probably need for more "competition" -- more bike rental companies, more, competing lodging alternatives, not less. If the NPS does issue these franchises, they should exercise control over the fees charged. Otherwise we may find out that there are some franchise holders are making unfair profit at the expense of US Citizens.
No comments:
Post a Comment