Posted on 08/01/2013 4:54:57 PM PDT by Congressman Tom McClintock
Yosemite Valley is a national treasure that was set aside in 1864 with the promise it would be preserved for the express purpose of “Public Use, Resort and Recreation.” Ever since, Americans have enjoyed a host of recreational opportunities and amenities as they have come to celebrate the splendor of the Valley.
Now, the National Parks Service, at the urging of leftist environmental groups, is proposing eliminating many of those amenities, including bicycle and raft rentals, horseback riding rentals, gift shops, snack facilities, swimming pools, and iconic facilities including the Ice Skating Rink at Curry Village, the art center and historic stone bridges that date back to the 1920’s.
For generations, these facilities have enhanced the enjoyment of the park for millions of visitors, adding a rich variety of recreational activities amidst the breathtaking backdrop of Yosemite. But today, the very nature and purpose of Yosemite is being changed from its original promise of “Public Use, Resort, and Recreation,” to an exclusionary agenda that can best be described as, “Look, but don’t touch.”
As public outrage has mounted, these leftist groups have found willing mouthpieces in the editorial boards of the left-leaning San Francisco Chronicle and Sacramento Bee. It is obvious their writers have either not read the report or are deliberately misrepresenting it to their readers.
They say the plan is designed to relieve overcrowding at the park. In fact, this plan compounds the overcrowding.
In 1997, flooding wiped out almost half the campsites at Yosemite Valley. Congress appropriated $17 million to replace those campsites. The money was spent. The campsites were never replaced. That’s causing the overcrowding – half the campsites for the same number of visitors. This plan would lock in a 30 percent reduction in campsites – and a 50 percent reduction in lodging – compared to the pre-flood era.
Three swimming pools in the Valley give visitors a safe place with lifeguards for their children to cool off in the summer. The Park Service wants to close two of them. That means packed overcrowding at the remaining pool, pushing families seeking water recreation into the Merced River.
They assure us they’re not eliminating all of the shops at Yosemite, but only reducing the number of them. Understand the practical impact on tourists: it means they must walk much greater distances to access these services and then endure long lines when they get there.
Another of their falsehoods is that the plan doesn’t ban services like bike rentals, but just moves them to better locations. The government’s own report puts the lie to this claim. It specifically speaks to “eliminating” and “removing” these services. It goes on to specifically state: “Over time, visitors would become accustomed to the absence of these facilities and would no longer expect them as a part of their experience in Yosemite.” Their intent could not possibly be any clearer.
We are assured that although bicycle rentals will be – and I am using the government’s word – “eliminated” – from the Valley in the interest of environmental protection, visitors will still be free to bring their own bikes. That invites an obvious question: what exactly is the environmental difference between a rented bicycle and a privately-owned bicycle?
We are assured, in the smarmy words of the Sacramento Bee, that the plan merely contemplates “relocating raft rentals, so they meet visitors at the river.” In truth, the plan specifically states that it will “Allow only private boating in this river segment,” and will limit total permits to 100 per day.
Mr. Speaker, every lover of Yosemite needs to read this report. It proposes breaking of the compact between the American people and their government that promised “public use, resort and recreation…for all time” when the park was established.
My district includes the Yosemite National Park and I represent the gateway communities that depend on park tourism to support their economies. The affected counties and communities are unanimous in their vigorous opposition to this plan and in a recent phone survey, the people of these communities – who are jealous guardians of Yosemite – expressed opposition to it in numbers well exceeding 80 percent.
Many things need to be done to improve gate access and traffic flow through the park. But destroying the amenities that provide enjoyment for millions of Yosemite visitors each year is not among them.
Sounds like Yosemite is being loved to death.
They’ve been pushing this for a long time. I believe the eventual goal is to restore it to its “pristine virginity” status. Then only young hippies would be able to enjoy the Valley.
Old people and families with young children would effectively be banned from the park.
I say bring back the the Glacier Point firefall!
Wait until they close off all trails which are not handicapped-accessible.
There's plenty of country up there where you can get away from people.
North America has been effectively gardened by humans for thousands of years. There is no 'pristine virginity'.
/johnny
Which groups exactly?
Have been there twice. Both times way TOO MANY people!!!
What is this? A National Park or a carnival midway? Sheesh. Sounds like a long overdue cleanup to me.
Final details won't be out until December, parks director Jon Jarvis told a congressional hearing at the U.S. Capitol, but the park service is considering a plan to store river rafts outside Yosemite Valley and bring them to tourists -- and to set up some kind of self-service kiosks or bicycle-sharing program that could allow bike rentals in the valley to continue without as many staff members and buildings near the Merced River as are there today.The goal, Jarvis said, is to comply with a federal court ruling requiring protections for the river, while also moving as many facilities and campgrounds away from the flood-prone river corridor as possible -- but not too close to the valley's huge granite walls where falling rocks regularly pose a risk to visitors.
"Every planning process in Yosemite is challenging because people care so passionately about the park," Jarvis said. "We share two goals: first to ensure that the public will be able to continue to enjoy the variety of recreational opportunities that the river and its surrounding areas offer, and, second, to preserve the resources."
I watched this back in the 60's. I also spent many winters imbibing adult beverages and making a fool of my self on the ice rink.
just when you think you are where no one has been before there is some SOB in a pickup
What is being proposed is Agenda 21. The ultimate goal is that nobody will even be allowed to set foot in the national forests and parks.
That is why the national forest service is trying to shut down roads in the national forests in many states. It keeps people out.
When I say “pristine viginity” I am referring to the goal of Yosemite Valley reverting to the state it was in when only the Indians lived there.
“Nobody goes there anymore; it’s too crowded.” - Yogi Berra
I recognize that fact.
There should be a happy medium. Limiting access is one I could go for in this instance. Require reservations, which would limit the number of people entering the parks.
Do you have a problem with that proposal?
To quote the hag, “what difference does it make?” because the erf will push the big reset button in the ground when the big one strikes.
Except for the pot growers and meth cookers.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.