http://www.abcnews.go.com/onair/CloserLook/wnt000707_CL_nationalparks_feature.html go to http://www.sierratel.com/unclejohn/index.htm and link to petition the parks plan to stop the overcrowding with deisel buses. Save Yosemite! Electric Buses are less nosy, cleaner. Stop the Madness!
“SAVE Yosemite”?
“Stop the MADNESS”?
Joy, meaning absolutely no disrespect, don’t you think you’re being a little alarmist? As an interested and reasonable American I disdain “all or nothing” arguments about complex, gray issues like yours. Perhaps you and other petitioners are hurting a worthy cause in the long run by crying “wolf” at every little puppy that wonders by?
Do you really think that buses – albeit deisel ones – are a step in the wrong direction?
The idea behind buses is to keep the cars out of the Valley, which IMO is a good thing. Once the cars are stopped, the next step can be a switch from deisel to electric, or hybrid.
Either way, I try to stay away from the Valley. There’s so much nicer stuff in Yosemite.
I’m still trying to figure out what the question is?
Maybe slightly over dramatic, but you know what? Yosemite is one of my favorite places in the world. They are killing the bears because they get into people’s cars. People freak out because bears get into there campsites and eat thier food that they leave out. I do believe that cars need to be outlawed in Yosemite. And camping brought to a minimum. You made a good point Telemark, that later they can switch to hybrid/electric buses, but you know what? They already have electric buses in Yosemite, and now they want to bring diesel buses in, too. The cars in Yosemite are horrendous, not to mention the bazillions of R.V.'s that cruise through constantly. I hope that they use our tax money wisely that’s all. Not in the best interest for the people, but for the wildlife and natural beauty of the park. Please consider the petition for a cleaner less noisy atmosphere for our fellow animals.
While I can see where electric buses are quieter, why are they cleaner? This is maybe the biggest fallacy of the whole electric car bandwagon. The only place that an electric vehicle is “cleaner” than a regular vehicle is at the tail pipe. But, unless the electric vehicle is being recharged with solar power, there is a power plant somewhere that is still pumping out the CO2, CO and O3.
I think all people should be banned from Yosemite. That’s about as minimum as you can go. Oh, environmentalists could go in. Just not The Great Unwashed Masses.
What’s the difference between a “developer” and an “environmentalist”? The developer wants to build a house in the forest. The environmentalist already has a house in the forest.
The Great Unwashed Masses want to visit Yosemite. The Environmentalists want to keep them out so they can visit Yosemite.
There’s not really a question here. I’m-a-gonna move this thread over to Great Debates.
Johnny L.A. is calling it about right. “Close the Roads in our National Forests.” “Stop people from driving around our National Parks.” Who says these things? The people who like to backpack, rought it, ride horses, etc…
Well, Federal land belongs to people with cars, too; so get over it! And really, buses are a step in the right direction to reduce some of the crowding, regardless of how they are powered.
Just this weekend, I saw an editorial by Thomas Sowell talking about his recent trips to Yosemite (or was it Yellowstone?–I forget). Anyway, it’s been an annual occasion for his family. He said that this year was by far the least crowded in recent memory. Easy parking, whereas before it was very difficult to find a spot. Part of the reason, I think he mentioned was that the Park gas station was shut down.
Anyway, this attitude has got to be changed that the unwashed masses in cars are not as welcome as Grizzly Adams with the backpack.
Just so you know, the government doesn’t pay to keep Yosemite up solely for your benefit. The National Park Service is pretty heavily subsidized, and buying electric buses so that it’s a little quieter is not the sort of thing they can afford to spend money on. Just because you really like the place doesn’t give you any sort of preference in how the taxpayers’ money is spent. The National Park Service has a responsibility to make the parks accessible to as many people as possible.
I love Yosemite, too, and I’ve done my share of bitching and moaning about the number of cars, busses, and plain ol’ people there, but I don’t really think it’s reasonable to start excluding people just because it’s a popular place. I mean, getting folks into the great outdoors is a good thing, right? The more people who experience Yosemite, the more people there are to defend it and other wild areas from development, habitat destruction, clear-cutting, etc.
True, Yosemite is a stunning place, but there are a lot of other places that are nearly its equal, where cars are already prohibited. Spend a week or two in the Desolation Wilderness near Lake Tahoe, for example.
I don’t want to see Yosemite get paved over and developed to the gills, but on the other hand, I think it’s only fair to provide access to as many people as possible, as long as that access is not detrimental to the overall health of the park.
THAT, I think, is the rub…how many visitors can the park sustain before it begins to suffer?
I visit Yosemite at least once a year. It seems better lately, not as crowded. They are making some steps in the right direction, with the shuttle busses, etc.
I remember a few years ago, I stayed in Yosemite Lodge, in a room right by the “main” road through the Valley. This room was also veru close to the stunning Yosemite Falls. Usually you can hear the falls roaring from your room - but we hear LOTS and LOTS of cars and busses passing by. It sort of spoils it. During the busy season, the best way to get around the Valley is to find a spot to park your car early in the day, and take the shuttle bus around. (Actually, you should do this any time of the year!) I’ve gotten used to it, so as long as the busses are regular, I don’t mind. It’s kind of fun. I do like the freedom of my car, and I don’t want to give that up entirely. I’d like to still be able to drive up to Tuolumne Meadows, for instance. (That’s a long drive from the Valley! Sometimes you gotta find a bathroom!) But for the Valley, taking the shuttle is fine with me. And the Valley is the place that gets the most traffic.
Oh, and those plethora of tour busses–they get a little old sometimes too. Though, I don’t know what the solution is for that. Just because some of us are old-timer Yosemite geeks (and put “Yosemite” in their internet usernames…:)) and know how to get around by car or shuttle, doesn’t mean that those Euorpeon tourists can do the same thing, or will have the time to do that.
I think the problem is an overabundance of cars and non-park ammentities, not the people, although it is possible to love something to death. Take a look at places like the Grand Canyon, where very little traffic is allowed. You take shuttle buses along the rim roads, and everyone can get to where they want to go.
Yosemite Valley is a place that would benefit greatly from removing most of the cars. People go there to sightsee, and the shuttle buses are better way to do that. There’s only one road loop, so the buses could go by every 10 minutes.
The other major part of the Valley Plan is to remove housing for the hotel employees, placing them outside the Valley. Removing things like the video arcade and other things that really have no place in the park are on the list as well.
The parks are for people, not cars. If cars are causing problems, and there is a way of giving people access without much disruption, then we shouldn’t stick to the idea that people must travel everywhere in their own personal vehicle.
It should be noted that the National Forest Service is way ahead of the National Park Service on this one. Not 20 miles SE of the Yosemite Valley floor, the Forest Service requires day trippers to ride a bus to the floor of the Middle Fork of the San Joaquin River (location of the Devil’s Postpile and Rainbow Falls). Vehicles carrying 11 or more people, and vehicles with those staying overnight are allowed in; everyone else parks up at the Mammoth Ski Area and rides buses in. The reduced impact on the fragile valley floor has been considerable.
The same system, essentially, is being proposed for Yosemite. No one bitches about the Postpile; it’s only news for the Valley because of the notoriety of the place.
The Postpile bussing is an interesting example of how difficult resource management can be. Originally the road, rather narrow and steep for about two miles, was unpaved, surfaced with cinders/pumice natural to the area. In the 1980’s, they determined that the dust from the cars travelling the road was damaging the plants near the road, clogging their ‘pores’ and choking them. The Forest Service decided to pave the road. Once paved, the main impediment to travelling to the valley floor was removed (the old drive was a bit difficult; try backing up a one-lane road with a 7% grade sometime when it isn’t paved and has a steep falloff on one side), more people started driving down to the Postpile. Thus, the busses.
The busses in Yosemite would have another positive value. Driving around on the valley floor can be an exercise in extreme traffic patience; once in the stream of cars moving along the one way road, it becomes very difficult to get anywhere that the masses aren’t, and the whole thing moves incredibly slowly. Eliminating the cars would allow quicker, more easy transportation between sites. There are, of course, some downsides, but, hey, no solution is perfect.
One last minor quibble: electric busses in California might well be more environmentally friendly, any way you look at it. A significant percentage of the electricity generation in that area is hydroelectric, quite a bit cleaner than diesel fuel burning. Other than that, (and excluding the nuclear plant electricity from discussion), yes, one has a difficult task analyzing the relative value to the environment of generating electricity by burning coal or oil at a plant or in an engine. Still, the tailpipe emissions immediately impact the Valley; generation elsewhere may have less impact on environmentally sensitive areas.
Finally, I would urge ANYONE who visits Yosemite National Park to get away from the Valley floor and get up into the actual mountains. HIKE for goodness sake; a day trip is easy to do and allows you to see the real beauty of the area. Try the Tioga Pass road, or see if you can poke around the South end of the Park.
Thank you for your insight DSYoungEsq! I did not know that the National Forest Service already had busses only in effect. That is one more reason why Yosemite (and other National Parks for that matter) should use busses only. I agree that people should actually use thier legs and hike. It was surprising to me the morons we would get in the restaurant who would brag about the pictures they got from there CARS! I once saw a Surburban stop in the middle of the road and try to snatch up a fox who was very frightend and walking slowly in the lane! All the stupid people! They should give classes to avoid such ignorance of the wildlife that surrounds them! Anyway I thank you all for your opinons on this matter and I hope you visit my friend, John’s website for more info on Yosemite!
This thread has illustrated perfectly the schizophrenic nature of the “purpose” of National Parks.
Canada’s first National Park–Banff–was set aside in 1885, for the explicit reason that the Canadian Pacific Railway wanted to operate a resort spa catering to the whims of the privileged classes–an “island of civilization’ in the midst of wilderness.” It was simply a playground for the idle rich.
Thinking changed by the 1930’s, when conservation of natural areas for their inherent ecological values became the goal of some visionaries. The central thought of Parks Canada’s current mission statement is that National Parks "…are protected for public understanding, appreciation and enjoyment, while being maintained in an unimpaired state for future generations."
In other words, protection and presentation are equally important: what is the value to the nation of using public funds to protect an ecosystem if no-one has the opportunity to learn from that ecosystem? At the same time, public appreciation and enjoyment today cannot be allowed to override the need to preserve an ecosystem in perpetuity.
Are we doing the job well? The Panel on the Ecological Integrity of Canada’s National Parks just released their report, which found that of the 37 Canadian National Parks listed in 1997, 22 have been identified as being under major or severe environmental danger from both external and internal threat.
Here’s a quote from an eloquent, intelligent Parks Canada colleague on the subject:
The author of the above quote, Kevin van Tiegem, works in Waterton National Park, on the Alberta-Montana border.
I suggest that his thoughts transcend the imaginary line of the 49th Parallel, and are relevant to both US and Canadian National Parks.