-or GOOGLE our full site -
Heads Up!
Wild Wilderness believes that America's public recreation lands are a national treasure that must be financially supported by the American people and held in public ownership as a legacy for future generations
BLOG CONTENT
OLDER CONTENT
|
HOME  - Land management Should Yosemite be about people or profit?
|
Should Yosemite be about people or profit? |
|
Written by Guest: Bridget McGinniss Kerr
|
|
Saturday, 01 December 2007 |
 The campaign to raise fear of being locked out of Yosemite by our
National Park Service is slickly backed by private funds and political
might. This spin befuddles Americans enough to make what's truly at
stake in Yosemite frustrating and nearly incomprehensible.
Despite having lost two federal court battles on visitor capacity
issues, the park has brought its refusal to comply with the Wild and
Scenic Rivers Act in Yosemite before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
-- at taxpayer expense.
It is not easy to sort through the controversial plans and
misinformation of a government agency that does not follow its mission
or the laws designed to protect public places.
But the main issue being debated in court could be distilled down to
one question: How many people can be along the Merced River in Yosemite
Valley at the same time?
National parks are the American commons. Yosemite's natural beauty has
something to offer everyone, no matter their philosophical bent,
personality type or income level. And our society is in trouble if we
cannot preserve the Incomparable Valley.
Apparently, our government feels it does not have to follow the
protections of the rivers act -- at least when it comes to managing
capacity in Yosemite Valley.
The Yosemite debate is often painted as esoteric, involving purists
versus the park service. However, there is nothing difficult to
understand about a management problem with a popular hiking destination
and the death this summer on Half Dome -- clearly the result of too
many people in the same place at the same time.
Extreme gridlock
Park managers imply that if they are forced to tackle capacity issues,
freedom to enjoy Yosemite would be lost. But managing capacity has more
to do with making sure that visitors can get continued equitable access
than it has to do with denying entry.
Dealing adequately with user capacity, as the park service is required
to do, would not entail pulling the welcome mat out from under
visitors. Such a scenario more accurately describes what can happen now
on a holiday weekend in Yosemite. When extreme gridlock occurs, the
park can, and will, suddenly turn visitors away.
Profiteers are pushing people from Yosemite. Most of the money (94%)
for the Yosemite Valley Plan is slated for construction; only 6% is
earmarked for ecological restoration. The only green part of the plan
is our tax dollars ushering profit for the park concessionaire.
Calling the Yosemite plan a restoration plan is an example of our
government using Orwellian euphemisms to cover the ugly truth. The 1997
flood was a natural process. Legitimate infrastructure repairs have
already been done. These plans pave the way for further
commercialization of your commons.
Yosemite was not designated a national park for its gift shops or
high-end accommodations; it was preserved because of its natural
features. Rather than polarizing national recreation and environmental
groups or discrediting citizens who ask questions, the park service
needs to be working meaningfully on this capacity puzzle.
Considering the complexity of Yosemite's issues, park managers ought to
work at finding common ground with people rather than partnering up
with corporations.
More unity than disparity
The local grass-roots organizations holding the park service
accountable are of varied political and economic backgrounds. They are
just as concerned with social equity as with protecting the Merced
River's status as wild and scenic. They volunteer their time to care
for our commons. They understand from experience that those who know
Yosemite have much more unity than disparity.
Couldn't we all agree that in Yosemite Valley we need to:
Protect what is there now.
Ecologically restore what we can.
Not destroy any more of what we still have.
If the park service were to follow these simple concepts, Yosemite
could offer timeless beauty for future generations, regardless of
fickle economics.
I'm grateful to be able to know Yosemite in all its seasons, but when
near fistfights ensue over parking spaces, it is difficult to ignore
the problem.
As a local resident, I must report that our government blurs economics
with American freedom. This summer, Yosemite Valley was busier than it
has been in years -- in spite of grim theories floated proclaiming
American families homebody couch-potatoes with kids preferring GameBoys
to open space and trees.
I love Yosemite Valley, even when waterfalls are hushed, meadow grasses
are more gold than green and the Merced River has lost its exuberance.
I just wonder if people would feel so hassled by Yosemite if the park
service would stop making excuses and finally deal with the hard
questions.
Bridget McGinniss Kerr, a twenty-year resident of El Portal, is a
freelance writer and editor and a member of Friends of Yosemite Valley.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fair Use Notice: This site may contain copyrighted material
the use of which has not always been specifically authorized
by the copyright owner.
We are making such material available in our efforts
to advance understanding of
criminal justice, human rights, political, economic, democratic, scientific,
and social justice issues, etc.
We believe this constitutes a 'fair use'
of any such copyrighted material
as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law.
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107,
the material on this site is distributed without profit
to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving
the included information for research and educational purposes. |
|
|
|
