Re: Parklands Update: More Thoughts on the Merced River Ruling

[Pkr...@aol.com]

Scott,

 

It will be interesting indeed to see how the NPS approaches the setting of visitor use limits to Yosemite Valley and the Merced River, especially now that the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has issued its landmark ruling.  In fact, I wonder what impact this ruling will have on other NPS units? 

 

The establishment of any sort of visitor carrying capacity for Yosemite (or for other parks), of course, will be most unpopular with local and regional communities dependent on income from tourism. 

 

Because of the impact that such limits may have on local economies, I anticipate that gateway communities may engage in aggressive political efforts to weaken the legislation upon which the 9th Circuit Court based its opinion.  Whether or not the NPS joins efforts to weaken the SWRA remains to be seen.

 

For Yosemite Valley proper, I would hope that establishing limits on visitor use would have much more to do with limiting (or eliminating) the number of private cars on park roads as opposed to the number of people per se, and that tent camping and hiking be encouraged as the preferred types of visitor use. 

 

Owen

---

Create a Home Theater Like the Pros. Watch the video on AOL Home.

[Ron Mackie]

Thank you Scott for your response. Yes the last 10 years have been
contentious on this issue with some citizens. Actually the
discussion goes back ( at least my minor involvement in it) to the
middle 1960's when then Yosemite Park Supt. John Davis ordered us, on
a Memorial Day weekend, to start turning cars away once everything
was filled. Those were interesting times. Vehicles would come in
through the South Entrance all night long, much like some of the
parks on the Colorado River still do today. I still remember standing
at the Curry Village 4 way at midnight and telling visitors that they
would have to leave the park, everything was full. Needless to say,
there were some unhappy campers, but I believe it was the beginning
of the no out of bounds camping policies still in effect now 40 years
later. Scott, I think the park management team is open and making
every effort to deal with Yosemite Park issues, weather I agree with
all their decisions or not. For me personally, I have found the staff
at Yosemite very competent and friendly when I have attended their
open house planning meetings. I (and others in attendance) were
permitted their say, and where employees differed with us, it was
open and above board. I agree that the issue of visitor capacity has
been a topic of discussion both in house among employees and with
citizen groups. In my 37 years in the park, even though I represented
a position of support for visitor capacity, I was never penalized for
that. I had my say, and all of us continued to work hard on this
issue within the constraints placed on the park by the
administration or congress, or both (none of which I was particularly
knowledgeable about). In fact, every Park Superintendent I worked
under (and there were 11 of them) were very concerned about the
issue, starting with Supt. John Preston and here today with Supt.
Mike Tollefson. It has been a 48 year discussion and probably goes
back further than that. Scott I read your posts with interest, but I
feel Supt. Tollefson and staff are getting a bum rap on this issue..
There are many informed citizens who were very concerned about this
litigation both in and out of the environmental community on many
sides of the table. I personally am optimistic that the 9th circuit
court decision will be implemented. In fact the park staff was
conforming to Judge Ishi's order to revise the MRP even while
appealing the decision. Its been an extremely interesting and
educational experience for me personally. Best wishes Scott.

---- Original Message ----
From: ssi...@wildwilderness.org
To: parklan...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Parklands Update: More Thoughts on the Merced River Ruling
Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2008 14:21:29 -0700

>>Scott, for me personally, I am opposed to the "heads roll approach".
>
>Ron -
>
>I too would normally be opposed to that approachl ... but for two
>things.
>
>There is little or no accountability within the agency for these
>unacceptable behaviors and 2) Tollefson pushed beyond the limits of
>acceptable behavior.
>
>If you've read the decision, you'll have noted that within the NPS,
>people understand (and spoke openly albeit behind closed doors about)
>the inadequacy of what they were doing. That one itme of fact would
>be enough to call for Tollefson's removal. And yet there was so much
>more than that.
>
>Today my concern is primarily with the anticipated efforts of the NPS
>to weaken the WSRA and to work with access-crazed recreation groups
>(and, of course, with their tourism industry partners) in an effort
>to build opposition to such things as the carrying capacity
>requirement. The ARC and NPHA has long led the charge against the use
>of carrying capacity and they are ready and willing to mobilize their
>troops, or so I expect.
>
>My concern is that the NPS will work more actively and aggressively
>than ever to do the wrong thing. It is for that reason why, in this
>case, I think it imperative that heads do, in fact, roll.
>
>That said ... I won't be expending a great deal of time in pursuing
>Tollefson's removal. I have merely suggested that I believe it is not
>only a deserved punishment, I think it would be highly cathartic for
>the agency. Tollefson's removal would greatly increase the likelihood
>that the recent victory will be permitted to stand.
>
>Ron, I have lost all confidence in the NPS. What confidence I did
>have, has been excised. If I am ever to regain trust in the park
>service, it will be because of actions taken by the agency in the
>months and years to come.
>
>I hate to say this ... but seeing heads roll would, in fact, engender
>some measure of confidence. If, on the other hand, I see the park
>service spinning their loss as being the consequence of the actions
>of a small bunch of extreme anti-development environmentalists, then
>I just might find the time and energy with which to make Tollefson's
>removal a priority item.
>
>Let's see how the NPS attempts to spin the Merced River court case in
>the current media cycle. Shall we?
>
>Scott
>

[mark]

Here is a new Letter to Editor from Bridget Kerr, member of the
plaintiffs in the Yosemite law sute that printed today in the Fresno
Bee, which you may find of interest:

Letter to the editor from Fresno Bee

Be honest in Yosemite
04/01/08 22:14:31
The appellate court ruling on Yosemite isn't about projects (story
March 28), it is about the National Park Service failing for 17 years
to adopt a plan protecting the Merced River. It cannot continue to
develop the river corridor until it does so. The park service made no
effort to convince the court that further disturbance and construction
should be allowed.

The park continues to propagandize that "a few people with narrow
views" hinder big-dollar projects when objections came from some 52
environmental and resource groups, including Madera and Tuolumne
counties. And calling groups who supported the park in their costly
appeal "conservationists" is quite a stretch.

There were 800-plus family-friendly campsites in Yosemite Valley
before the flood, and the park service plans to reduce that to 500. By
stopping the proposed Upper Pines expansion, the court stopped the
closure of the existing North Pines campground.

Yosemite park spokesman Scott Gediman bemoans a failing utility system
and Valley Loop Road. This type of work has been allowed to proceed;
legitimate infrastructure repairs have never been contested. It's time
for Yosemite management to be honest with the public.

Bridget McGinniss Kerr

End quote.