Re: American's most endangered historic places

The National Trust for Historic Preservation came out with it's 2012 list. The bridges in Yosemite Valley are on this year's list. To see the list go to:

http://www.preservationnation.org/issues/11-most-endangered/

Some or all of these bridges could be removed depending on what Alternative of the Merced River Plan is chosen.

I don't care about preserving anything man made in the park, other than Tioga Pass Road, HWY 140, and the road to Wawona. Tear down the historic bridges, the Ahwahnee, Yosemite Lodge, the chapel, the Curry pizza deck, Camp Curry, etc for all I care.

Who needs the road to Wawona or Hwy 140, just keep Highway 120 and BOFR and I'm good.
.

Quote
mbear
I don't care about preserving anything man made in the park, other than Tioga Pass Road, HWY 140, and the road to Wawona. Tear down...the Curry pizza deck...for all I care.

Okay now you have just gone too far. That is just over the top and mean.

I'm pretty sure that "deserving of historic protection" isn't the praise most pizza chefs are looking for.

. (trying out Peter's dot thing - edit: yeah, it works - or would if I hadn't edited the results in a way that I couldn't delete)



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 06/06/2012 08:01PM by ttilley.

Bridges are obviously needed, what would they replace them with?

The bridges that might be removed are Sugar Pine, Ahwahnee and Stoneman. They would be removed and not replaced. Right now I can't find the information on how they would redirect vehicle, bike and pedestrian traffic if they were remove.

Too bad the dam in Hetch Hetchy isn't on the list.

Quote
Mom
Too bad the dam in Hetch Hetchy isn't on the list.

That would be sweet. I have still never hiked that area because the thought of seeing that dam with my own two eyes seems too depressing.

I would love to see that dam removed. It never should have been built. I have seen pictures of what that area was like before the dam was built and everytime I go there I want to cry.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/06/2012 05:00PM by parklover.

That's all fine and dandy. You guys realize the list is a list of things they want to preserve....

Removing Ahwahnee Bridge and Sugar Pine Bridge wouldn't have a huge effect.
Stoneman would require some changing of one way to 2 way to/from Curry... but that's about it.

Why should Tioga Road be allowed? How is it so good? Why do you think there are no roads thru SEKI?
Hetch Hetchy area is probably more wilderness like with the dam than it would be without it.

Yes, it's a tragedy it was built. But it's not going anywhere anytime soon so just learn to live with it.

Have a nice day

---

Quote
chick-on

Hetch Hetchy area is probably more wilderness like with the dam than it would be without it.

So true.

If no dam was built it would probably had become quite developed with lodging accommodations, campgrounds, gift shops, and what not, just like how Yosemite Valley is today.

Yes, the "bath tub ring" effect definitely detracts from the current beauty of the Hetch Hetchy, so the best time to visit is when the reservoir is at peak capacity. But I hope that one day it's removed too. There are other viable options with today's technology.

But I'm not crying over it. It is what it is. And it's still a very scenic area (even with the reservoir) so I still very much enjoy my excursions into the Hetch Hetchy region even with the dam in place.

.

Quote
plawrence


If no dam was built it would probably had become quite developed with lodging accommodations, campgrounds, gift shops, and what not, just like how Yosemite Valley is today. .

Now that is a frightening thought. In a perfect world, if there was no dam, the Hetchy Hetchy valley would be like it was when John Muir saw it. Those old pictures of the area before the dam really tug on the heart strings.

Quote
plawrence
If no dam was built [Hetch Hetchy Valley] would probably had become quite developed with lodging accommodations, campgrounds, gift shops, and what not, just like how Yosemite Valley is today.

Perhaps... but Yosemite Valley already had extensive development by 1910 or so--roads, hotels, and other businesses--while Hetch Hetchy was accessible only via trail and had no significant development.

It's possible that HH would have been developed in the Mather era or under a "Mission 66" program, but my guess is that HH valley would have stayed in a state of "limbo" similar to Cedar Grove/Kings Canyon--where the threat of reservoir construction discouraged any investment in development or infrastructure--until the 70s.

Basil,
I read somewhere that Kings was created as an appeasement more or less to
Muir after what occurred in Hetch Hetchy. And it is a big reason why the road ends
at Roads End and doesn't continue all the way thru to 395 on the other side.
Of course I could be wrong on all accounts but that is what I was alluding to above.
Please correct me if I am wrong.

I think also that the HSCs were only suppose to be around for so long and they
would be removed. I always find it amusing the number of people opposed to the
Awahnee but those same people are ok with HSC and all the campgrounds.
Does not compute. Probably if they could get in for cheap they'd be all over it
like Chick-on on a Twinkie.

How's the saying go?
You can please some of the people all of the time and all of the people some of the time but you
can't please all of the people all of the time.

I'd contend that it's impossible to please all of the people some of the time.
Have a nice day

---

Quote
chick-on
Basil,
I read somewhere that Kings was created as an appeasement more or less to Muir after what occurred in Hetch Hetchy.

My understanding is that there was an early proposal for a "John Muir National Park" that would have included most of the land between Sequoia and Yosemite--basically the current Kings Canyon NP and the John Muir and Ansel Adams Wildernesses. Kings Canyon was created in 1940--long after Muir's death, but it didn't include Cedar Grove or Tehipite Valley, as these were sites for proposed hydroelectric dams, and it was believed (probably correctly) that there would never be another opportunity to create a reservoir within a national park (ironically in part because many of those who backed the Raker Act also backed the National Park Service Organic Act a year or so later). Thus the "limbo" status of Cedar Grove--it was a prime location for development for Kings Canyon NP, but was in fact in Sierra National Forest--and under threat of being flooded--until 1965.

Quote
chick-on
And it is a big reason why the road ends at Roads End and doesn't continue all the way thru to 395 on the other side.

Many, including David Brower, Ansel Adams, Norman Livermore, fought the hard fight against this (and other) trans-Sierra highways. The Roads End-Onion Valley route seems to have died when Govenor Reagan opposed it after he participated in a Sierra trek reminiscent of the Mather Mountain Party that was organized by Livermore. (FWIW, Livermore is currently with Restore Hetch Hetchy, still fighting what could be considered the original, big environmental fight...)

Quote
chick-on
I think also that the HSCs were only suppose to be around for so long and they
would be removed. I always find it amusing the number of people opposed to the
Awahnee but those same people are ok with HSC and all the campgrounds.
Does not compute. Probably if they could get in for cheap they'd be all over it
like Chick-on on a Twinkie.

I believe the 1984 California Wilderness Act specifies that the HSCs are excluded as pre-existing conditions, but should the camps be removed, their locations would be included in the Yosemite Wilderness. The park service manages them as potential wilderness additions. A few alternatives of the current Merced River management plans recommend closing Merced Lake HSC, and septic/leach field issues continue to be a challenge at most of the camps, especially Vogelsang.

Thanks so much.

---

Quote
parklover
I would love to see that dam removed.

Be careful what you wish for. I estimate it would take at least 100 years of careful management for HH valley to regenerate to anything like what it used to be if the water were removed. The first couple of decades would be pretty ugly. In particular, that bleached "bathtub ring" would take a very long time to blend in, and there would be a constant battle against invasive scrub (I know we all love Manzanita), which means intrusive human activity attempting to accelerate natural succession.

---

God save the Queen!

When the water levels dropped in Lake Powel because of the drought that has lasted many years, it was shown that recovery of those canyon walls and the vegetation was more rapid than expected. As more and more dams are being removed on western rivers, there will be more oppportunities to study the effects of dam removal.

It is probably a moot point anyway since San Francisco has courted many politicians to prevent the removal.

Besides, if the dam was removed, isn't it worth the years of work and decades of ugliness to be able to give future generations a beautiful valley?

Imagine all the foot traffic going through the valleys back packers site after thats one of the few bridges left in the central valley

Quote
I don't care about preserving anything man made in the park, other than Tioga Pass Road, HWY 140, and the road to Wawona. Tear down the historic bridges, the Ahwahnee, Yosemite Lodge, the chapel, the Curry pizza deck, Camp Curry, etc for all I care.

While I certainly agree they can take the Curry pizza away (the most God-awful cardboard "food" ever devised by mortal man), I would take exception to ever removing the Yosemite Chapel. That's a beautiful, unobtrusive structure and was built in 1879, so there is discernible history behind it. The Ahwahnee is also unobtrusive, tucked away and beautiful. Yosemite Lodge, the cafeteria and all that crap can go and it's too bad the flooding didn't destroy it all.

At least they removed the golf course they used to have by Yosemite Lodge (you can still see the scars and bunkers from the Four Mile Trail). The first thing they should dump is the Wawona Golf Course and Badger Pass Ski Place. Both are disgusting to have in a sacred place like Yosemite.

But in a modern age, it's impractical not to have a store or a place to eat in the Valley. I wish it wouldn't have to be this way, but practicality demands it.

If I ruled the NPS, I would remove some of the lodging from Yosemite Valley starting with the Housekeeping Camp. I'd remove some of the employee and concession employee housing. I'd cut the size of Curry Village. It seems to me that they have added more tent cabins and another bathhouse recently. I would keep the Ahwahnee. It really is beautiful and is compact and unobstrusive.

I'd also ban tour busses from the park. On my recent visit, I was waiting for the shuttle in front of Yosemite lodge and there were three tour busses running their engines, idling, in the parking lot. Noise and air pollution.

Quote
Mom
I'd also ban tour busses from the park. ... Noise ... pollution.

And Harley Davidsons. When we are hiking up out of the valley or on the rim, we hear two things - grumbling diesel bus engines and blap-blap-blap motorcycle engines. But, hey, be happy - at least we don't get snowmobiles in the park.

While we are banning things, much though I love them, mules and horses would be high up my list. Trudging through the thick layer of fine powder they create has spoiled too many miles for me. And packers camps make the "leave no trace" thing ring more than a bit hollow.

Oh, and how about NOT having a busy air lane routed directly over the park?

Yes. I'd ban motorcycles also. Packs of them roar up and down the Tioga Road spoiling the peace of the high country experience.

I never understood what's all the fuzz about the Ahwahnee. It's totally overpriced, it's not a real luxurious hotel compared to a real five star hotel, the food is so-so at best and why would you need a luxurious hotel in surroundings like Yosemite anyway?! Is it beautiful?! Yawn...don't think so. But I agree: compared to other things it is relatively unobstrusive.

A couple of other real good points have been pointed out. I wouldn't mind if motorcycles (Harleys in particular) would disappear from all National Parks. Well, we all know this is not going to happen. Personal freedom...blablablabla....

Tour buses running their engines, idling for hours in the parking lots -> severe - and I mean severe - penalties should apply for those idiots noise and air polluting the environment.

And I wouldn't mind to see mules, horses and HSCs go as well. I guess that's all for today.


Of course I know I'm just daydreaming and as the Birdman already pointed out: You can't please all of the people all of the time.

There has been years of litigation over banning snowmobiles from Yellowstone due to the noise, but yet loud motorcycles are allowed. I really do not understand why they are not banned from National parks.

As for getting rid of other things, my criteria would be to eliminate any non-unique building that could be duplicated outside the valley. zion's visitor center is outside it's valley. sequoia tore down it's old lodge at Giant Forest and replaced it with Wuksachi. Why couldn't most lodging be moved to Foresta or El Portal, anywhere outside the valley?

But the High Sierra Camps should stay. I love them and am going again in July! Moms who don't want to carry 50 pounds os stuff love wild places too.

Quote
Mom
the High Sierra Camps should stay

I don't mind the HSCs - as you say, they allow people to get to places they might otherwise not be able to reach. I lump them in with the Half* Dome cables in that respect. The trouble is that they have to be supplied by mule trains, which beats the cr*p out of the trails. I'd like to see some of the worst-affected areas (especially LYV up to Merced, and TM down to Glen Aulin and over to Sunrise) provided with alternative foot/mule trails where space allows - that wouldn't be hard or expensive to do.

On the motorcycle front, I'd go for a noise limit on all motor vehicles, not a ban on any particular type of vehicle. Some of those big Japanese touring bikes are almost silent.

* - whatever

An interesting thing about Zion is that they never had what you would call a Visitor Center in Zion Canyon. In 1924 in the Grotto area a small stone building was built to house a nature museum. In 1934 that was remodeled into a residence and when we were there in November the interior was being restored again. It is a really great building and I would not mind living there even though it is tiny. Also in 1934, Stanley Underwood designed the Zion Nature Center – Zion Inn building. It was used as a nature center, cafeteria, gift shop and office for tourist cabins. In 1970's when a visitor center was built down the road the park service remodeled it to be used only as a Nature Center. Currently the building is being used by the Jr. Ranger Program and is listed in the National Register of Historic Places. The current visitor center opened in 2000 and the old visitor center is now the Zion Human History Museum. All three of these buildings are located near the Springdale entrance.

Quote
Mom

Why couldn't most lodging be moved to Foresta or El Portal, anywhere outside the valley?

But the High Sierra Camps should stay. I love them and am going again in July! Moms who don't want to carry 50 pounds os stuff love wild places too.

I don't get your logic. Before they remove anymore overnight lodging (at lot of lodging and campsites have already been removed from Yosemite Valley since 1997) which has caused a sharp spike in traffic congestion on Valley roads since a lot more people are forced to be day visitors, they first ought to remove every HSC. Using your logic, those people could stay overnight in Lee Vining and hike in each day!

We ought not to think only about what we would want and oppose the rest (screw them!) but work on plans that would help everyone of every means and every physical ability to enjoy this wonderful national park.

.