Quote
oakroscoe
I certainly hope they close them down.

Quote
buster
Interesting you say that they get a lot of money for trail upkeep, as the condition of the trails are at times are terrible on the HSC loop. I hardly ever see trail crew working on those sections of trail. Not implying that you are misstating the facts, just wondering where the money is going.

Quote
buster
Also, a not well known fact is that the NPS is responsible for all the water and sewage at the camps. This amounts to a major subsidy of the camps from the NPS. Not sure if it would 'cancel' out the trail money they get, but there would be some savings.

Quote
tomdisco

I have mixed feelings about the HSC's and admit last year I took advantage of the "meals only" plan at Merced Lake to lighten my pack and still get two terrific meals on the trail.

Quote
buster

An option for people generally unable for whatever reason to enjoy the backcountry via backpacking would be a stock supported trip. The stock carry all the food and supplies and even the rider. The guides can setup the camp and cook as well. The only differences I see from the HSC's would be the lack of toilets/showers but otherwise mostly the same comforts. I see an added benefit that they would be able to go to many different locations instead of the 5 predetermined ones. Not sure how the cost differences would work out but I would guess it would be a little cheaper.

I think this is a fair alternative to the HSC's and the permanent infrastructure there. People unwilling or unable to backpack would still be able to enjoy the backcountry while also spreading out stock use to a more sustainable level on trails.

Quote
Mom
No, I would not want to take a pack trip. One of the pleasures of hiking to the HSCamps is the peace and tranquilty of the hike either alone or in small groups. Stopping where and when you want and not having everything so predetermined. I loved my HSC trip and I plan to do a similar trip next year.

Quote
Paris92
Many, many people enjoy the HSCs and would not see the High Country any other way. I like the camps, and I like backpacking in tents also. I am not sure why anyone would think these camps have to "go away." That is a really terrible thought, in my opinion. Yes they are expensive, but that is not a reason to wish that they be closed. I have met some amazing people, enjoyed stimulating conversations, learned a lot about all kinds of subjects, had some great books recommended... all from just sitting around the same campfire, at the family-style dinner tables, on day hikes, and in and around the HSC camps. These great people have also included backpackers on the camp meal plans. Please do not knock the idea and existence of these places if you have not tried them yourselves. They certainly may not be your cup of tea, but then again they might surprise you. I think these camps should now be considered historical sites and be protected. Remember, Yosemite is not a "one size fits all", and these camps are certainly a part of the vast and varied fabric that makes Yosemite the wonderful park that it is, and that we all love. The National Parks are great equalizers also. Some things may be expensive, yes, but I have enjoyed meeting rescue workers, carpenters, CEOs, engineers, rangers, cooks, and countless energetic retired folks, all at the same table, around that campfire, etc...Since my return from hiking a few weeks ago I have been watching the National Parks documentary again. All the National Parks have always had the paradox of trying to retain the beauty, but letting the people (all people) see and enjoy that beauty (which does cause a certain amount of damage and degrading.) The HSCs let a few hundred or a thousand more people see the High Country each year. Anyone dismissing these camps should watch that program again (or for the first time.) It may just change your perspective on this subject.

Quote
Mom
Well said, Paris.

I love the family style dining and the socializing with fellow hikers after a day on the trail also. And yes, the National Parks need to serve all sorts of people. Without the High Sierra Camps, the backcountry would be primarily for people in their 20s or early 30s. The High Sierra Camps crowd were older people who still enjoyed the outdoors but didn't want to be burdened by all the backpacking equipment

Quote
Mom
Without the High Sierra Camps, the backcountry would be primarily for people in their 20s or early 30s.

Quote
AlmostThere

Quote
Mom
Without the High Sierra Camps, the backcountry would be primarily for people in their 20s or early 30s.

I am routinely outhiked by retired people who backpack.

Your funny assumption makes me smile. I see MORE seasoned people in the backcountry than kids in their 20s. Some of them are still very active on Search and Rescue - one of them very persistently and patiently works with me on my knot tying skills when we are waiting for deployment.

Quote
szalkowski

Quote
AlmostThere

Quote
Mom
Without the High Sierra Camps, the backcountry would be primarily for people in their 20s or early 30s.

I am routinely outhiked by retired people who backpack.

Your funny assumption makes me smile. I see MORE seasoned people in the backcountry than kids in their 20s. Some of them are still very active on Search and Rescue - one of them very persistently and patiently works with me on my knot tying skills when we are waiting for deployment.

Actually, it seems more an apologetic arguement for not carrying a pack rather than an assumption.
(Analytically Yours)
The Marmots

Quote
Paris92
Wow 2. I have been to all of the camps many times and have never seen anyone that has hiked in that I would consider "out of shape." And even if that were true, what matter is it or concern of anyone else? Now, for some of the folks I see sitting on the mules with roll-aboard luggage... no comment The important thing is that they are OUT THERE taking in all the beauty, and not sitting home on the couch. Sorry if having people at the camps intrude on what others feel should be their own private and uncrowded wilderness. It is there for all to enjoy. Things are popular for a reason.

Quote
Paris92
"Most people in those camps are out of shape. But than again, so are most Americans. And that is just an unfortunate fact. Personally, we have mixed feeling on them. While we generally try to stay as far away from them as possible..."

Really? And you know this how? From staying as far away from the camps as possible? I completely agree with your statement regarding Americans in general, but your comment about the shape of people at the camps is so far from reality for anyone who has actually stayed at the camps it is laughable. Some people (who come on the mule trains, possibly yes), but they are not in any way the majority of folks staying at the camps. Again, if you have not experienced the HSCs firsthand, but have stayed "as far away from them as possible", please hold your judgement. These camps have people that truly love that experience, and appreciate the dedicated and wonderful staff that runs them each summer. If you are not interested in that type of experience, so be it.

Quote
YosemiteSteve
The HSC's don't bother me too much, but there are real questions about what should and shouldn't be allowed in designated wilderness.

Quote
mrcondron

Quote
YosemiteSteve
The HSC's don't bother me too much, but there are real questions about what should and shouldn't be allowed in designated wilderness.

The camps are exempt as the sites and some area around them were excluded from the wilderness designation when the Act went into effect.

Quote
y_p_w

Quote
mrcondron

Quote
YosemiteSteve
The HSC's don't bother me too much, but there are real questions about what should and shouldn't be allowed in designated wilderness.

The camps are exempt as the sites and some area around them were excluded from the wilderness designation when the Act went into effect.

I'm not sure exactly how that went down.

There are a lot of designated wilderness areas where areas/roads/plots were carved out as not being part of the designated wilderness. Then Congress made up the term "potential wilderness" sometime in the 70s, which refers to areas with "nonconforming uses" that can be converted to full wilderness designation (and without additional Congressional action) once those uses cease. On the other hand, a good many full wilderness areas still have buildings, fire lookouts, etc which were allowed to remain on the principle that they were existing uses that were compatible. The Half Dome cables would be an example.

From what I understand, the High Sierra Camps are actually in designated wilderness but were somehow exempted. I could be wrong. They could also be "potential wilderness", but that would require a wilderness plan map. The term is in the California Wilderness Act of 1984 that established the wilderness area in Yosemite and SEKI.

http://www.nps.gov/yose/parkmgmt/upload/California%20wilderness%20act%20of%201984.pdf

Quote
YosemiteSteve

It's interesting that so many people assign motives of greed and selfishness to those who may be opposed to the HSC's.

Quote
YosemiteSteve
The HSC's don't bother me too much, but there are real questions about what should and shouldn't be allowed in designated wilderness. I think one of the problems is of course, human waste and water quality. Vogelsang and Glen Aulin have some real issues since they are so close to streams. When I camp, I'm required (and choose) to camp 100 feet from water. The Dining Room at Vogelsang is about 10ft away, the kitchen another 20 and the bathrooms and showers are all within 100ft. Glen Aulin has had issues for years with it's human waste, and even though today there is a leach field there, apparently signs of pollution still show up in the Tuolumne River.

It's interesting that so many people assign motives of greed and selfishness to those who may be opposed to the HSC's. Many people are just as focused on protecting Yosemite's Wilderness and it's watersheds.