In case anyone is interested, there is a petition to save North Pines Campground from elimination, which is planned to occure, via the Yosemite Valley Plan, please go to this site, and if you're interested, follow the link to the petition and sign it:
http://www.yosemitevalleycampers.org
Many people aren't aware of this. Campsites are hard enough to get as it is. They've removed too many. The park received money to replace the campgrounds damaged in the flood of 1997, but didn't use the money for that purpose. Learn more at that website.
Thanks,
Mark Sutherlin
mark2
The Moon is Waning Crescent (18% of Full)
Home
>
General Discussion
>
Topic
Re: Petition to Save North Pines Campground
All posts are those of the individual authors and the owner
of this site does not endorse them. Content should be considered opinion
and not fact until verified independently.
June 20, 2007 09:27PM | Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 16 |
June 20, 2007 10:08PM | Admin Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 17,111 |
|
Re: Petition to Save North Pines Campground June 21, 2007 12:51PM | Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 0 |
In the plan that was posted in a previous thread it was stated in the "Implement" section:
http://www.nps.gov/archive/yose/planning/yvp/seis/vol_Ia/chapter_2_a2.html
"Campsites at Camp 4 (Sunnyside Campground); east of Curry Village; in the Upper Pines area; and along Tenaya Creek"
Does that mean they would just close North Pines, but increase/add sites in the other locations? I don't get it.
http://www.nps.gov/archive/yose/planning/yvp/seis/vol_Ia/chapter_2_a2.html
"Campsites at Camp 4 (Sunnyside Campground); east of Curry Village; in the Upper Pines area; and along Tenaya Creek"
Does that mean they would just close North Pines, but increase/add sites in the other locations? I don't get it.
June 21, 2007 01:27PM | Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 16 |
I noticed that when I was there over Memorial Day weekend. The entire Upper Rivers campground is basically a large dumping ground for rocks and dirt. It looks like Upper Rivers is going to be their staging site for other construction that they intend to do in the plan, such as remove Stoneman Bridge, Ahwahnee Bridge, Sugar Pine Bridge; the removal of North Pines campground and more.
I keep believing that with the right amount of persuasion, e.g. the petition, the park could be brought around to rethink their position on North Pines; primarily if enough people sign the petition and become very vocal.
After all, with all the outcry, the park did just recently decide not to raise the gate fees as was expected this year. Was that because of the public opinion that was so outspoken against it? Or, was it to take that topic of media spin off the table during this time that the park continues with their appellate court appeal of the Fresno Federal Court decision in San Francisco? They don't want to have too much bad press in one year, and probably need to carefully pick their battles.
mark2
I keep believing that with the right amount of persuasion, e.g. the petition, the park could be brought around to rethink their position on North Pines; primarily if enough people sign the petition and become very vocal.
After all, with all the outcry, the park did just recently decide not to raise the gate fees as was expected this year. Was that because of the public opinion that was so outspoken against it? Or, was it to take that topic of media spin off the table during this time that the park continues with their appellate court appeal of the Fresno Federal Court decision in San Francisco? They don't want to have too much bad press in one year, and probably need to carefully pick their battles.
mark2
June 21, 2007 01:31PM | Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 16 |
|
Re: Petition to Save North Pines Campground June 21, 2007 01:45PM | Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 2 |
June 21, 2007 02:03PM | Admin Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 17,111 |
Mixolydian wrote:
> Why are the people in charge so interested in getting rid of
> campsites? What is in it for them?
That trend has been going on a long time. Entire campgrounds (remember Sunrise?) have vanished and half of Yosemite Creek is off limits because of the bridge they'll probably never repair.
> Why are the people in charge so interested in getting rid of
> campsites? What is in it for them?
That trend has been going on a long time. Entire campgrounds (remember Sunrise?) have vanished and half of Yosemite Creek is off limits because of the bridge they'll probably never repair.
June 21, 2007 03:15PM | Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 16 |
letterknit: Sorry. I don't think I addressed you comment well.
Yes, the park is going to add some walk-in sites, and that can be good. But, there are mitigation issues with that too, as there are with everything. For example, it just means that, like the backpackers parking area where the old dump used to be, these abandoned cars will be targeted by bears. But, walk-in camping can be a great experience, though not as easy for families and seniors.
The park talks about adding some drive-in sites in currently undisturbed land outside the valley, like perhaps expanding Hodgdon Meadows campground, and some otherwise undisclosed areas. The YNPS talks about expanding Tuolumne Meadows campground, which I personally am not sure I am in favor of. I like the idea of small satellite campgrounds, for a closer relationship with the environment around the campgrounds, rather than large ones, especially in Tuolumne Meadows, if they are just adding campsites to "accommodate all who want to come", as they have said before. There is less impact on a specific area, of course, with smaller numbers of campsites in one campground. I feel that Tuolumne Meadows really is great the way it is. An expansion there wouldn't be good. Many valley campers are now going to Tuolumne Meadows to camp just because of the first come first serve overflow it offers, because though they really want to camp in Yosemite Valley, they couldn't get a campsite. This is because the park took too many campsites out of the valley. As you probably know, Tuolumne Meadows always has been a sanctuary for a different style of camping than Yosemite Valley, generally popular with hikers and backpackers.
It is the Yosemite Valley Campers Coalition's view that the out-of-the-valley campgrounds of which they talk about, and the added walk-in sites in the valley however, are not an equal exchange for the removal of the drive-in sites in the valley.
Though I believe that backpacking is the best way to experience camping in Yosemite, not everyone can do that. Drive-in campsites are what people most want to reserve in the valley, and this is what the coalition has been trying to protect and preserve for future generations of would-be campers, who will otherwise not get a chance to experience Yosemite, and learn to love nature as we have. It's a great way to get families together, and expose young people to that place that is so dear to all of us, in a natural camping setting.
Many of us were exposed to Yosemite Valley via this form of camping and this is what we want to preserve. That page from the YVP that you posted states right on there that North Pines is to be removed. Not only does the Yosemite Valley Campers Coalition oppose that, of course, but we would like to see the other campgrounds replaced. The 1980 GMP offered a better solution than does the YVP for these campgrounds, where they completed an environmental assessment, pulled campsites away from the river, reduced campsite numbers by separating them in a way that most campers could live with.
The Access Fund is in support of our efforts as well. I can state their position on the campgrounds here too if you would like, as they are similar to the YVCC.
Thanks,
Mark
http://www.yosemitevalleycampers.org
mark2
Yes, the park is going to add some walk-in sites, and that can be good. But, there are mitigation issues with that too, as there are with everything. For example, it just means that, like the backpackers parking area where the old dump used to be, these abandoned cars will be targeted by bears. But, walk-in camping can be a great experience, though not as easy for families and seniors.
The park talks about adding some drive-in sites in currently undisturbed land outside the valley, like perhaps expanding Hodgdon Meadows campground, and some otherwise undisclosed areas. The YNPS talks about expanding Tuolumne Meadows campground, which I personally am not sure I am in favor of. I like the idea of small satellite campgrounds, for a closer relationship with the environment around the campgrounds, rather than large ones, especially in Tuolumne Meadows, if they are just adding campsites to "accommodate all who want to come", as they have said before. There is less impact on a specific area, of course, with smaller numbers of campsites in one campground. I feel that Tuolumne Meadows really is great the way it is. An expansion there wouldn't be good. Many valley campers are now going to Tuolumne Meadows to camp just because of the first come first serve overflow it offers, because though they really want to camp in Yosemite Valley, they couldn't get a campsite. This is because the park took too many campsites out of the valley. As you probably know, Tuolumne Meadows always has been a sanctuary for a different style of camping than Yosemite Valley, generally popular with hikers and backpackers.
It is the Yosemite Valley Campers Coalition's view that the out-of-the-valley campgrounds of which they talk about, and the added walk-in sites in the valley however, are not an equal exchange for the removal of the drive-in sites in the valley.
Though I believe that backpacking is the best way to experience camping in Yosemite, not everyone can do that. Drive-in campsites are what people most want to reserve in the valley, and this is what the coalition has been trying to protect and preserve for future generations of would-be campers, who will otherwise not get a chance to experience Yosemite, and learn to love nature as we have. It's a great way to get families together, and expose young people to that place that is so dear to all of us, in a natural camping setting.
Many of us were exposed to Yosemite Valley via this form of camping and this is what we want to preserve. That page from the YVP that you posted states right on there that North Pines is to be removed. Not only does the Yosemite Valley Campers Coalition oppose that, of course, but we would like to see the other campgrounds replaced. The 1980 GMP offered a better solution than does the YVP for these campgrounds, where they completed an environmental assessment, pulled campsites away from the river, reduced campsite numbers by separating them in a way that most campers could live with.
The Access Fund is in support of our efforts as well. I can state their position on the campgrounds here too if you would like, as they are similar to the YVCC.
Thanks,
Mark
http://www.yosemitevalleycampers.org
mark2
June 21, 2007 03:38PM | Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 16 |
And, yes, now you bring up some old memories. There has been a trend to remove campsites for some time. Remember the old and small Tenaya Lake campground, and the tiny Glacier Point campground? Wouldn't it be fun to camp at Glacier Point and watch the sun rise?
To answer your question, Mixolydian, as to what is in it for them, here's my view. If they can turn the valley into a four hour tour, and have most people out of the park by sundown, there would be more money in it for them and Delaware North, and, they could accomplish their goal as stated many times, that they want to "accommodate all who want to come". I'm not saying it's all about money, but it does look that way.
Go back to the time of the flood, and if you may recall the park stating that the flood did what the public would not have allowed them to do; demonstrating a character flaw in a way, indicating that they really didn't want to do what the public wanted to do. Two years prior to the flood they stated that if they could, they would remove all campsites north of the river. But, that they didn't believe the public would have allowed it. More to the point, they KNEW the public wouldn't have allowed it. The fact is, they used the flood as an excuse to sneak it in, claiming that it was a "divine hand". Actual reference available upon request.
Then, in 2003, Fran Mainella, the former Director of the National Parks made this statement in regards to the eventual bussing plan:
"There will be no net loss of day use private-vehicle parking in the valley, she promised – at least not for five to seven years while the various implementation projects are being completed. The busing project will be one of the last features locked in place. "
That tells you where they want to go.
At the same congressional hearing, Fran then said that developing areas for camping precludes making them available for "greater numbers of day visitors to enjoy for hiking, picnicking, bicycling and other activities."
In other words, it is their goal to find ways to market the park in such a way that they can increase head counts, which is the reason the do not want to go along with the Federal Court's ruling that stated that they need to establish carrying capacity. They are now spending an untold amount of money to fight that in the appellate court. They do not want anything to get in their way of creating Yosemite Valley into a theme park for day visitors. Campers are now in the position that they have to unit and fight back. This is the purpose of the Yosemite Valley Campers Coalition.
Here, in these few words from Yosemite Park Superintendent, Mike Tollefson, in 2004, reflects the park's goals, which in essences is all about increasing head counts:
"That construction will help Yosemite continue to accommodate 4 million visitors a year without feeling cramped".
End quote.
They don't want to continue to accommodate 4 million a year. They want to "accommodate ALL who want to come", as previously stated, all while the market to international tourists very heavily. They want 10 million a year and more. This is why the over built the Lower Falls project to accommodate more people that is needed in that one central location. It's all about crowd control infrustructure building right now, for the future which they feel is bright for them.
Don't you wonder why Delaware North bought the Tenaya Lodge outside the park's southern gate a few years back? These gateway hotels are in a big expansion mode.
If you ever get to the Sistine Chaple you'll get the idea what they want to aspire to, with crowds lined up for hours just to cram into that small space for a fast scheduled four hour tour.
Sorry for the lengthy posts. I really am trying to keep them short. I have more if you want it.
http://www.yosemitevalleycampers.org
Post Edited (06-21-07 17:50)
mark2
To answer your question, Mixolydian, as to what is in it for them, here's my view. If they can turn the valley into a four hour tour, and have most people out of the park by sundown, there would be more money in it for them and Delaware North, and, they could accomplish their goal as stated many times, that they want to "accommodate all who want to come". I'm not saying it's all about money, but it does look that way.
Go back to the time of the flood, and if you may recall the park stating that the flood did what the public would not have allowed them to do; demonstrating a character flaw in a way, indicating that they really didn't want to do what the public wanted to do. Two years prior to the flood they stated that if they could, they would remove all campsites north of the river. But, that they didn't believe the public would have allowed it. More to the point, they KNEW the public wouldn't have allowed it. The fact is, they used the flood as an excuse to sneak it in, claiming that it was a "divine hand". Actual reference available upon request.
Then, in 2003, Fran Mainella, the former Director of the National Parks made this statement in regards to the eventual bussing plan:
"There will be no net loss of day use private-vehicle parking in the valley, she promised – at least not for five to seven years while the various implementation projects are being completed. The busing project will be one of the last features locked in place. "
That tells you where they want to go.
At the same congressional hearing, Fran then said that developing areas for camping precludes making them available for "greater numbers of day visitors to enjoy for hiking, picnicking, bicycling and other activities."
In other words, it is their goal to find ways to market the park in such a way that they can increase head counts, which is the reason the do not want to go along with the Federal Court's ruling that stated that they need to establish carrying capacity. They are now spending an untold amount of money to fight that in the appellate court. They do not want anything to get in their way of creating Yosemite Valley into a theme park for day visitors. Campers are now in the position that they have to unit and fight back. This is the purpose of the Yosemite Valley Campers Coalition.
Here, in these few words from Yosemite Park Superintendent, Mike Tollefson, in 2004, reflects the park's goals, which in essences is all about increasing head counts:
"That construction will help Yosemite continue to accommodate 4 million visitors a year without feeling cramped".
End quote.
They don't want to continue to accommodate 4 million a year. They want to "accommodate ALL who want to come", as previously stated, all while the market to international tourists very heavily. They want 10 million a year and more. This is why the over built the Lower Falls project to accommodate more people that is needed in that one central location. It's all about crowd control infrustructure building right now, for the future which they feel is bright for them.
Don't you wonder why Delaware North bought the Tenaya Lodge outside the park's southern gate a few years back? These gateway hotels are in a big expansion mode.
If you ever get to the Sistine Chaple you'll get the idea what they want to aspire to, with crowds lined up for hours just to cram into that small space for a fast scheduled four hour tour.
Sorry for the lengthy posts. I really am trying to keep them short. I have more if you want it.
http://www.yosemitevalleycampers.org
Post Edited (06-21-07 17:50)
mark2
June 21, 2007 04:17PM | Admin Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 17,111 |
> Remember the old and small Tenaya Lake campground
That was called Sunrise. The park officially said they closed it because of damage to the riparian environment along the lake. But I heard from a park service employee that the real reason was the water and sewage system had broken and it was more of a money issue. I find it hard to buy the riparian excuse, the shore is mostly granite along that part of the lake.
That was called Sunrise. The park officially said they closed it because of damage to the riparian environment along the lake. But I heard from a park service employee that the real reason was the water and sewage system had broken and it was more of a money issue. I find it hard to buy the riparian excuse, the shore is mostly granite along that part of the lake.
June 21, 2007 09:12PM | Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 16 |
You mean they told a lie? This time they told congress that they would replace the flooded campground with flood recovery money. They received the money that they asked for to repair them, and then they didn't do it.
I didn't remember that the Tenaya campground was called Sunrise. I've been to Sunrise Lakes High Sierra Camp years ago. One of the trails to the camp head straight up the hill from Tenaya Lake there.
mark2
I didn't remember that the Tenaya campground was called Sunrise. I've been to Sunrise Lakes High Sierra Camp years ago. One of the trails to the camp head straight up the hill from Tenaya Lake there.
mark2
June 21, 2007 09:34PM | Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 1,232 |
June 21, 2007 11:27PM | Admin Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 17,111 |
June 21, 2007 10:06PM | Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 16 |
June 21, 2007 10:12PM | Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 16 |
A recent post on the petition explains it better than I can:
"Beauty is meant to be enjoyed. Let the campers continue to embrace the beauty at Yosemite."
Check out the petition, you'll find many more cogent statements from posters about their views for saving North Pines campground.
The government is just a little too good at taking things away, but not so good at giving them back.
mark2
"Beauty is meant to be enjoyed. Let the campers continue to embrace the beauty at Yosemite."
Check out the petition, you'll find many more cogent statements from posters about their views for saving North Pines campground.
The government is just a little too good at taking things away, but not so good at giving them back.
mark2
|
Re: Petition to Save North Pines Campground June 22, 2007 11:44AM | Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 0 |
I wouldn't mind having a few more walk-in sites in Yosemite Valley. Why does "camping" mean you have to drive in and slam car doors every 5 mintues, or plug in your RV & hook up your satellite dish? It would be nice to have some more sites that were more friendly to tent campers & those wanting to get a little closer to nature, those wanting to camp a little more like the Native Americans.
I realize that drive-in sites are more universally accessible to seniors and people with disabilities. I'm an occupational therapist and work with people with disabilities, so believe me, I champion that movement. But that doesn't mean all the sites have to be located in the Valley proper. I didn't grow up camping in the Valley, so I don't have the same sentimental feelings about it as others do. Some people think there should be more crowded car camping facilities in Yosemite Valley. I personally cringe when I walk past those campgrounds as I explore the Valley. But I guess that's a National Park for you?
I am disapointed they don't seem to be repairing the other half of the Yosemite Creek campground. That's a cool place. At least it seemed that way when it was empty, strolling around by moonlight, ha!
By the way, how do you know that "Drive-in campsites are what people most want to reserve in the valley." Did you take a poll? Is there a study that proves this? People reserve drive-in campsites because that's the only thing that's available!! They don't have a choice. I'd be willing to bet there's a whole lot of people that wish they didn't have to camp in those conditions and would choose walk-in or tent-only sites given the choice. If no one wanted to walk-in camp, Camp 4 would be empty. That certainly is not the case.
Post Edited (06-22-07 13:53)
I realize that drive-in sites are more universally accessible to seniors and people with disabilities. I'm an occupational therapist and work with people with disabilities, so believe me, I champion that movement. But that doesn't mean all the sites have to be located in the Valley proper. I didn't grow up camping in the Valley, so I don't have the same sentimental feelings about it as others do. Some people think there should be more crowded car camping facilities in Yosemite Valley. I personally cringe when I walk past those campgrounds as I explore the Valley. But I guess that's a National Park for you?
I am disapointed they don't seem to be repairing the other half of the Yosemite Creek campground. That's a cool place. At least it seemed that way when it was empty, strolling around by moonlight, ha!
By the way, how do you know that "Drive-in campsites are what people most want to reserve in the valley." Did you take a poll? Is there a study that proves this? People reserve drive-in campsites because that's the only thing that's available!! They don't have a choice. I'd be willing to bet there's a whole lot of people that wish they didn't have to camp in those conditions and would choose walk-in or tent-only sites given the choice. If no one wanted to walk-in camp, Camp 4 would be empty. That certainly is not the case.
Post Edited (06-22-07 13:53)
|
Re: Petition to Save North Pines Campground June 22, 2007 07:15PM | Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 2 |
I'd bet that without stores and the other luxuries in the valley, it would be hard to draw enough visitors to sustain the park. The vast majority of people I know are into having ammeneties when they vacation and would be turned off by the idea of being isolated from civilization. The idea that they can be close to their creature conforts makes camping more appealing for many people.
I also tend to doubt that people go to Camp 4 because they prefer walk-in sites. From what I can tell, most people go to Camp 4 as a last resort because it's one of the only places to try to get a site without a reservation. I would, however, be up for them doing some experients to see if people really do prefer walk-in sites to drive-in sites. I think they would find that drive-in sites are far more popular.
I also tend to doubt that people go to Camp 4 because they prefer walk-in sites. From what I can tell, most people go to Camp 4 as a last resort because it's one of the only places to try to get a site without a reservation. I would, however, be up for them doing some experients to see if people really do prefer walk-in sites to drive-in sites. I think they would find that drive-in sites are far more popular.
|
Re: Petition to Save North Pines Campground June 27, 2007 11:18PM | Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 141 |
Mixolydian wrote:
> I also tend to doubt that people go to Camp 4 because they
> prefer walk-in sites. From what I can tell, most people go to
> Camp 4 as a last resort because it's one of the only places to
> try to get a site without a reservation. I would, however, be
> up for them doing some experients to see if people really do
> prefer walk-in sites to drive-in sites. I think they would
> find that drive-in sites are far more popular.
If you're after a camping experience, the valley isn't the best place; there are a lot nicer campgrounds outside of the valley. Camp 4 is crowded and can be more a party site for 20-something climbers than a restful respite. When the other "car" campgrouds were there, a lot of people came to the valley for "summer camp" type camping, sort of Curry Village group stuff, only in the campground. I don't think it's well-suited to that either. It's just too small an area, and summercamp campers tend to want to have fires, sit around late and sing, etc. It gets way too smoky too easily for a lot of campers with fires (just go there in April before they restrict the fires, and you'll see and smell the haze hanging over the east end). For the same and other reasons, it's not well-suited to RV's either, as the big vehicles don't fit in the sites well, disturb others (a diesel fifth wheel trying to squeeze in a site at night, for example), and they add to the valley traffic problem.
That said, I love camping in the valley, usually at Upper Pines. I pitch the tent, load the bear box, and can enjoy hiking and photography excursions, bike around, eat at the Lodge's food court or get a pizza (no camp chores), watch the evening program at the lodge until I get tired, then go get a nice night's sleep and be ready for a crack-of-dawn hike to wherever. However, and it's a big however, I tend to go in the off-season when things aren't so crowded.
While it's nothing like the sites outside the valley, barring the occasional rowdy group it's generally very quiet at night, other than the river, rockfalls, coyotes and the ravens to wake you up. Whether your car is parked there or a half mile away is unimportant, other than it's convenient this way.
Ideally, I'd like to see the RV's at the west end of the valley or somewhere that they don't drive through the valley to get there, and no large RV's in the current Pines campgrounds. I'm not so sure I'd like to see the old valley campgrounds restored. Yes, it's hard to get a site at times, but who wants a smoke-filled valley or long lines of RV's crowding the already-crowded roads? Go in the off-season, or go somewhere that there are more sites and more summer-camp type activities, Yosemite Valley's not the only place to do that, and it's not big enough to handle everything everyone would like it to be.
Gary
Yosemite Photo Galleries: http://www.pbase.com/roberthouse/yo
> I also tend to doubt that people go to Camp 4 because they
> prefer walk-in sites. From what I can tell, most people go to
> Camp 4 as a last resort because it's one of the only places to
> try to get a site without a reservation. I would, however, be
> up for them doing some experients to see if people really do
> prefer walk-in sites to drive-in sites. I think they would
> find that drive-in sites are far more popular.
If you're after a camping experience, the valley isn't the best place; there are a lot nicer campgrounds outside of the valley. Camp 4 is crowded and can be more a party site for 20-something climbers than a restful respite. When the other "car" campgrouds were there, a lot of people came to the valley for "summer camp" type camping, sort of Curry Village group stuff, only in the campground. I don't think it's well-suited to that either. It's just too small an area, and summercamp campers tend to want to have fires, sit around late and sing, etc. It gets way too smoky too easily for a lot of campers with fires (just go there in April before they restrict the fires, and you'll see and smell the haze hanging over the east end). For the same and other reasons, it's not well-suited to RV's either, as the big vehicles don't fit in the sites well, disturb others (a diesel fifth wheel trying to squeeze in a site at night, for example), and they add to the valley traffic problem.
That said, I love camping in the valley, usually at Upper Pines. I pitch the tent, load the bear box, and can enjoy hiking and photography excursions, bike around, eat at the Lodge's food court or get a pizza (no camp chores), watch the evening program at the lodge until I get tired, then go get a nice night's sleep and be ready for a crack-of-dawn hike to wherever. However, and it's a big however, I tend to go in the off-season when things aren't so crowded.
While it's nothing like the sites outside the valley, barring the occasional rowdy group it's generally very quiet at night, other than the river, rockfalls, coyotes and the ravens to wake you up. Whether your car is parked there or a half mile away is unimportant, other than it's convenient this way.
Ideally, I'd like to see the RV's at the west end of the valley or somewhere that they don't drive through the valley to get there, and no large RV's in the current Pines campgrounds. I'm not so sure I'd like to see the old valley campgrounds restored. Yes, it's hard to get a site at times, but who wants a smoke-filled valley or long lines of RV's crowding the already-crowded roads? Go in the off-season, or go somewhere that there are more sites and more summer-camp type activities, Yosemite Valley's not the only place to do that, and it's not big enough to handle everything everyone would like it to be.
Gary
Yosemite Photo Galleries: http://www.pbase.com/roberthouse/yo
June 28, 2007 10:11PM | Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 16 |
Camping in the valley isn't about the campsite. It's about being outside day and night in a campsite in Yosemite Valley. Those who think walk in sites are more popular need to know that Camp 4, a walk in site, fills last. Yes, it's about convenience. When you have a family of several members, or, simply don't want to spend too much time in the campsite, and instead care to hike the trails, etc., drive-in sites fit the bill. Walk the campgrounds during the day and you'll see that they're mostly empty. Try to reserve a site in the valley during the warm season and you'll find that the sites during peak season are sold out within about ten minutes, unless you want to move from campsite to campsite to link a few nights together. It is by far the most popular way average people like to enjoy Yosemite Valley. And, for those who can't see beyond the people in Yosemite Valley, you haven't spent much time there. We walked from Upper Pines to Pohono Bridge along the south side on Memorial Day, and back up the north side by El Cap and through Camp 4. As a matter of fact, in camp 4 there was far more campsite hanging people than in the drive-in campsites. Why? I don't know. I'm just reporting the facts. This hike took all day, as it was about 16 or so miles. We saw three people all day, on this well defined trail. Three people all day on Memorial Day who were actually walking the trail. I’m not talking about the people along the roads with cameras or climbing the walls. I will venture to say that most of you don't know that trail, the most aggressive trail in the valley that is relatively flat. This is one of many trails that you can take that are relatively empty in our around the valley.
Drive-in camping is not so easy for those who haven't camped for generations like many of us have. That tradition you hear about, as it relates to camping, is more than just a choice relative to convenience. It's a choice to be closer to nature than staying in a hard sided hotel room. Some of us absolutely love camping, and camping of all kinds. I've camped all my life, as did my parents and grandparents...in Yosemite Valley and many other places, both in drive-in site and backpacking. We've also backpacked many of the park’s trails, climbed Half Dome, Mt. Lyell, you name it. Drive-in camping is also something that the Access Fund agrees with and believes is where the park went wrong when removing so very many campsites in the Yosemite Valley Plan. We put our trust in the park service to do it right, but instead, their idea of a solution, is always the same solution that almost all government entities reach for first is to simply take things away and say they did something for you. That’s because they don’t have the ability to put any campsites in these days, so why take them away?
Campers understand the need to rethink the impacts associated with the campgrounds, but simply taking entire campgrounds out is not the solution.
By the way, for all those purists who like walk-in sites only, try not to moralize too much while your cars sit abandoned in those big parking lots which create an easy target and attraction to bears. What is better I ask, your car near your campsite, or your car in a big parking lot of purists? It's the same my friend. You and I still depend on cars to get there unless you are one of the tour bus campers, of which there are a few. Just because your car sits in a big parking lot a hundred yards from your campsite, and mine is ten feet away, it’s pretty much the same experience. I like walk-in sites too. But, they do fill up last, because most people walk the basic drive in sites, because, as I said, they want the basic camping experience, and only use the campgrounds in the early mornings and evenings. Try it; you'll become hooked as many of us Yosemite campers are. By the way, as much as I love tent camping, we Vanagon it these days. Yes, that’s cheating, but I bet I camp more than you do. We camped the entire peninsula of Baja California last year, camping on both coasts, pet the whales, searched out and found abandoned missions, and more. For over a 150 miles we were off road using four wheel drive with spare gas tanks. Camping is our life, and protecting it for future generations is for your children more than it is for us.
And, check out the website at http://www.SaveUpperPines.org/
We campers have to stick together, as the park has been removing campsites incrimentally every year. North Pines is next. It's planned to be removed unless enough people make noise. Please help, by signing the petition.
Post Edited (06-29-07 00:30)
mark2
Drive-in camping is not so easy for those who haven't camped for generations like many of us have. That tradition you hear about, as it relates to camping, is more than just a choice relative to convenience. It's a choice to be closer to nature than staying in a hard sided hotel room. Some of us absolutely love camping, and camping of all kinds. I've camped all my life, as did my parents and grandparents...in Yosemite Valley and many other places, both in drive-in site and backpacking. We've also backpacked many of the park’s trails, climbed Half Dome, Mt. Lyell, you name it. Drive-in camping is also something that the Access Fund agrees with and believes is where the park went wrong when removing so very many campsites in the Yosemite Valley Plan. We put our trust in the park service to do it right, but instead, their idea of a solution, is always the same solution that almost all government entities reach for first is to simply take things away and say they did something for you. That’s because they don’t have the ability to put any campsites in these days, so why take them away?
Campers understand the need to rethink the impacts associated with the campgrounds, but simply taking entire campgrounds out is not the solution.
By the way, for all those purists who like walk-in sites only, try not to moralize too much while your cars sit abandoned in those big parking lots which create an easy target and attraction to bears. What is better I ask, your car near your campsite, or your car in a big parking lot of purists? It's the same my friend. You and I still depend on cars to get there unless you are one of the tour bus campers, of which there are a few. Just because your car sits in a big parking lot a hundred yards from your campsite, and mine is ten feet away, it’s pretty much the same experience. I like walk-in sites too. But, they do fill up last, because most people walk the basic drive in sites, because, as I said, they want the basic camping experience, and only use the campgrounds in the early mornings and evenings. Try it; you'll become hooked as many of us Yosemite campers are. By the way, as much as I love tent camping, we Vanagon it these days. Yes, that’s cheating, but I bet I camp more than you do. We camped the entire peninsula of Baja California last year, camping on both coasts, pet the whales, searched out and found abandoned missions, and more. For over a 150 miles we were off road using four wheel drive with spare gas tanks. Camping is our life, and protecting it for future generations is for your children more than it is for us.
And, check out the website at http://www.SaveUpperPines.org/
We campers have to stick together, as the park has been removing campsites incrimentally every year. North Pines is next. It's planned to be removed unless enough people make noise. Please help, by signing the petition.
Post Edited (06-29-07 00:30)
mark2
June 28, 2007 10:34PM | Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 16 |
By the way, those long lines of cars on busy weekends are not campers. They're day trippers who drive in for the day. Almost all campers park their vehicles for the duration of their stay, and only drive if and when they need to get another block of ice. The park used to have an Ice Machine in the Lower Pine campground back in the sixties, which kept them from having to drive to the village store or to the machine at Housekeeping.
If you aren't for it, don't sign it. Not everyone agrees on every issue. But, if you do agree, please tell others.
mark2
If you aren't for it, don't sign it. Not everyone agrees on every issue. But, if you do agree, please tell others.
mark2
|
Re: Petition to Save North Pines Campground June 29, 2007 08:13AM | Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 141 |
Mark, I think you would accomplish more if you didn't start labeling people. Your reference to "purists" isn't going to win anyone over when you say it with such apparent comtempt; I saw a similar thing happen at the Yahoo Yosemite group when you presented your case there, and soon RV campers were talking about noisy "tenters" with similar disdain. People have a right to their opinion, even if it differs from yours, and no amount of words from you will change that, especially if you start categorizing and labeling people.
In my opinion, one of the major flaws in your petition is that it's so all-encompassing. As you would know if you read my message up-thread, I love camping (tent or in the open) in the valley and yet will not sign the petition, as I don't want just "more camping" and to heck with everything else. The Valley needs to be handled intelligently, both for benefit of visitors and for its own health and viability as an unspoiled area. There are already concessions to masses of people...Curry Village is one example, and to me, being in Curry Village is not even being in Yosemite until you exit to the surrounding area. Necessary, maybe, but do we need to build more? Hardly. If Curry Village burned down, should it be rebuilt as it is now? I don't know, maybe not. "Camping" has changed, and what some people consider camping now is simply a movable house with garage, electricity, central heat/air, satellite, sewage tanks to pump, and bears no resemblance to what "camping" was when those campgrounds were built. And people can (and do) still camp in a tent yet keep a fire roaring all day, season permitting, smoking up the place for no good reason other than it's what they think you're supposed to do when camping.
They built the O'Shaunessy dam...if it fell apart, should we rebuild it? I certainly hope not; just because something was done in the past doesn't mean it was "right". Same goes for campgrounds or anything else.
While I enjoy staying there to access the valley's trails, environment, peacefulness, and sights, the thought of more campgrounds with smoky fires and massive RV's with volleyball courts and overloaded rafts full of partiers does not appeal to me, I'd rather battle with trying to get a site for my tent or going in the less-desirable seasons. If the petition were to just keep the NP campground, maybe I'd sign, but it isn't. No amount of words will change that.
Gary
Yosemite Photo Galleries: http://www.pbase.com/roberthouse/yo
In my opinion, one of the major flaws in your petition is that it's so all-encompassing. As you would know if you read my message up-thread, I love camping (tent or in the open) in the valley and yet will not sign the petition, as I don't want just "more camping" and to heck with everything else. The Valley needs to be handled intelligently, both for benefit of visitors and for its own health and viability as an unspoiled area. There are already concessions to masses of people...Curry Village is one example, and to me, being in Curry Village is not even being in Yosemite until you exit to the surrounding area. Necessary, maybe, but do we need to build more? Hardly. If Curry Village burned down, should it be rebuilt as it is now? I don't know, maybe not. "Camping" has changed, and what some people consider camping now is simply a movable house with garage, electricity, central heat/air, satellite, sewage tanks to pump, and bears no resemblance to what "camping" was when those campgrounds were built. And people can (and do) still camp in a tent yet keep a fire roaring all day, season permitting, smoking up the place for no good reason other than it's what they think you're supposed to do when camping.
They built the O'Shaunessy dam...if it fell apart, should we rebuild it? I certainly hope not; just because something was done in the past doesn't mean it was "right". Same goes for campgrounds or anything else.
While I enjoy staying there to access the valley's trails, environment, peacefulness, and sights, the thought of more campgrounds with smoky fires and massive RV's with volleyball courts and overloaded rafts full of partiers does not appeal to me, I'd rather battle with trying to get a site for my tent or going in the less-desirable seasons. If the petition were to just keep the NP campground, maybe I'd sign, but it isn't. No amount of words will change that.
Gary
Yosemite Photo Galleries: http://www.pbase.com/roberthouse/yo
|
Re: Petition to Save North Pines Campground June 29, 2007 07:41AM | Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 0 |
I wasn't trying to be argumentative or moralizing or saying I'm better than anyone else. I was just stating my opinion that it might be nice to have more walk-in site options. I have tried drive-in site camping in Yosemite. I had to watch and listen to people watching DVDs in their SUV with the back hatch up. As if they were doing a favor by playing the show for everyone around them. I've seen lots of drive-in campsites with boxes and coolers of food sitting out on tables with no one around, so I wouldn't say that the campgrounds aren't targets for bears. We don't leave a speck of anything in our car when we park it in the lot and put extra food in the bear boxes. That doesn't mean I'm better than anyone else, I'm just being responsible. Anyway, that's the last I'll say on this topic. I know you were just making an announcement to sign the petition if you want, so I'll leave it at that. I just wanted to state my opinion, too.
June 29, 2007 10:02AM | Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 16 |
Gary, my apologies if contempt was read in my words. It certainly wasn't there when typing it. It is possible to read anything into a post, and believe me, contempt for another way of camping was not it. When referring to “purists”, I stated that I was referring to those who like walk-in camping options only. I don’t think any of you had that position.
But, from what you are saying, Gary, I take it then that you will be in favor of the removal of North Pines campground, because currently this is going to happen unless someone or something persuades the park to reconsider that move.
Part of my post above was stated that it didn't matter which preference of camping you have, as they're all good. I recall your comments from the other site, and with respect, I didn't agree on the magnitude of the Yosemite Valley Plan, while as you say here, you don't agree with the broadness of the petition. There is always a gap between one end of an argument and the other, and a lot of area for discussion in between.
The park's position with the old Yosemite General Management Plan spent years on an environmental impact study that succeeded in getting some people on either side of the debate years ago to be upset. In placating no one, the old GMP in some ways, offended most everyone in one way or the other, as did the YVP. No plan will satisfy everyone. However, in the GMP, which the YVP was supposed to adhere to, the restoration of the old campgrounds which were laid out poorly from day one was the focus. That plan, via much public input, dramatically, and in some people's views radically, separated campsites and pulled all campsites up away from the river. The impacts to the river were to be significantly less, simply due to the separation of people and campsites, and distance from the river. Almost all environmentalists applauded that part of the GMP, though they may have taken issue with other parts of it.
When the YVP was rushed to completion, rather than adhering to the GMP, you must agree that nothing in the YVP comes close to anything in the GMP with regards to campgrounds. Instead of going to the public, they removed campgrounds, blaming the flood of '97, and separated none of the other sites in other campgrounds. The departure was that the end product was campgrounds removed, and remaining campgrounds left untouched, with the exception of a split rail fence along the river and a promise to upgrade the restrooms with the addition of some showers.
You mention the broadness of the petition, and in that I take it you are speaking of the position to replace all of the campsites just as they were. That position as stated is because the scoping study that allowed for public input regarding the draft Yosemite Valley plan never included comments with regards to ways to adhere to the GMP. Instead, no part of the options given included the separation of existing campsites as was the heart and sole of the GMP. Rather than massage the campgrounds with an environmental impact friendly approach to planning, entire campgrounds were removed, and those left were left crowded and untouched.
For this reason, it is our belief that, with regards to the campgrounds, everyone needs to be brought back to the planning table. And, the public needs to be involved in the planning this time.
During the old GMP planning, the park made an attempt to solicit input from previous campers, which indicated that they got our names from their campground reservation database. In the YVP, the park admitted to not doing this. Had they done this, and had they allowed for public consideration with regards to changes to the entire campground area, the camping experience would have been radically different than it is now.
Also, just for the record, I did a survey of Lower Pines campground while I last camped there, and am happy to report that the vast majority of campers there were tents, and in the evening, there was less than one campfire out of every five campsites. This is not a scientific study by any means, but many arguments against these campgrounds is often associated with generators running and people playing their radios and watching their satellite TVS. These people, however obnoxious they may seem, are in the minority. They just seem more prevalent, because their presence fills the area. The majority of campers in Yosemite Valley are in fact tent campers, even today in 2007, believe it or not. And, they are not all bad. We're just average people. If average is more negative in 2007 than it was in 1967, I can't help that.
If you do want to maintain camping options available in some form or another in North Pines, there is no other way I am aware of than to get the park back to the negotiating table. Right now, it's their way or the highway, which is unacceptable to those people who have put their signatures to the petition. The SaveNorthPines.org website is currently the only hope of bringing the park service back to the table. Their goals for Yosemite Valley are best illustrated in the concrete and pavement you will see at the Lower Falls area, where that area can now accommodate any number of visitors from the never ending stream of tour buses. That project epitomizes what the park service wants to do with Yosemite Valley.
Gary, I can tell that you and the rest of you love Yosemite. But, if you love it, please think about where the park service is going here with regards to the changing of the demographics of who visits the park, and how the park is used.
For those out there who want a four-hour tour bus Yosemite experience to prevail, you can feel free to do nothing. Because by doing nothing, your desired outcome for the park is ensured. There is no petition for you to sign, just as there was no public input allowed for the park's adherence in the YVP to the old GMP, which was a far better plan for the more natural Yosemite Valley camping experience.
mark2
But, from what you are saying, Gary, I take it then that you will be in favor of the removal of North Pines campground, because currently this is going to happen unless someone or something persuades the park to reconsider that move.
Part of my post above was stated that it didn't matter which preference of camping you have, as they're all good. I recall your comments from the other site, and with respect, I didn't agree on the magnitude of the Yosemite Valley Plan, while as you say here, you don't agree with the broadness of the petition. There is always a gap between one end of an argument and the other, and a lot of area for discussion in between.
The park's position with the old Yosemite General Management Plan spent years on an environmental impact study that succeeded in getting some people on either side of the debate years ago to be upset. In placating no one, the old GMP in some ways, offended most everyone in one way or the other, as did the YVP. No plan will satisfy everyone. However, in the GMP, which the YVP was supposed to adhere to, the restoration of the old campgrounds which were laid out poorly from day one was the focus. That plan, via much public input, dramatically, and in some people's views radically, separated campsites and pulled all campsites up away from the river. The impacts to the river were to be significantly less, simply due to the separation of people and campsites, and distance from the river. Almost all environmentalists applauded that part of the GMP, though they may have taken issue with other parts of it.
When the YVP was rushed to completion, rather than adhering to the GMP, you must agree that nothing in the YVP comes close to anything in the GMP with regards to campgrounds. Instead of going to the public, they removed campgrounds, blaming the flood of '97, and separated none of the other sites in other campgrounds. The departure was that the end product was campgrounds removed, and remaining campgrounds left untouched, with the exception of a split rail fence along the river and a promise to upgrade the restrooms with the addition of some showers.
You mention the broadness of the petition, and in that I take it you are speaking of the position to replace all of the campsites just as they were. That position as stated is because the scoping study that allowed for public input regarding the draft Yosemite Valley plan never included comments with regards to ways to adhere to the GMP. Instead, no part of the options given included the separation of existing campsites as was the heart and sole of the GMP. Rather than massage the campgrounds with an environmental impact friendly approach to planning, entire campgrounds were removed, and those left were left crowded and untouched.
For this reason, it is our belief that, with regards to the campgrounds, everyone needs to be brought back to the planning table. And, the public needs to be involved in the planning this time.
During the old GMP planning, the park made an attempt to solicit input from previous campers, which indicated that they got our names from their campground reservation database. In the YVP, the park admitted to not doing this. Had they done this, and had they allowed for public consideration with regards to changes to the entire campground area, the camping experience would have been radically different than it is now.
Also, just for the record, I did a survey of Lower Pines campground while I last camped there, and am happy to report that the vast majority of campers there were tents, and in the evening, there was less than one campfire out of every five campsites. This is not a scientific study by any means, but many arguments against these campgrounds is often associated with generators running and people playing their radios and watching their satellite TVS. These people, however obnoxious they may seem, are in the minority. They just seem more prevalent, because their presence fills the area. The majority of campers in Yosemite Valley are in fact tent campers, even today in 2007, believe it or not. And, they are not all bad. We're just average people. If average is more negative in 2007 than it was in 1967, I can't help that.
If you do want to maintain camping options available in some form or another in North Pines, there is no other way I am aware of than to get the park back to the negotiating table. Right now, it's their way or the highway, which is unacceptable to those people who have put their signatures to the petition. The SaveNorthPines.org website is currently the only hope of bringing the park service back to the table. Their goals for Yosemite Valley are best illustrated in the concrete and pavement you will see at the Lower Falls area, where that area can now accommodate any number of visitors from the never ending stream of tour buses. That project epitomizes what the park service wants to do with Yosemite Valley.
Gary, I can tell that you and the rest of you love Yosemite. But, if you love it, please think about where the park service is going here with regards to the changing of the demographics of who visits the park, and how the park is used.
For those out there who want a four-hour tour bus Yosemite experience to prevail, you can feel free to do nothing. Because by doing nothing, your desired outcome for the park is ensured. There is no petition for you to sign, just as there was no public input allowed for the park's adherence in the YVP to the old GMP, which was a far better plan for the more natural Yosemite Valley camping experience.
mark2
|
Re: Petition to Save North Pines Campground June 29, 2007 03:50PM | Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 0 |
Mark2,
I've been reading this thread and have decided to jump in and stop lurking.
You are totally correct in everything you have stated here. Don’t be persuaded by those who want to shut your words down. The park service is wrong, dead wrong.
Thank you for stating the facts, as some of us already know them. And, thank you for telling me about the petition, of which I have proudly signed. It's the right thing to do.
Camping is the best way to connect with nature.
Notice that the park service didn't reduce any rooms at the Ahwahnee in their big plans to turn the park back to nature. NO. Most of the reductions in accommodations were in the campgrounds where they believed people wouldn’t complain as much. I’m here to tell them otherwise.
Their new plan makes the Ahwahnee more insulated from campers and more private resort like. The Yosemite Valley Plan is a way to accommodate the rich and sweep aside the poor who want to enjoy the park. The National Park Service has always treated campers as despicable second class citizens. Give me a break. Ever read Alfred Runte’s book, Yosemite: The Embattled Wilderness?? For those who haven’t read it, please do so. You won’t be so trusting of them with Yosemite’s future after reading it.
Here’s my open letter to Yosemite National Park:
Sorry Yosemite, not all of us can afford $300 a night. Some of us don't want a room at the lodge or your other options. Camping is our preference, and it always will be. Take camping away and we will just go somewhere else. If that's all you're hoping to accomplish, I guess you've succeeded.
A second generation Yosemite Valley Camper who first started camping there in 1953.
Dan W. Richardson
Reno, NV
I've been reading this thread and have decided to jump in and stop lurking.
You are totally correct in everything you have stated here. Don’t be persuaded by those who want to shut your words down. The park service is wrong, dead wrong.
Thank you for stating the facts, as some of us already know them. And, thank you for telling me about the petition, of which I have proudly signed. It's the right thing to do.
Camping is the best way to connect with nature.
Notice that the park service didn't reduce any rooms at the Ahwahnee in their big plans to turn the park back to nature. NO. Most of the reductions in accommodations were in the campgrounds where they believed people wouldn’t complain as much. I’m here to tell them otherwise.
Their new plan makes the Ahwahnee more insulated from campers and more private resort like. The Yosemite Valley Plan is a way to accommodate the rich and sweep aside the poor who want to enjoy the park. The National Park Service has always treated campers as despicable second class citizens. Give me a break. Ever read Alfred Runte’s book, Yosemite: The Embattled Wilderness?? For those who haven’t read it, please do so. You won’t be so trusting of them with Yosemite’s future after reading it.
Here’s my open letter to Yosemite National Park:
Sorry Yosemite, not all of us can afford $300 a night. Some of us don't want a room at the lodge or your other options. Camping is our preference, and it always will be. Take camping away and we will just go somewhere else. If that's all you're hoping to accomplish, I guess you've succeeded.
A second generation Yosemite Valley Camper who first started camping there in 1953.
Dan W. Richardson
Reno, NV
|
Re: Petition to Save North Pines Campground July 01, 2007 08:45AM | Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 0 |
July 01, 2007 11:03AM | Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 16 |
Forget it Dan. They'd rather talk about less confrontational issues here, and we need to respect that.
Thanks, though, for the nice comments on the thread above.
Maybe they'll get upset later when the issue of not being able to find a campsite becomes a personal issue for them.
Perhaps they'll get mad at the eBay scalpers for the campsites that these people are getting for resale only for profit, rather than agree that the park service took too many campsites out.
It doesn't seem that they're going to blame the Y.N.P.S. for removing 37% of the campsites in the valley, or themselves for not fighting it.
Thanks for signing this petition, as it is currently the ONLY public effort to save North Pines Campground in Yosemite Valley from destruction by the park service.
mark
www.SaveNorthPines.org
mark2
Thanks, though, for the nice comments on the thread above.
Maybe they'll get upset later when the issue of not being able to find a campsite becomes a personal issue for them.
Perhaps they'll get mad at the eBay scalpers for the campsites that these people are getting for resale only for profit, rather than agree that the park service took too many campsites out.
It doesn't seem that they're going to blame the Y.N.P.S. for removing 37% of the campsites in the valley, or themselves for not fighting it.
Thanks for signing this petition, as it is currently the ONLY public effort to save North Pines Campground in Yosemite Valley from destruction by the park service.
mark
www.SaveNorthPines.org
mark2
July 01, 2007 01:29PM | Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 1,232 |
Bulldozers. They will be there only a little while.
After North Pines is dozed, then we start with Curry and plow that
Use the tailings and scour out a couple spots outside the park for campers. And those campers bus in with our really kewl environmentally friendly natural gas/pedal power buses.
After North Pines is dozed, then we start with Curry and plow that
Use the tailings and scour out a couple spots outside the park for campers. And those campers bus in with our really kewl environmentally friendly natural gas/pedal power buses.
July 01, 2007 11:09PM | Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 16 |
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
