Merced River Plan Workbook is out 3/19/12

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
This thread has been locked
Messages 21 - 28 of total 28 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
David Wilson

climber
CA
Mar 24, 2012 - 03:40pm PT
pretty divergent strategies from 1 to 5

#1 - restore the most land, keep camping about the same, decrease the visitation, decrease parking, decrease lodging, continue to check permits at entrance stations.

#5 - restore less land, significantly increase camping,lodging,parking,use, institute parking fees and traffic diversions to accommodate demand


CF

climber
Topic Author's Reply - Mar 24, 2012 - 07:57pm PT
Been trying to compare all these figures they have in the chart and it was hard for me to read as they have all these pretty little symbols and extra info. Plus it was on 2 pages so trying to compare the current with alt 5 was hard. I am just concerned about the valley so i put mostly valley alts in a xls sheet so i could really compare them. pay attention to the highlighted words/numbers in red. i started to compare current #s with #s in the alternatives, very interesting, you will see those in red. i will update the other #s soon.
CF

climber
Topic Author's Reply - Mar 25, 2012 - 02:27pm PT
Went through the whole plan and folks, everyone needs to comment on what they want.

You can comment at:
http://parkplanning.nps.gov/commentForm.cfm?documentID=45044

My latest updated sheet has all the numbers compared (in red)so you can easily see how many campsites, lodging, parking etc will be lost or added. Check out notes at bottom as these are some good questions to ask. When you comment be positive and try to offer solutions for problems.
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B9bhyqI8_BXNdDFuRGIxa0tSQmlwWk1sbG1XOFhfZw/edit?pli=1

ST should make this plan sticky at the top!

ryankelly

Trad climber
el portal
Mar 31, 2012 - 02:05am PT
bump
David Wilson

climber
CA
Mar 31, 2012 - 11:38am PT
Reading a bit more into these options, my preference is #1 in terms of limiting visitation, but the day use permit will be a real bitch. So, I'm now thinking it's #3, the first option that does not require a day use permit and still limits visitation somewhat. The parking fees they have in mind will likely be a bummer as well, but I suspect easier to navigate than the need to make a reservation for the day use permit.

Drewid

Boulder climber
New Helvetia, CA
Apr 4, 2012 - 12:11pm PT
you know when they instituted the whole fee and reservation system on the half dome cables I thought it sucked but could live with it since the shoulder seasons are unrestricted. But the thought of a day use reservation system just to get into the Park really is starting to make me uncomfortable. lots of questions here, if you're a local who is used to cruising into the park whenever, this could really be a deal killer. How would this affect the annual pass holders, would we still be subject to the reservation system? Would it be as simple as calling a few days ahead? Will we be limited to a certain number of visits over a certain period of time? Feel bad for all the climbers and gypsies and nomads out on the road who make it to the park only to be turned around cuz they didn't make a reservation, f'in bs. How long before they close the gates at night and give all visitors mandatory lectures on reducing their contribution to GHG and charging various fees to climb different cliffs and installing surveillance cameras to make sure nobody sets foot off the pavement? Sorry to sound extremist here but you see we're losing our freedoms increment by increment and cumulatively it adds up. imho the pendulum has swung too far and the decision makers are mistaking park with preserve. With thoughtful planning and careful management, it is possible to conserve YNP's treasures for all w/o turning it into a preserve for a chosen few. Please kill alts. 1 and 2.
JEleazarian

Trad climber
Fresno CA
Apr 4, 2012 - 03:33pm PT
To me, the real question is their methodology in deriving a "carrying capacity" for Yosemite Valley. That answer determines the options for dealing with the Valley. In a way, it reminds me of the old joke about how a good accountnant would answer the question "What's two plus two?" The answer: What do you want it to be?

My real discomfort is with a process that plans one of the nation's and world's greatest treasures by lawsuit. There are a lot of competing interests that should be at the table, but aren't in litigation. The calculation of the carrying capcity is designed to please the litigants, rather than all of those who care about the Park and the Valley.

I hope citizen input affects the process, but I'm not holding my breath. A thousand comments in this process probably aren't worth one page of one motion in the litigation pending before Judge Ishii in Fresno.

John
CF

climber
Topic Author's Reply - Apr 12, 2012 - 01:43pm PT
Merced River Plan Chart Consolidated for Humans to Read
New revision that prints better

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AtbhyqI8_BXNdDFvdnJDUWZaSEZUWEpxSVlZUzl6U2c

Any one go to the Valley workshops that were on 3/28?

Today they have one in El Portal, 2>4.
Messages 21 - 28 of total 28 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
 
Our Guidebooks
Check 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks


Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo Videos

Recent Route Beta