Comments Needed by 4/18 on the Future of the Valley and C4!

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List

This thread has been locked

Messages 61 - 80 of total 103 in this topic

<< First | < Previous | Show All | Next > | Last >>

Largo

Sport climber

The Big Wide Open Face

Apr 15, 2013 - 03:43pm PT

Bump Only 3 days left.

Don Paul

Big Wall climber

Colombia, South America

Apr 15, 2013 - 04:36pm PT

I wrote my own letter:

My name is Paul Wolf and I live and practice law in Washington DC. I am also a rock climber and have been climbing in Yosemite starting around 1992.

I urge you to please respect the opinion of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, in Friends of Yosemite Valley v Kempthorne, No. 07-15124, which held that the 2005 NPS revised plan did not take into account the actual level of visitor use that would not adversely impact the Merced River. In other words, the NPS' over-development of Yosemite Valley was causing an unacceptable ecological impact on the river.

This is the highest court to ever consider this issue, and is a law that must be followed. In particular, I direct your attention to the following two footnotes which highlight the Court's concerns:

Footnote 5:

To illustrate the level of degradation already experienced in the Merced and maintained under the regime of interim limits proposed by NPS, we need look no further than the dozens of facilities and services operating within the river corridor, including but not limited to, the many swimming pools, tennis courts, mountain sports shops, restaurants, cafeterias, bars, snack stands and other food and beverage services, gift shops, general merchandise stores, an ice-skating rink, an amphitheater, a specialty gift shop, a camp store, an art activity center, rental facilities for bicycles and rafts, skis and other equipment, a golf course and a dining hall accommodating 70 people.

Footnote 6:

Our decision in High Sierra Hikers Ass’n v. Blackwell, 390 F.3d 630 (9th Cir. 2004), highlighted some of the problems with simply maintaining use at current levels. In examining compliance with the Wilderness Act, we stated that “[a]t best, when the Forest Service simply continued preexisting permit levels, it failed to balance the impact that that level of commercial activity was having on the wilderness character of the land. At worst, the Forest Service elevated recreational activity over the long-term preservation of the wilderness character of the land.”

Yosemite should be returned to a more natural state, and the way to do this is to reduce development, traffic, and yes, even the number of visitors who enter the park each year. That's not the metric to use to evaluate the greatness of Yosemite Valley.

Sincerely,

Don Paul

Big Wall climber

Colombia, South America

Apr 15, 2013 - 04:45pm PT

This is the link to where the comments are supposed to be posted, if you dont want to use the access fund's form letter. Although they are lobbying for more extensive camp grounds I would prefer to see them tear down all the tourist junk first.

http://parkplanning.nps.gov/commentForm.cfm?documentID=50778

ron gomez

Trad climber

fallbrook,ca

Apr 15, 2013 - 05:01pm PT

Thanks for the information Rick, check, roger, done!
Peace

camtron

Trad climber

OC/Fresno

Apr 15, 2013 - 05:13pm PT

Doneski

Alex McIntyre

climber

Tucson, AZ

Apr 15, 2013 - 05:14pm PT

I have sent my personalized letter via the Access Fund's website.

jaystone

Trad climber

EDH, Ca

Apr 15, 2013 - 05:18pm PT

done

austingardner04

Trad climber

Apr 15, 2013 - 05:25pm PT

Email submitted!

Patrick Sawyer

climber

Originally California now Ireland

Apr 15, 2013 - 05:28pm PT

I have been trying but it does not recognize my Irish phone number, I have tried several different ways. I do not want to use my late mother's old phone number (Saranap/Walnut Creek/Lafayette), nor my late brother's (Napa) nor my other friends and relatives.

There must be a way around it. Advice, anyone?

Patrick Sawyer

climber

Originally California now Ireland

Apr 15, 2013 - 05:32pm PT

Okay, I put in 000 000 0000 for my phone number and it accepted it.

Getch

Mountain climber

Flagstaff, AZ

Apr 15, 2013 - 05:44pm PT

dun.

Thats gotta be getting close to 100, no?

looks like i am #94

to count ctrl+f in browser, put in PT (or abbreviation for your time zone._)

cworlow

Trad climber

Minneapolis, MN

Apr 15, 2013 - 05:52pm PT

Done!

MattF

Trad climber

Bend, Or

Apr 15, 2013 - 05:57pm PT

I want to send a letter, but it appears that the Access Fund Action Center on their website is broken and won't load. Anyone else having this problem? I tried in both Mac Chrome and Mac Firefox... :-(

ScottR

Trad climber

Davis, CA

Apr 15, 2013 - 06:44pm PT

Donzo

JBC

Trad climber

Portland, OR

Apr 15, 2013 - 10:43pm PT

Done!

I did not have to enter a phone number, just left it blank.

Big Mike

Trad climber

Apr 16, 2013 - 02:48am PT

Done!

the Fet

climber

Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La

Apr 16, 2013 - 06:31am PT

Bump: 11 more needed.

Don Paul

Big Wall climber

Colombia, South America

Apr 16, 2013 - 07:30am PT

It's not voting, but it is a legal process and you want to make sure you identify yourself as a US citizen (if true). It's called notice and comment, and is a required step an adminstrative agency must take when it proposes new rules. The agency has to take public comments into account. If there are 100 of the same letter, it doesn't count 100 times. But if you write a letter with a unique idea they are supposed to consider it. The shorter the letter, the stronger the message will be. Remember, the reason for all this is that the NPS' previous plan was struck down in Federal court as illegal because the river is legally protected. If you want more camping space, I'd suggest tying it to environmentalism somehow. Such as, camping has less impact than staying in hotels, campers are better stewards of the park than hotel guests, buses are lower impact than cars, and so on. It's great there is a form letter so people can show support but I think duplicate letters will not be effective. The NPS is not in a position to take a survey and do what the majority wants. They are trying to write a plan that satisfies their bureaucratic objectives (increase budget and staff requirements, make their own lives easier, whatever) and also the Court.