SummitPost.org

http://www.mercurynews.com/science/ci_19228063:

"The Merced River Plan is a big deal that the public is snoozing through," said Rick Deutsch, who has written a book about the park. "It could radically alter the facilities, parking and recreation at the park."..."In past plans the pizza parlors and retail shops were as protected as trail walking or family picnicking," Adair said. "We think -- and the ruling in the 9th Circuit strongly agreed -- that all recreation is not equal in a protected river corridor ... and those that focus on experiencing nature are deserving of a plan that protects and even enhances."

There will be a Merced River Plan Workshop in San Francisco, November 9th from 5-8 P.M.:
http://www.nps.gov/yose/parkmgmt/mrp_meetings.htm

Here is the workbook to aid in citizenship endeavors: http://www.nps.gov/yose/parkmgmt/upload/Merced-Wkbk-web_interactive.pdf

Here is the link to other park planning processes: http://www.nps.gov/yose/parkmgmt/planning.htm

(These links have been posted in honor of political correctness, and therefore are devoid of my personal opinions).

By the way, did I write, in a now deleted group of posts, that I would burn this entire area from memory, or only that piece of granite portrayed on the CA quarters?

If you are daring and believe you can toe the line, politically incorrect responses to this post will be appreciated.

OMG there are a lot of words in that workbook link.

Why don't you just tell us what this is about SeanReedy?

This really gets my dander up. This is just a repeated attempt to do by another means what a small group of people have tried to do in the past. The same thing happened with the Yosemite General Management Plan of 1980 and that was a disaster. The point is to drive people out of the Valley and frankly, this is offensive. It is an elitist overreach, trying to cut off access of one of our national treasures to ALL the people. In a society with a growing population, it is an injustice to try to limit access to a national treasure in the name of trying to return a river to its pre-1850's course. Why can't they just accept that the Valley is what it is and try to improve it in that context for everyone, rather than kick people out. I think it is an unreachable goal they are after. Instead, they continue to try to find new ways to leverage their vision onto everyone else. It is as if the relatively new Wild and Scenic status outweighs the national park status or something. I did not know about this current effort but I am not surprised. Honestly, the user input guide seems like an attempt at obfuscation.

If they begin to limit the number of people in the Valley, are they prepared to absorb significantly more people in Tuolumne? That would happen inevitably. Are they going to limit the number of people up there too? That area is significantly more sensitive than the Valley.

Now, I am a wilderness advocate, but the Valley is just what it is. I think that it would be a shame to make it harder for people to experience it. Besides, if you are looking up all the time, you hardly notice the person next to you. For those who want to see it the way it was before the 1850's (which is futile, unless you cut down most of the ponderosa and cedar) there are plenty of places to get to easily where you can see all the Valley landmarks in privacy and not even see a road or building. That should satisfy their elitism, rather than try to foist it on everyone else.

My family has been camping in the Valley since the turn of the century. When my grandfather returned home after spending a year in an English hospital recuperating from wounds he suffered fighting outside of Aachen the first thing he wanted to do was go to Yosemite. My folks met hiking up Half Dome and my brother and grew up staying, camping and backpacking in Yosemite at all times of the year. When I was younger, my brother, cousins and I would go to the stables, put on life preservers and throw ourselves into the river. We spent the whole day floating the river all the way down to Devil's Elbow. Like so many other things, they say we can't do that anymore. I know that my experience is like an uncountable number of other families' experiences. This is what they want to get rid of.

Yep, I did find the workbook to be the most intriguing element. Also, when I discovered the wilderness and wild and scenic river designations over the summer, I found the boundaries, effects, and length of time that has passed since the designations interesting.

The current process seems brilliant in one sense as it attempts to educate those who participate, allows for their ideas to be put in writing, comes across as transparent, but makse it easier for leadership to steer the direction of education and responses to build a consensus. You can even e-mail your workbook responses to the NPS.

How many folks out there will trust the education and consensus building process that occurs? Will participating matter? Will participating make the outcomes more satisfying or less satisfying? How else should the NPS and members of the public go about all this? One's perspective would influence all of those questions.

As for me, I've managed to stay away from Yosemite Valley in 2011. Both the crowds, and the regulations that come with them, steer me elesewhere. Like Bubba, I appreciate wilderness, but have questioned the wisdom of the designation boundaries, some of the specific regulations in this particular area, and how these decisions may impact other areas.
I'm thankful for the many other areas available that are more my style, for the protection of those areas, the absence of fees in most of those areas, and also for the places like Yosemite that tend to keep crowds to a relatively small part of public lands.

mrchad9 wrote:OMG there are a lot of words in that workbook link.

Why don't you just tell us what this is about SeanReedy?

Well, in my last post I said something abou "building a consensus" and "transparency" in regard to how to save Yosemite (or something), but here is what the workbook says:

Please fill out the interactive comment pages
(pages 27-29) at the end of your workbook (River
Management Considerations, Your Top Management
Options, and Putting The Pieces Together) and
return them to us. While we won’t be producing an
official report on the feedback we receive through
the workbook, your feedback will help inform the
interdisciplinary planning team as we walk through
the same process of developing alternatives. All
feedback will be read and considered by the Merced
River Planning Team, as your input is the key to the
collaborative alternatives development process we
are engaged in. The feedback you provide will help us
determine a range of alternatives to address the plan’s
goals. In order to be most helpful in this process we
encourage your feedback by November 30, 2011.
There are several ways to share your thoughts:
• You can turn the comment pages in at a public
meeting.
• Fill it out online at
http://www.nps.gov/yose/parkmgmt/mrp.htm
and email it to yose_planning@nps.gov
• Tear it out and mail it to:
Superintendent
Yosemite National Park
Attn: Merced River Plan
P.O. Box 577
Yosemite, CA 95389

I doubt that I'll read it all, nor fill it out, but if you can prove to me that you filled it out, there may be a ticket to Burning Man in it for you.

Well, I haven't read the workbook, but can definitely confirm that I agree 100% with Bubba Suess's post here. Some places are just going to be crowded, and to try to manage it does not accomplish a greater good. I could go into a lot of reasons, but Bubba already layed it all out very clearly.

In response to Sean's OP looking for our thoughts... no amount of workbooks, meetings, or consensus building is going to change my mind on that... likely not Bubba's either. If their goal is consensus they are simply going to need to share our position.