"...to promote and regulate the use of the national parks which purpose is to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wild life therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations."












Yup.....

You seem to be beating your dead horse, Chief. And your photos are just a matter of perspective, ie, your perspective. But that's ok. . .

Arthur, why you no doubt fail to comprehend what I reference, is your lack of knowledge of the pure size difference and usage toll. When you are dealing with 760,000 acres (Yosemite) so close to such large populations (California-37 million people) compared to 5 million acres (the continuous Banff-Jasper National Park system) surrounded by a province much larger than CA in land mass, yet only 3 million people....a NP system surrounded by many wild provincial parks and lands in themselves much larger than Yosemite (i.e. Kananaskis 1 million acres)...the country is harsh, wild and woolly....most folks are not equipped physically to see beyond Lake Louise and the well maintained trails no doubt and thus their lack of perception of what we are talking about....and that is all good of course. I don't see hunting, atvs, motorized boats, etc. Just more of an outdoor experience really. Much bigger country. Mount Robson makes its own provincial park practically the size of Yosemite. Bugaboos make their own provincial park, etc, etc. No hunting, ATV's, red necks or many tourists, not when you consider the size and scope of what I am talking about. Numbers, facts, petty stuff really.

Arthur Digbee wrote:

Dow Williams wrote:Below is what I noticed and to be honest, why we left Tahoe to spend more time north of the border in a much broader wilderness/park system.

The Canadians have gotten a lot better after about 1980. But before then:

For decades it was Parks Canada policy to have a golf course in every park.

Banff was twice proposed as a site for the Winter Olympics.

The crown jewel parks typically have a township inside their boundaries, with year-round residents.

Parks Canada has a tradition of being much more open to extractive uses of the parks, including logging, oil and gas development, and minerals extraction. (All those have happened in US parks too.)

The developments at Lake Louise are an abomination. Of course, so is Yosemite Valley.

dskoon wrote:You seem to be beating your dead horse, Chief. And your photos are just a matter of perspective, ie, your perspective. But that's ok. . .

Really!

Seems that others on this thread feel and have the perspective as I do. Our perspective.

Here's a good one.

Golden Eagle Pass in the late 80's was all of 15.00. I am looking right at mine for 1989.

Today....

It no longer is the GE Pass rather the America the Beautiful – National Parks and Federal Recreational Lands Pass – Annual Pass - Cost $80.

The public shitters and other public use facilities, CGs etc., in TM, The Valley, Arches, Zion to name a few, were last upgraded in the early 80's at best. But I always seem to notice that the NPS Admin Buildings in the above Parks are continuously being upgraded and the Park Officials always drive the most recent years vehicles.

The Chief wrote:But I always seem to notice that the NPS Admin Buildings in the above Parks are continuously being upgraded and the Park Officials always drive the most recent years vehicles.

Not only is this true, but look around at your local municipalities....it is hilarious, the City offices are all new and spectacular structures......while libraries and the like remain untouched. I am not being a negative nancy, just saying......I notice this all the time...noticed it last night in Banff, thus why I joined in....fresh on my mind. Canmore the same way. St. George Utah just built the most amazing municipal building, an architectural masterpiece with grand views....a place to go pay your water bill for christs sake. Meanwhile muni bonds are fast becoming high risk instruments demanding same on return of investment.

The Chief wrote:

dskoon wrote:You seem to be beating your dead horse, Chief. And your photos are just a matter of perspective, ie, your perspective. But that's ok. . .

Really!

Seems that others on this thread feel and have the perspective as I do. Our perspective.

Here's a good one.

Golden Eagle Pass in the late 80's was all of 15.00.

Today....

It no longer is the GE Pass rather the America the Beautiful – National Parks and Federal Recreational Lands Pass – Annual Pass - Cost $80.

The public shitters in TM, YNP, Arches, Zion to name a few, were last upgraded in the early 80's at best. But I always seem to notice that the NPS Admin Buildings in the above Parks are continuously being upgraded and the Park Officials always drive the most recent years vehicles.

Yes, others do, in fact, share your perspective. You just keep showing pics of crowds and development, as if that was the only thing going on in a Nat'l. park.

Yes, everything goes up in price over the years; no doubt about it. Look at the price of gasoline, or a movie.
The park service is a govt. run entity, so it's going to have those govt. $$-laced projects, upgrading, etc. inherently built into it.
Easy enough to find flaws in the system, and dislike it if you must. That's fine.

I for one, but am not alone, find these set-asided islands of natural features invaluable, and am very thankful for the foresight shown by some hard-working heroes, way back when, to fight developmental interests, such as the groups who wanted to mine Grand Canyon. I'd rather have a vistior's center on the south rim, and accompanying parking lot, along with a preserved Grand Canyon, than a canyon full of mines and slew runoff. Same goes for the giant Sequoias of the Sierra. They'd be gone by now if they hadn't been protected. All tradeoffs.

I do find it ironic, though, that you continue to talk about crowds, development, over-pricing, etc. etc. as reasons you dislike, and seemingly, will not support parks by going there, but yet you work(or have worked), in the winter, at a major ski area such as Mammoth. Talk about crowds and overpricing and paving and development! Geez!
But, I guess it's all a choice.

As it should be. MMS is a BUSINESS and not a caretaker of the PEOPLES Designated Pristine Wilderness.

The NPS has indeed become a business empire.

Ironically, MMS must follow ALL the USFS strict environmental guidelines for any improvements that they may do on the USFS leased land.

The NPS on the other hand, well, they follow their own set guidelines.

Come on... DSKOON.

The Chief wrote:It no longer is the GE Pass rather the America the Beautiful – National Parks and Federal Recreational Lands Pass – Annual Pass - Cost $80.

The public shitters and other public use facilities, CGs etc., in TM, The Valley, Arches, Zion to name a few, were last upgraded in the early 80's at best. But I always seem to notice that the NPS Admin Buildings in the above Parks are continuously being upgraded and the Park Officials always drive the most recent years vehicles.

Take it up with Congress. It appropriates only about $25 million of the $100 million that Yosemite spends every year, which the NPS gets from user fees, donations from the Association, and other fund-raising. That other $75 million is mostly discretionary, so the NPS brass spend it where they want. Congress could appropriate more money and direct it at toilets.

As for salary, Chief: the top GS salary for 2010 (GS-15, step 10) is $129,517. (About the same as a two-star general, for what it's worth.) Nice money, but not outrageous for somebody running an organization with $100 million in income. My boss runs a slightly larger organization and earns well over $300K.

As for Dow: I understand what you're saying, but compare like to like. So compare the big Canadian parks with our Alaskan parks. Compare Canada's eastern parks to our eastern parks.

I think all that open space in Canada's western parks made it all too easy to put up with inappropriate developments in the tourists' front country. Also, international tourism as a share of GDP is several times larger in Canada in the US, so there were economic incentives to defoul Lake Louise.

The Chief wrote:As it should be. MMS is a BUSINESS and not a caretaker of the PEOPLES Designated Pristine Wilderness.

The NPS has indeed become a business empire.

Ironically, MMS must follow ALL the USFS strict environmental guidelines for any improvements that they may do on the USFS leased land.

The NPS on the other hand, well, they follow their own set guidelines.

Come on... DSKOON.

Ahh, I see. Development and support of sprawl, crowds, condos, etc. is ok as long as it's run as a business. . .
I guess the alternative would be one of no Camp Curry or Awhnee, etc. in the park, but megahotels, etc. etc. Since it would all be competetive business for profit, on the outskirts of the park. I wonder what that would look like?
"Pristine," is your interpretation, not one set by the NPS.

Arthur Digbee wrote:Take it up with Congress. It appropriates only about $25 million of the $100 million that Yosemite spends every year, which the NPS gets from user fees, donations from the Association, and other fund-raising. That other $75 million is mostly discretionary, so the NPS brass spend it where they want. Congress could appropriate more money and direct it at toilets.

Congress DOES NOT delegate where those appropriated funds are to be used for.

The local Park NPS Officials DO.

"Stop expanding the roads, buying new vehicles every year, upgrading your personal admin offices annually and fix the toilets and the general public facilities here in the Park."

Were Ron Kauk's words at a TM Environmental Planning Meeting held in TM two Spring's ago that I attended. This stemmed from a human waste sewage leak into the adjacent Tuolomne River after two 60 year old holding tanks burst in one of the TM CG's bathrooms spewing raw human sewage. This wasn't the first time this happened in the CG either.

The Chief wrote:"...to promote and regulate the use of the national parks which purpose is to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wild life therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations."

Thanks Chief.

Why was there a swimming pool, ice skating rink and golf course in YOSEMITE? Damn, it made me mad. Thirty years ago I almost became an eco-terrorist in Yosemite.

Dude, this is not some silly and typical patriotic squabble, please don't start with me on that. I live in a world, first and foremost, country second. No one was talking about Alaska, I climb up there as well. My comment is that I chose to spend most of my time in much more pristine environments that are tormented by less visitation numbers per sq mile. The point I was making was personal, never meant to be a US vs Canada one. Tired of these defensive threads where everyone has to chest beat about his local county or state park for gods sake. My next climbing development area is actually going to be in Black Canyon of Gunnison National Park. I sure in the hell don't give a damn about what country or state it is in. But if cars were lined up for two hours to get in (my last experience traveling through Yosemite), then yes, you will not find me climbing there.

Arthur Digbee wrote:As for Dow: I understand what you're saying, but compare like to like. So compare the big Canadian parks with our Alaskan parks. Compare Canada's eastern parks to our eastern parks.

I think all that open space in Canada's western parks made it all too easy to put up with inappropriate developments in the tourists' front country. Also, international tourism as a share of GDP is several times larger in Canada in the US, so there were economic incentives to defoul Lake Louise.

Dow Williams wrote:Arthur, why you no doubt fail to comprehend what I reference, is your lack of knowledge of the pure size difference and usage toll. When you are dealing with 760,000 acres (Yosemite) so close to such large populations (California-37 million people) compared to 5 million acres (the continuous Banff-Jasper National Park system) surrounded by a province much larger than CA in land mass, yet only 3 million people....a NP system surrounded by many wild provincial parks and lands in themselves much larger than Yosemite (i.e. Kananaskis 1 million acres)...the country is harsh, wild and woolly....most folks are not equipped physically to see beyond Lake Louise and the well maintained trails no doubt and thus their lack of perception of what we are talking about....and that is all good of course. I don't see hunting, atvs, motorized boats, etc. Just more of an outdoor experience really. Much bigger country. Mount Robson makes its own provincial park practically the size of Yosemite. Bugaboos make their own provincial park, etc, etc. No hunting, ATV's, red necks or many tourists, not when you consider the size and scope of what I am talking about. Numbers, facts, petty stuff really.

Amen.

The Chief wrote:Really!

Seems that others on this thread feel and have the perspective as I do. Our perspective.

Here's a good one.

It's a real shame being stuck in traffic around Yosemite. I don't event bother going to the valley after 1 visit, the only thing it needs is a large neon sign. Was that pic you posted with the pool taken in the valley? I wouldn't be surprised.

James_W wrote:Was that pic you posted with the pool taken in the valley? I wouldn't be surprised.

It is located at the Curry Village.