|
|
|
|
okieterry
Aug 20, 2004, 7:34 PM
Post #1 of 25
(6477 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 11, 2002
Posts: 273
|
Link, the climbing ranger in yosemite, has started a thread in the Supertopo forum where he informs the climbing community that the rangers will now start enforcing the "one week at camp 4 and two weeks camping anywhere in Yosemite" rule during the summer months. Check it out!!!
Although this summer is almost over...this is something that needs to be worked out before next summer. Link is caught in the middle and you can tell that he (and his fellow rangers) really don't want to have to enforce this stupid rule.
The one week rule is supposed to insure that campsites are not hogged and everyone has the opportunity to camp in this amazing place. Unfortunately, if the rangers proceed as they say they are, the camping hassles around the park will become very difficult. The traffic will increase as more people are forced to stay outside the park and daytrip in, the illegal bivys will increase, and ranger hassles will be terrible. The environment will suffer as more vehicles means more air pollutants and noise and more illegal camping will mean less "pristine" areas.
The freedom to simply camp and climb in yosemite is a treasure and must be preserved. This problem needs to be fixed and because it is a rule, we will probably need to start near the top of the bureaucracy to get anyone to listen.
The key issue seems to be "space available". But everyone knows how much "space" has been given to the RV and hotel patrons versus the tent campers. Everyone who knows how little space is needed for a tent or sleeping bag compared to a hotel room or RV spot needs to get involved.
|
|
|
|
|
noshoesnoshirt
Aug 20, 2004, 7:45 PM
Post #2 of 25
(6477 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 24, 2002
Posts: 440
|
indeed.
kerry allen here. what you been up to terry?
|
|
|
|
|
salamanizer
Aug 21, 2004, 2:43 AM
Post #3 of 25
(6477 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 3, 2004
Posts: 879
|
I have strong feelings about this one. I would like to see them do away with all RV's and hotels in the valley, buss everyone in and make all camping sites tent only. However, I know this will never happen and I also understand the reasoning why. Question is, what can we do? They'll never tear out hotels and RV spots for tent camping. Money talks.
Wasn't their some talk a while ago about no longer allowing personal motor vehicles in the park? Everyone was to be bussed in from outside the park. What happend to this idea? Was it not economical or is everyone so against that idea. Something needs to be done with the valley. If John Muir rose from his grave and set foot in Yosemite today he would probably shake his head, turn around and walk right back. I love Yosemite but avoid it like the plague during summer months. What needs to be done? What can be done? What is un-likely to happen? Who can we talk to? What can I do? What can we do? One voice can be heard, but thousands can't be ignored.
|
|
|
|
|
caughtinside
Aug 21, 2004, 3:11 AM
Post #4 of 25
(6477 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 8, 2003
Posts: 30603
|
Bussing ain't a great idea. Sure it sounds good, until you realize that you're going there with a ton of climbing/camping gear, and don't want to tote it around on a bus. Plus, a family with 3 or 4 kids won't want that hassle either.
|
|
|
|
|
boltdude
Aug 21, 2004, 3:20 AM
Post #5 of 25
(6477 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 30, 2002
Posts: 685
|
salamanizer, the bus proposal was to allow personal cars for anyone with reservations, and bus everyone else.
Thus rich folks staying at the Ahwahnee wouldn't have to leave their fancy cars and ride the bus with the rest of us.
That's one reason why a lot of people who would love to get rid of cars in the Valley were opposed to the bus proposals in the Valley plan.
|
|
|
|
|
salamanizer
Aug 21, 2004, 3:43 AM
Post #6 of 25
(6477 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 3, 2004
Posts: 879
|
In reply to: salamanizer, the bus proposal was to allow personal cars for anyone with reservations, and bus everyone else. Thus rich folks staying at the Ahwahnee wouldn't have to leave their fancy cars and ride the bus with the rest of us.
AAh, figured that much. I'm not for that at all. Its equal or nothing.
I think the lack of "tent" camping is a shame but you can't charge as much for a tent as you can for some house on wheeles or catering now can you. Thats BS, the persons in charge of developement should be shot and buried under my tent.
|
|
|
|
|
eyecannon
Aug 21, 2004, 4:10 AM
Post #7 of 25
(6477 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 4, 2004
Posts: 517
|
I don't see why they don't just "build" another campsite like camp 4, perhaps right near it and alot bigger. I understand that you don't want to turn it into a little city, but there is some room for expansion.
I'm sure there's some obscure reason why they don't do this.
|
|
|
|
|
enjoimx
Aug 21, 2004, 6:00 AM
Post #8 of 25
(6477 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 23, 2004
Posts: 378
|
I went to yosemite end of july (few weeks ago). Middle of summer. I was all worried about getting a campsite because of all the talk i hear everywhere "Oh yosemite is sooo busy in the summer". I show up at 10 o clock to camp 4, and walk right into a sweet campsite no problem. I honestly dont see the big deal. Sure i saw alot of people walking around, i dont know where they were camping, but it sure didnt effect my stay. Oh by the way, it was a weekend!!!!!!!
|
|
|
|
|
salamanizer
Aug 21, 2004, 6:04 AM
Post #9 of 25
(6477 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 3, 2004
Posts: 879
|
Lucky bastard, I usually have to walk around pleading with a 12 pack and a bottle of scotch to get a camp site in the summer.
|
|
|
|
|
overlord
Aug 21, 2004, 11:46 AM
Post #11 of 25
(6477 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 25, 2002
Posts: 14120
|
if done properly, bussing is a very good idea. even if you have to lug climbing gear. you have to get it out sometime anyway.
all that needs to be done is to make sure that busses are frequent enough so you dont ahve to wait and numerous enough to transport the masses.
offcourse this is an expensive poject, but its still a good one.
even better would be to have the busses run on natural gas. less pollution, not to mention making a great example on how to run a national park.
but, sadly, it probably will never happen.
|
|
|
|
|
noshoesnoshirt
Aug 21, 2004, 11:53 AM
Post #12 of 25
(6477 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 24, 2002
Posts: 440
|
here's my proposal; bicycle and foot traffic only. it'll keep the fluff out, make the valley much quieter and cleaner, and think about the money a few enterprising dirtbag climbers could make running rickshaws for fat tourists, their whiny kids, and their piles of luggage.
|
|
|
|
|
bsignorelli
Aug 21, 2004, 3:09 PM
Post #13 of 25
(6477 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 1, 2003
Posts: 415
|
Sounds like many of you are missing the larger point. The limits on how long you can stay in a national park, state park, forest service campgrounds and corps of engineers campgrounds are there to stop people from "living" in those parks and campgrounds.
This isn't just a Yosemite rule and it isn't just an "anti-climber" rule. It's there to keep the flow of people moving through the park and to not allow people to live in a popular destination.
Bryan
|
|
|
|
|
brutusofwyde
Aug 21, 2004, 8:26 PM
Post #14 of 25
(6477 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 3, 2002
Posts: 1473
|
In reply to: here's my proposal; bicycle and foot traffic only. it'll keep the fluff out, make the valley much quieter and cleaner, and think about the money a few enterprising dirtbag climbers could make running rickshaws for fat tourists, their whiny kids, and their piles of luggage.
This was actually proposed (numerous times) during the public input for the Valley Plan. The resulting EIR did not even acknowledge that the comment had been made.
Brutus
|
|
|
|
|
scuclimber
Aug 21, 2004, 8:47 PM
Post #15 of 25
(6477 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 30, 2003
Posts: 1007
|
I think it was in Chapter 4 of Desert Solitaire where Cactus Ed predicted many of these issues. The book was published in 1968. Doh. :roll:
|
|
|
|
|
bsignorelli
Aug 21, 2004, 10:44 PM
Post #16 of 25
(6477 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 1, 2003
Posts: 415
|
In reply to: As opposed to "living" in Housekeeping, Awahnee, or the Lodge?? Then why doesn't it apply to the rich, Hmmmm? Seems to me like it's you who don't get the point. Brutus
I just tried to book a three week stay in one of the hotels and it said you can't stay more than a week at any one hotel.
Now...this may mean you can switch to another hotel for another week.
What is the basis of your argument that dirtbag climbers should be treated any differently than other families and turons that want to visit the park?
It seems that a lot of climbers like to think that they own Yosemite seeing as how they think they shouldn't be charged to go there or climb there and they should be able to stay forever and they should be able to use bear boxes for extended periods or leave gear stashes at the base of climbs.
Oh and then the irony of climbers complaining that the valley is too crowded and that the popular routes are too crowded and you may have to wait in line for a few days to get started on the route.
Just wait till they start a permit system where you reserve your big wall route up to a year in advance and you only get x amount of days to finish the climb and no one else is allowed on the route until you get down.
Sounds stupid but the day will come eventually.
FWIW though, my thoughts are that it would be nice to have a system that promoted nature more than money making. I dunno what that system would look like though...
Bryan
|
|
|
|
|
brutusofwyde
Aug 22, 2004, 2:32 PM
Post #17 of 25
(6477 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 3, 2002
Posts: 1473
|
In reply to: I just tried to book a three week stay in one of the hotels and it said you can't stay more than a week at any one hotel.
Funny thing. I was told you can't stay in the same room more than 7 days. Nor is there any computer tracking your Photo ID and the total number of days you "hotel" in the Valley, as is being instituted for Camp 4.
In reply to: Now...this may mean you can switch to another hotel for another week.
But not another C4 campsite...
In reply to: What is the basis of your argument that dirtbag climbers should be treated any differently than other families and turons that want to visit the park?
(Hurriedly looking through the past 5,000 posts I have made over the last 11 years on the internet, and the 17 letters I have written to the NPS and my government representatives regarding the Valley Plan, and the notes from the Valley Plan public meetings I have attended) say WHAT???
I have argued consistently and vehemently that we, all of us, entering Yosemite National Park, be treated equally in terms of NPS policies, NPS lodging opportunities, and recreational opportunities.
That folks staying in the Lodge or the Awahnee meet the same length of stay, and transportation constraints as us dirtbags.
In reply to: It seems that a lot of climbers like to think that they own Yosemite seeing as how they think they shouldn't be charged to go there or climb there and they should be able to stay forever and they should be able to use bear boxes for extended periods or leave gear stashes at the base of climbs.
Seems to me you're talking out of... well, never mind. Re-read my post.
A very few climbers engage in the behavior you describe. And I am certainly not speaking for them. Have you ever climbed in Yosemite Valley? How many hours have you spent on Volunteer-in-park weekends there, side-by-side with other climbers and NPS personnel clearing brush, pulling nails, cleaning firepits, picking up trash? Or is what you know about it based solely on internet discussions? Never mind. You are certainly entitled to your opinion, however uninformed it may be.
The truth is, we all own Yosemite. Or at least we are stewards of the place. Every last one of us livin' in the USA & paying the NPS salary.
Brutus
|
|
|
|
|
redtail
Aug 22, 2004, 3:49 PM
Post #18 of 25
(6477 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 3, 2004
Posts: 48
|
The last time I went to Yosemite climbing was in 1986. I pulled in by myself and didn't even know where camp 4 was. I asked some park personnel and then got treated like shit. The folks working there (at least the ones I encountered) were about as rude as any I've ever met! The place itself is pure undescribable beauty, but the hordes of people (rich, poor, climbers, tourists, people of all nationalities and races, myself included) have ruined whatever Muir saw in his day. My suggestion would be to fence the whole place off and not let anyone go there for any reason. Some things are better off left alone and untouched. Who says that just because we are the dominate species on this planet that we have the right to do whatever we want with whatever we find. Yosemite was doing just fine without us, now look at the place.
Of course thats just my opinion for whatever it's worth.
Later, I'm headed out to go climb.
|
|
|
|
|
robreglinski
Aug 22, 2004, 6:38 PM
Post #19 of 25
(6477 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 2, 2004
Posts: 129
|
IMO as a tourist to the area (from scotland) this is very bad news
i wanted to come over to the valley next year to do a spell of big wall climbing however i can't justifi coming to the valley for any less than two weeks (i was planing on four and changing camping grounds) it costs a forture for a student like me to get to the valley and stay there.
also how many walls could i get done in a week? not many
its a silly system and badly thought out i think you time in the valley should also take into account the amount of space your taking up.
bad idea guys if your out there
|
|
|
|
|
calamity_chk
Aug 22, 2004, 6:45 PM
Post #20 of 25
(6477 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 23, 2002
Posts: 7994
|
amber_chk moved this thread from General to Access Issues & Closures.
|
|
|
|
|
ullr
Aug 22, 2004, 7:42 PM
Post #21 of 25
(6477 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 29, 2004
Posts: 338
|
It is a ridiculous and elitist thought to think that they are going to cut back on RV sites and hotels. Plus, outside of climbers, how many people want to crowd into a campsite like Camp 4 and be on top of eachother, not many. So all the other campgrounds seem pretty legitimate to me. Sure, they aren't the hog piling of Camp 4, but they are relatively asthetic sites.
What percentage of the park visitors do you think are climbers? I'm guessing less than 2%. Of those climbers, how many are really going to stay longer than one week? Maybe half? Most climbers have responsibilities outside of climbing that doesn't allow them a stay of much more than a week anyway.
So yes, the 1 week rule sucks. But if you really think about it, it won't affect that many people. And on the same thought, it also makes me feel like the park should allow a longer stay for the same reasons. Because not that many people actually stay longer than one week.
I imagine you could get a week in one of the higher priced campgroudns (Upper Pines, etc.) then cruise over to Camp 4 for a week. It would certainly cost more, but it seems possible.
|
|
|
|
|
bandidopeco
Oct 2, 2004, 10:34 PM
Post #22 of 25
(6477 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 17, 2004
Posts: 257
|
I have not seen this Idea thrown around, so I'll give it a toss. Space is limited, so how about having a minimalist way to camp. Across the street from camp 4 the forest is very open, with just a few bushes and plenty of space to throw down a sleeping pad. The same goes for just west of Camp. Why not have a policy where it is legal and ok to sleep for the night there, just so long as you have everything packed up and gone by 10/11 in the morning. This would be a no-campfire, no party section that should be free of charge (paying for sleeping seems kind of whacked to me when your not getting any service for it, especially in a place that's supposed to be "our" land.) Parking could be the now unused service road or possibly in the wasteland that was the forest between said road and camp 4 parking (now a bunch of tree stumps). Food storage would be an issue, so why not set up a bunch of pay bear lockers (reasonably priced of course).
You would have more people staying in the valley, which would mean more lines at the popular crags (ie the short aproach and easy grades), the solution to that? Improve either your climbing skills or your motivation. Also trashing the forest would be an issue, and the onus would be on us. that means picking up stuff that you didn't put down, which is what one pocket on my cargo shorts/pands is for.
I know that the chances of this happening are more or less the same as the GOP denouncing the war on drugs, but I had it on my mind so I thought I'd get it out.
PS live in a non-swing state? Vote: Jim Bridwell for President!!!!!
|
|
|
|
|
lazyjammin
Nov 2, 2004, 11:39 PM
Post #23 of 25
(6477 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 2, 2004
Posts: 200
|
Thats really deppressing I was planning on spending most of my summer in the valley like a month or so, now I will have to camp out in the woods or out in Tuolumne if they dont have that computer system too. I agree that campers and the hotel people should be treated equally, is there any climbers organization that has dealings with the park service people in yosemite and if there are does anyone know if they are doing anything.
|
|
|
|
|
cgranite
Nov 3, 2004, 12:40 AM
Post #24 of 25
(6477 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 5, 2003
Posts: 366
|
Is there anyway to effectively protest this?
It's really sad to me that this is happening. I don't know if I can ever afford a Portaledge.
I suppose that I am grateful to have had the chance to dirtbag in the Valley and have only been climbing for a short time.
|
|
|
|
|
mgr
Nov 3, 2004, 2:04 AM
Post #25 of 25
(6477 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 24, 2004
Posts: 157
|
Is there a one week time limit for climbers on big walls. Could you set up a portaledge on some piece of rock and get away with it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
