|
Depressing Christmas cards Leading Catholic: Disney has corrupted kids Kid comes before designer jeans Predicting the stock market Judge: Obese fliers should get two airline seats Palin's unfortunate interview backdrop! Record number of pot plants seized in state Safe haven or easy way out? Where's the good gas prices news? McDonald's shines in bad economy June 06 July 06 August 06 September 06 October 06 November 06 December 06 January 07 February 07 March 07 April 07 May 07 June 07 July 07 August 07 September 07 October 07 November 07 December 07 January 08 February 08 March 08 April 08 May 08 June 08 July 08 August 08 September 08 October 08 November 08 December 08 June 06 May 06 April 06 March 06 February 06 January 06 December 05 November 05 October 05 September 05 August 05 July 05 June 05 May 05 April 05 Blog RollAsk The Californian Editorials Entertainment Eye of Bakersfield Faith Forum Fired Up! Inside Sports Neighbors Right Thinking Sound Off Talk of the Town
RSS 2.0![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Share! |
|
|
Restrict people at National Parks?
This is one of those hard choices.
Do we restrict people in order to preserve national parks such as Yosemite? And on what information would such a policy be based. Those are issues raised in a story by Associated Press reporter Garance Burke about a lawsuit to halt development at Yosemite National Park. The government is resisting the lawsuit because it doesn't want a court order to limit the number of visitors each day to the park, an order that might be extended to other parks. There is already a number restriction of visitors to the park, but it's not enforced very well. It's hard to count to 18,241, the rangers say. My wife and I, like most of humanity, love Yosemite for its inspiring views and man-made attractions such as El Capitan and the Ahwahnee Hotel. The lawsuit seeks to prevent $60 million worth of improvements on the valley floor which may disrupt the ecology of the Merced River. I don't want to disrupt the ecology of the river, but I want to see it. I'm in favor of limits, just as we have in the backcountry of the Sierra, to preserve the beauty we go to see. I just want those limits to be based on criteria that is real and accomplishes the preservation goals. I like to take my car into the park, but I'll forgo that too if it is necessary to keep the park's treasures for my grandchildren. Posted by Steve E. Swenson 6 comments from 5 users
1
posted by
motopoet
on Jan 31, 2007 at 11:02 PM
posted by
AudreyB
on Jan 31, 2007 at 11:40 AM
posted by
mattcub
on Jan 31, 2007 at 09:25 AM
Amen Rob
posted by
ProgressivePete2
on Jan 31, 2007 at 09:15 AM
That being said, it's important to keep the park in tip top shape, and if a little development is the way to do it, then let's fix what needs to be fixed. Doing things like putting up a verizon store or another McDonalds or Starbucks is not what we should be focusing on. People should be able to go to Yosemite and be able to connect with nature. That's why we set aside that land in the first place. posted by
robbwillis
on Jan 31, 2007 at 09:13 AM
posted by
mattcub
on Jan 31, 2007 at 09:02 AM
I read the story on the park and like you Steve, want to see it preserved for all future generations. I'd give up my car as well to see the valley preserved. At least then the sky would be clear. But when 3.4 million people visit the park, there has to be an infrastructure in place to deal with those people. There has to be some development for this reason if the park is going to remain open to all visitors. Development in our parks does not alway come in the form of a parking lot or fast food. The El Tovar Hotel, sitting right on the rim of the Grand Canyon, was built at the turn of the century by Fred Harvey and the railroads. Today it is considered a landmark, as well as the majestic Ahwahnee Hotel and the lodge at Zion. There are numerous other parks with similar structures which are now also preserved for future generations because of their now perceived beauty and historical significance. We have the capability of striking a balance. I would like to see a plan that preserves the ability of future children to camp along the Merced River as we did as children. I still can still even remember the "Fire-fall" from atop Glacier point. That was discontinued to help stop the valley crowds and because it was a man-made attraction. The crowds still came. Yosemite is the 3rd most visited park in the nation. Elimination of all development will close the park to only people who can hike in. Some would say that's not a bad idea. But I would like to see the park open to all who wish to view its majesty, and teach them all, only leave your footprints behind.
1
BAKERSFIELD.COM HOT TOPICS:Advertisement |