High Sierra Topix

franklin411, remember on the state level CA parks nearly closed even though they took up a miniscule amount of the state budget. Many CA state parks have improved since they went into private public partnerships and are much better than when they were administered solely by the state. However, on the federal level, some campgrounds in Tahoe National Forest got so bad after privatization that they were remanded to the administration of the USFS and now do great. I can see how Zinke's comments are problematic given that he wants to sell as opposed to a private public partnership like with CA state parks. Currently, if a concessionaire does a real bad job, the USFS can intervene. It seems like Zinke wants to do away with that by selling. So while I think a concessionaire might do a better job than the USFS, without the ability for the USFS to intervene because it no longer owns the campground, I find it quite troubling.

oldhikerQ, I am also concerned about the selling of parks because unlike private public partnerships, once it's sold, it's private property and the owner can do anything with it. I'm not sure if raising fees is a ploy to sell the parks as much as it is getting the money from the public after cutting the budget. However, I could see an argument from the feds in the next few years for selling the parks if revenue dropped and that is very disturbing.

This fee increase might be the canary in the coal mine.

SirBC wrote:Just like how Net Neutrality was open to the public for comment? Yeah, that went well...

Exactly. And it's only to avoid getting political that I don't rattle off a list of other policies that were overwhelmingly opposed by bipartisan majorities and were enacted anyway.

You all do know if you roll in at 12am-3am, no one is manning the gates, right? Not like we aimed for that, but the distance to get there just worked out that way. And they don't stop you on the way out (usually, due to traffic.)

Wandering Daisy wrote:I agree that the current conservatives in charge would like to privatize the parks, but let's not get into hyperbole.

I agree with much of what you say. I only offer this observation: If you went two years back in time and told me some of the things that are happening today, I'd say it was hyperbole!

franklin411 wrote:

Wandering Daisy wrote:I agree that the current conservatives in charge would like to privatize the parks, but let's not get into hyperbole.

I agree with much of what you say. I only offer this observation: If you went two years back in time and told me some of the things that are happening today, I'd say it was hyperbole!

That is the same hyperbole as 'obama is trying to take away our guns'.

During the campaign Trump said he opposes the the privatization of federal lands and opposes transfer to the states. Outside of a few loudmouths in Congress spouting rhetoric there is no real support in Washington to do either.

They can get away with charging whatever they want at Yosemite, and people are still going to pay it. I just rue the day when the masses discover that Sequoia and Kings are superior parks.

I think the key to eliminating traffic and the overhead of maintenance is to downgrade what people will find to a point where it's not just inconvenient, it's almost every man for himself (more like a wilderness backpacker mentality). What conveniently located bathroom? What store? What campground with a full hookup? What smooth road? Make it hard to get there, hard to get around, hard to find a place to park/stay, even to find snacks... Basically, throw the whole thing back to 1910, and if you don't bring it, you don't have it, and you certainly won't find it. You take most of the people in Yosemite Valley and tell them that they have to walk more than a mile or be put out in any way whatsoever, they either can't or won't. Crowds will diminish through attrition, and if you don't have much to "maintain" to begin with, it doesn't cost much to fix next to nothing. It's the one way to control it all...no crowds = no need to sustain their needs.

I guess the second alternative is to just burn something every year. That seems to do the trick.

creekfeet wrote:They can get away with charging whatever they want at Yosemite, and people are still going to pay it. I just rue the day when the masses discover that Sequoia and Kings are superior parks.

Or Lassen? The Park where no backcountry permits and quotas yet exist, and you can hike all day, even several days, and not encounter another person.

Shhh, we don't want them adding another park to the list.

Lassen is no substitute for Yosemite Valley or Kings Canyon. Each park is unique and many who go specifically are looking for the specific offerings of each. Not to say Lassen is not a good park, but totally different. Some parks are ideal for day-trips; others most suitable for backpacking or multi-day trips. It is too bad that blanket "soltuions" area applied to a large group of parks.