High Sierra Topix

The first one is about managing overcrowding in the valley:

https://www.sfchronicle.com/travel/arti ... 867769.php

“People need to understand,” Gediman says, “that they’re not going to get a wilderness experience in Yosemite Valley.”

No kidding.

The second one is about mule riding:

https://www.sfchronicle.com/travel/arti ... 866841.php

...we planned to do it in style. We’d see the park the way the first tourists had, uncrowded and unsullied, on the backs of pack mules, spoiled with the fruits of civilization in the middle of nowhere.

Thoughts?

I think he was catching tiny brook trout, not brown trout, on that pack trip.

Cars and people are two separate issues. Take out the cars and the noise, traffic jams, and parking goes away. Regardless of what is done with the number of people, I am in favor of getting rid of the cars in the Valley.

What is the difference between 20,000 a day vs 15,000 people a day. Both are too much. Yosemite Valley is NOT a wilderness, so it needs to limit people with respect to what the facilities can manage, not what you need for a wilderness experience. There are plenty of places for a wilderness experience outside of the valley. Nevertheless, a study should figure out how many people (without cars) can the facilities manage. This may be 5,000, 10,000 or more.

I actually think trams would be a good idea, such as a tram between the Valley and Glacier Point. Same with a tram system to the top of Yosemite Falls. These could be used for those who just want a quick view and then be down; would reduce the crowding on the trails. I also see the Valley as a good place for bicycles (get the cars out and just think of the great bicycling). Even rent electric scooters. Perhaps we need to look at how Europe handles the crowds in the Alps. Trying to have one foot in "wilderness" and the other in "maximum use" is not working. To me, it is either accept the level of use and then plan facilities to make that experience valuable, or drastically reduce use and keep it in the "wilderness" ethic. Right now we are doing both very poorly.

Would also think that more Camp 4 style campgrounds would be better than the individual RV type campgrounds. My husband and I have a trailer. Even us, in all honesty, spend more hours inside the trailer at night. Why should we take up an entire campsite when we can watch that movie just as well on an alternative campground on the Valley rim? Again, open valley campground to RVs in the winter.

No more individual campfires! Seems like only 5% of the public knows how to build a proper fire without creating tons of smoke. I am all for a ranger "around the camfire" hour at each campground, otherwise, no fires. Really no need. This rule could be lifted during the winter when a fire actually has a purpose and use is less.

I am OK as a local, with avoiding Yosemite Valley during tourist season. I prefer to go late Fall, Winter or very early spring. The only time I go when I know there will be crowds, is to backpack at peak water flows, usually early May. I do not spend time in the Valley, just get my permit and get on the trail. I wish there were a good bus system to take me to my preferred trailhead and then pick me up at a different trailhead and return me to my car, parked outside the Valley.

balzaccom wrote:I think he was catching tiny brook trout, not brown trout, on that pack trip.

Ditto. Those waters aren't going to sustain a brown population, and they don't plant fish in the park.

It's true that packers are a dying breed. The pack station in Bishop is up for sale, things are changing. The packers have been one of the mainstays for trail crews -- carrying those food drops and tools into the backcountry for the crews, bringing everything out at the end of the season. A lot will change for the trails if the packers are all gone.

Last August, I saw a helicopter bringing in lots of stuff for a trail crew in SEKI, probably food and tools.

bobby49 wrote:Last August, I saw a helicopter bringing in lots of stuff for a trail crew in SEKI, probably food and tools.

And for trails not in parks? The NF doesn't have helicopters. Since they can't really keep staff in the wilderness either, and the real money is flowing into OHV programs from the state, not likely to happen in the future either unless it can be tied to OHV.

What has brought about the demise of packing? In my case, whenever I wanted to hire a packer to make it easier for me to explore the NF backcountry the cost always deterred me. It became a financial decision. I think there was a time that packing was affordable and almost everyone could afford it. What happened?

Pricing is also a financial decision for packers. I have a friend who owns a pack outfit in Wyoming. No cheaper there either, even with much less regulation and limits. He said that there are sufficient rich people out there, in Wyoming especially hunters, who are willing to pay the price so they simply cater to those. Also those who take package deals, such as staying at his outfitter cabins and day-riding, are more profitable. Basically he only does drop supplies for his friends. A horse is a horse whether it is carrying a rider or only 30 pound of food. The only way a drop supply is feasible for most backpackers is in a group of 4-6 where costs are shared.

In Wyoming, the season is shorter and horses need the same feed and care even when they are producing no income. He has a small ranch and also raises all the feed. Even though he can get a high price for packing, he still is far from rich. Same goes for the Sierra; even though the season is longer fixed non-season costs are higher. Less hunting too. Hunting is the main big money-maker for outfitters.

Goat packing is becoming more popular in Wyoming, because it has smaller fixed costs. Some ranchers simply rent out llamas. This gets around the reguatory limits on where they can pack.

Commercial permits for packers are also getting more expensive. Running a pack outfit is also very hard work. Not many young folks want to do this any more. Also, the FS limits where packers can work and this is so that there is not so much competition that packers cannot make it financially. Of course, this lack of competion rises prices. Multiple reasons that a drop-resupply is very expensive.

long recent thread:

http://www.highsierratopix.com/communit ... =9&t=17083

What is all of this talk about overcrowded mules?