High Sierra Topix

John Muir Wilderness: with my dog
SEKI: without my dog

If choosing a wilderness area - not national park, per se, and limiting the choices to the Sierra I am with @Mavereck, the John Muir and Ansel Adams Wilderness Areas get my vote. But if we are to widen the search to US wilderness areas writ large, there are so many, and I haven't seen most of them. But I spend lots of time in the Joshua Tree Wilderness Area. Its beauty is well known, so I will not digress why I am drawn to this wilderness area. I have also spent lots of time in the 30,000+ acre San Gabriel Wilderness Area, located within the Angeles National Forest, just outside Los Angeles. The SGWA was established as a refuge for the local black bear population. To this end the park service has decided to discontinue maintenance on selected trails, to discourage hikers penetrating the depths of the wilderness area. Thus about half of the 30+ miles of trail into the area are now virtually impassible, due to rugged terrain, and impenetrable, overgrown scrub. It is an understatement to say exploring this area is very difficult, but if you like coastal mountain scrub ecology, this is among the finest.

Ed

For the Sierra and the classic views, Ansel Adams, which is appropriately named as it is among the most photogenic places on earth. And since my first love out there is photography, it comes in first.

Outside the Sierra I have several:
1) Sawtooth Wilderness in Idaho
2) Alpine Lakes Wilderness in Washington
3) Trinity Alps Wilderness in northern California

Unfortunately, all three of these wildernesses can be overrun with people. I am glad I saw them all long ago.

A tough choice so in order:
Emigrant (Should be part of Yosemite.. after all it is part of the Toulumne River Drainage)
Ansel Adams (Both the Minarets and Merced/Post Peak areas ... why aren't these part of Yosemite?)
Carson/Humbolt
Golden Trout
Trinity Alps
Marble Mountains
(as an after thought I better include John Muir)

I'm all for the idea of an inter-connected National Park system from the Emigrant all the way to Golden Trout encompassing the whole of the Sierra high country (Emigrant, Hoover/Humbolt-Toyabe, Yosemite, Ansel Adams, Sierra NF, John Muir, Inyo NF, SEKI, Golden Trout). Does this idea help or hurt such issues as permit availability (Emigrant and Humbolt do not have trailhead quotas)? Would this make all trail heads over populated? To much power to the National Parks? Unfair to those whom like to bring dogs on their hikes? there are other considerations. What do you think?

-Ken
-CalMntHkr

Wouldn't the obvious answer be the one you are in?

CalMntHkr wrote: ↑Thu Mar 09, 2023 9:44 am A tough choice so in order:
Emigrant (Should be part of Yosemite.. after all it is part of the Toulumne River Drainage)
Ansel Adams (Both the Minarets and Merced/Post Peak areas ... why aren't these part of Yosemite?)
Carson/Humbolt
Golden Trout
Trinity Alps
Marble Mountains
(as an after thought I better include John Muir)

I'm all for the idea of an inter-connected National Park system from the Emigrant all the way to Golden Trout encompassing the whole of the Sierra high country (Emigrant, Hoover/Humbolt-Toyabe, Yosemite, Ansel Adams, Sierra NF, John Muir, Inyo NF, SEKI, Golden Trout). Does this idea help or hurt such issues as permit availability (Emigrant and Humbolt do not have trailhead quotas)? Would this make all trail heads over populated? To much power to the National Parks? Unfair to those whom like to bring dogs on their hikes? there are other considerations. What do you think?

-Ken
-CalMntHkr

Don't like the idea- it is hard enough as it is to take your dog, get permits, without making it all part of the NPS.

The 'Sierra National Park' concept keeps popping up every so often. It does not seem to have much support among the local governments and civic organizations. The supporters seem to be a small number of non-locals.
The feds are supposed to consult and cooperate with state and local government before making land management changes, although that is often ignored even though it is law.

What would making the area a National Park accomplish? It is already Wilderness. That would not change. The Park Service bureaucracy is harder for local governments to deal with than the Forest Service. The rules and regulations would become stricter with more limits. The current arrangement gives a spectrum of degrees of management. The user can choose the level of regulation he wishes.

dave54 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 11, 2023 12:23 pm The 'Sierra National Park' concept keeps popping up every so often. It does not seem to have much support among the local governments and civic organizations. The supporters seem to be a small number of non-locals.
The feds are supposed to consult and cooperate with state and local government before making land management changes, although that is often ignored even though it is law.

What would making the area a National Park accomplish? It is already Wilderness. That would not change. The Park Service bureaucracy is harder for local governments to deal with than the Forest Service. The rules and regulations would become stricter with more limits. The current arrangement gives a spectrum of degrees of management. The user can choose the level of regulation he wishes.

Such a move would need far more local support, as you point out, than currently exists.

The one advantage would be better trail maintenance and wilderness management for the Stanislaus and Sierra national forests, who chronically underfund this function. Inyo does much better, presumably since it gets a larger number of wilderness permit fees and packer fees. But the national parks have much better budgets for these recreational purposes than the national forests do.

Still, I never expect to see it.