|
|
|
|
dingus
Oct 22, 2003, 2:40 PM
Post #1 of 3
(1694 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
Well, sometimes you have to look for allies in the unlikeliest of places.
Understand this: I am no fan of MORE campsites in the Valley. I believe more
campsites outside of the valley to be far more appropriate. I also oppose
any road improvements that bring increased traffic. I oppose 300 diesel
busses. I oppose most commercial enterprise. I think what we have done to
the valley sucks.
But a lot of people I like and respect want to see the campsites restored to
their former number prior to the floods. I took note of an interesting
article in the paper this morning:
Congressional Rep.George Radonovich, R - Mariposa has crafted legislation,
which in turn was passed by the House yesterday, to close the LeConte
Memorial Lodge, dismantle in and remove it from the Valley, forever.
I'm perfectly serious. So is he.
Why, you may be tempted to ask.
Because the Sierra Club opposes the restoration of the campsites. Radonovich
stated bluntly he doesn't give a rats ass (paraphrased of course) about the
LeConte Lodge. He's perfectly willing to trade the Lodge for the campsites.
It's unclear if the Senate will pass this bill. Surely Bush will sign it if
it does. It is part of a larger parks package that seeks to increase the
number of campsites and undo perhaps other elements of the Valley Plan that
the people who actually happen to own Yosemite for the most part oppose. The
Sierra Club publicly worries that this sort of attempt to legislate the
administration of Yosemite could cause the entire Valley Plan to unravel.
Hmmm, says I. While I am no fan of the NPS administration, I am even less a
fan of the Sierra Club. And I detest the Valley Plan in its entirety. They
are not a friend of the working man, nor do they give a shit as to his
opinions and desires. They are elitists who will see that we are banned from
our own land. They of course oppose the removal of the LeConte Lodge. They
were all for the removal of the campsites though. Different sort of visitor.
The Wilderness Society's, a far worse anti-access organization than the
Sierra Club, representative Jay Wilson says the legislation "sends a very
dangerous signal" to Yosemite officials and the Park Service, even if it
never becomes law.
Why?
They don't like it when their master plan is unraveled before their eyes, by
the owners of the Park. Simple as that.
YOU GO GEORGE!
I believe I may call his office today, to express my support.
Below I have pasted the substance of the article: Here is a link to the Sac
Bee Article itself:
http://www.sacbee.com/content/news/california/story/7645496p-8585863c.html
Cheers,
DMT
Drive to close historic Yosemite lodge begins
By Michael Doyle -- Bee Washington Bureau
Published 2:15 a.m. PDT Wednesday, October 22, 2003
Get weekday updates of Sacramento Bee headlines and breaking news.
Sign up here.
WASHINGTON -- Rep. George Radanovich, R-Mariposa, made progress Tuesday in
his effort to dismantle the historic LeConte Memorial Lodge, a much-admired
Yosemite National Park building that he has never visited.
Radanovich's legislation to erase the national historic landmark from
Yosemite Valley won easy approval Tuesday from the House subcommittee he
chairs. A lifelong resident of Mariposa County, Radanovich said the right
opportunity has never presented itself for him to enter the storybook-style
cottage.
"To be honest, it's either never been open when I've been there, or I
haven't had the time to visit," Radanovich said Tuesday.
The Sierra Club opens the 99-year-old building between May 1 and Sept. 30
each year, offering classes, lectures and music to some 15,000 visitors
annually. Radanovich said he has targeted the building for closure because
the Sierra Club opposes his efforts to restore more public campsites in the
park.
Radanovich chairs the House national parks, recreation and public lands
subcommittee, which approved his Yosemite bill by voice vote after about
five minutes of discussion. He suggested that he is open to a trade: keeping
the LeConte lodge in exchange for more park campsites.
"I don't really have any objections to LeConte, except for the Sierra Club's
opposition to the campgrounds," Ra-danovich said.
But while Radanovich's legislation raced through the parks panel dominated
by Western conservatives, its long-term fate remains unclear. Neither of
California's two Democratic senators, Barbara Boxer or Dianne Feinstein, has
embraced the bill, and Radanovich's own actions have drawn considerable
opposition.
"In our opinion, Representative Radanovich does not seem to be very familiar
with the character of the lodge and its uses," said Harold Wood, a Visalia
resident and chairman of the Sierra Club's LeConte Memorial Lodge committee.
"It is not a private clubhouse for the Sierra Club as he seems to think. It
is a 100-year-old national historic landmark dedicated for public use."
Wood said the lodge's curator, Bonnie Gisel, invited Radanovich to visit the
building after the congressman introduced his Yosemite legislation last
summer. The invitation was not accepted, though Radanovich and his family
spent part of their August vacation in the park's high country.
Radanovich's targeting of the LeConte lodge is one part of a much larger
bill designed to restore more campsites to Yosemite. The legislation calls
for an unspecified number of "low-impact" campsites along the Merced River,
where 361 campsites were washed away in a 1997 flood.
Yosemite plans currently call for the Merced River area to be kept
undeveloped. The legislation also prohibits the establishment of shuttle-bus
service for remote parking facilities or areas outside Yosemite's
boundaries, and calls for the "maximum" amount of parking at Camp Six.
"Many provisions of this bill appear to run contrary to the Yosemite Valley
Plan," said Donna Christian-Christensen, the Democratic delegate from the
Virgin Islands.
Wilderness Society representative Jay Watson added his fear that the
legislation "sends a very dangerous signal" to Yosemite officials and the
Park Service, even if it never becomes law.
Radanovich, though, says Yosemite visitors need more opportunities, and he
cast the legislation as a way to "preserve the public's access to our
national parks." He contends it is hypocritical for the Sierra Club to
maintain the LeConte building at the same time as the group urges fewer
campsites.
First dedicated at Camp Curry on July 3, 1904, the building was moved a
short distance away in 1919, and designated a national historic landmark in
1987. It is one of five Yosemite buildings listed as a national landmark,
though this recognition does not by itself provide a shield against
government action.
|
|
|
|
|
indigo_nite
Oct 29, 2003, 9:19 PM
Post #2 of 3
(1694 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 3, 2002
Posts: 365
|
I would be sorry to see the LeConte Memorial Lodge gone. During the summer, I had the leisure to stay long enough to explore the park's crannies. The lodge was a haven of books (really good books and many of them) and during the summer they have some cool programs (nature writing, etc.) there.
As for camping, I doubt it would help me since I probably wouldn't want to pay $18 fees (or the crazy amount it is). But would it allow people access to the beauty of the park and balance maintenance with land use? I think the worst impact would be park traffic. Even with the reliable shuttles, traffic could be pretty stressful there.
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Oct 30, 2003, 6:23 PM
Post #3 of 3
(1694 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
The bill, including provisions for removing the Lodge and adding more campsites, passed the House Resources Committe on a party line vote, 21-20 yesterday.
While it is extremely unlikely that the Lodge removal provision will survive a house vote, a clear and succinct message has been delivered.
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
|
