|
boltdude
Dec 26, 2003, 3:37 AM
Post #1 of 14
(3454 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 30, 2002
Posts: 685
|
Interesting article on commercial interests in parks worldwide, with Yosemite-specific comments in brackets, from Friends of Yosemite Valley:
http://www.yosemitevalley.org/New/12_14_03.html
|
|
|
|
|
dirko
Dec 26, 2003, 4:22 AM
Post #2 of 14
(3454 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 5, 2002
Posts: 374
|
But, like, dude, I'm too busy climbing and bumming to keep up with voting or what my, like, local government is doing. Besides all those bills are so, like, hard to keep track of, and beside, like one person totally cannot make a difference, so dude, damn the man.
...........riiiiiight.
|
|
|
|
|
moabbeth
Dec 26, 2003, 4:32 AM
Post #3 of 14
(3454 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 22, 2002
Posts: 1786
|
"Now, it seems, land and natural resource managers worldwide are copying the American model again – this time in terms of privatization and Disneyfication of parks. [In Yosemite a historic, hand built rock wall, was bulldozed and replaced with a simulated wall from casts of the former authentic wall. What visitors now see is a fake, Disney-style replica.]"
Good lord, "Disneyfication" is an ACTUAL WORD now!!!?? At least it has negative connotations.
Good article. Sadly it's points are too true.
Disneyfication SUCKS :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: !!
|
|
|
|
|
sharpender
Dec 26, 2003, 5:07 AM
Post #4 of 14
(3454 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 15, 2003
Posts: 663
|
THis reminds me of the Forest Adventure Pass that so many trips I see advertised by another website featuring outdoor activities describe as "mandatory" or "Required". While it is true that the Forest Service will ticket cars without the pass, many environmental and user interest groups have noted that the program is voluntary, a way to demonstrate to the Congress that people will pay for such a program. In their confrontation of this deception by our federal government these groups note that there is a movement by the "recreational/entertainment" industry to find a way to cash in on the 10's of millions of people that hike/bike/climb/camp/etc. on public land and in public parks. There is not just millions but billions to be made by these international corporations if they can make deals with our government. And guess who contributes to the politicians campaigns - these corporations. Disney, mentioned in the link above is one of the companies cited by these activists.
Now comes to mind the recent changes at Joshua Tree. I am referring to the change to a fee basis for all campsites and the parks requesting that holders of annual passes present with their drivers licenses to use the pass. Our federal government contracts with private companies to provide services. Their interest is not in the rights of the citizens, the environment or even a sense of dealing with the "people", i.e., meeting the needs of the American people in the use and experience of National Parks and public lands. These companies want one thing - profit. I have no information that this has occurred at J Tree, but the charging of camping fees is the first step. It reveals that the government is no longer budgeting our tax dollars to provide citizens the services and access to the citizens property.
Also comes to mind are the recent threads related to guide books and climbing areas. Some have posted that it is one persons right to publish guide books and that doing so is inevitable. Sure, adventure, tradition and non-negative impact are valuable but progress will occur anyhow and the counter argument that we as a climbing community need to resist publication and mass visits to unique unpublished areas in the name of preservation is invalid, by this argument because the argument is simply "fear" and speculation. For myself, I see a parallel between this attitude and the privatizing of the national parks, forest lands. Oh well, as dirko says, it's gonna happen anyhow. Pretty scarey to see in print that the potential for commercialization/exploitation is not just an issue facing an obscure climbing area but the very place that inspired our national parks in the first place. We will see the desires of the individual (guide book author, private corporation) making choices and impacting the parks - roads, buildings, parking lots, etc.. Hey, maybe even a tram to the top of El Cap. As my son says, if we can imagine it, it can be made. His example is a tourist tram to the top of Everest. Engineering can do it I'm sure. Well, a tram on El Cap is by comparison a piece of cake. And guess what Millions from around the world would pay Disney type fees to ride it.
|
|
|
|
|
dirko
Dec 26, 2003, 5:20 AM
Post #5 of 14
(3454 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 5, 2002
Posts: 374
|
Public policy is simply a manifestation of the fiscally conservative times we live in. In 2003, no one wants to pay for something unless they actually use it.
You are fortunate enough to have a job? Why support welfare for others?
Don't have kids? Why should you pay taxes funding education?
Don't ever visit Jellystone N.P.? Why subsidize the bison with your hard-earned tax dollars?
Our fiscally conservative society is also a socially conservative one. In an era that is rapidly changing in a way that scares many people, we turn to simplistic cop-and-robber solutions that will tell them what is right and what is wrong. Until we can understand that nature, government, and society are an interconnected and complex whole unit, and not simply the sum of their parts, policy for public lands management will never succeed.
"Can't see the forest for the fees."
|
|
|
|
|
moabbeth
Dec 26, 2003, 5:32 AM
Post #6 of 14
(3454 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 22, 2002
Posts: 1786
|
In reply to: As my son says, if we can imagine it, it can be made. His example is a tourist tram to the top of Everest. Engineering can do it I'm sure. Well, a tram on El Cap is by comparison a piece of cake. And guess what Millions from around the world would pay Disney type fees to ride it.
You do know that the development department of Disney Parks is referred to as the "Imagineering" department? And that Disney employees are referred to as "cast members". I'm not joking, Michael Eisner's employee e-mails start out with "Dear fellow cast members". Disney scares me 8) .
Scary as it sounds, I bet you $10 in the next decade there will be a tram to the top of either El Cap of Half Dome so that lazy tourists won't have to - UGH - WALK to the top to see that amazing view. Or if not a tram, a paved road for smaller vehicles like the Green Dragon to haul people up and down. Outdoor tourism is catering to the lazy denominator more and more.
|
|
|
|
|
karlbaba
Dec 26, 2003, 7:07 AM
Post #7 of 14
(3454 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 10, 2002
Posts: 1159
|
In reply to: Public policy is simply a manifestation of the fiscally conservative times we live in. In 2003, no one wants to pay for something unless they actually use it. You are fortunate enough to have a job? Why support welfare for others? Don't have kids? Why should you pay taxes funding education? Don't ever visit Jellystone N.P.? Why subsidize the bison with your hard-earned tax dollars? Our fiscally conservative society is also a socially conservative one. In an era that is rapidly changing in a way that scares many people, we turn to simplistic cop-and-robber solutions that will tell them what is right and what is wrong. Until we can understand that nature, government, and society are an interconnected and complex whole unit, and not simply the sum of their parts, policy for public lands management will never succeed. "Can't see the forest for the fees."
I hardly think that, with a $500 billion dollar deficit, that we live in fiscally conservative times. It's just that Republicans want to spend money on wars while channelling wealth in the direction of the rich folks who run corporations and pay for campaigns.
That's how you stay in power and build an empire
Peace
karl
|
|
|
|
|
boltdude
Dec 26, 2003, 7:56 AM
Post #8 of 14
(3454 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 30, 2002
Posts: 685
|
yeah sharpender, you've touched on a sticky point. How much do guides, guidebook authors, photos of sponsored climbers, articles on areas, etc impact the possible future effects on our wild lands? And for the folks that actually guide, write the guidebooks, take the pictures, climb all the time, get sponsored, and somehow scrape a living, how do we act responsibly? I know people in all those categories and I write guidebooks. I wrestle with the issues, and I know a good number of others do as well. And when it comes down to the key issue - that those climbers can earn a meager living by (in some way or another) supporting climbing advertising & development, or they can decline to do so, there's a mix of love for climbing, ego, and fiscal needs that is hard to separate.
On the one hand, you have the desire to share with our community of fellow climbers - to share the beauty, the joy, the pain, the sheer awe of climbing in the vertical world. On the other hand, the worry that the community might grow too large or fast and harm that world.
Early Sierra Club trips often had dozens, even hundreds of people, and cut down trees, created small dumps and pit toilets, and by modern standards were environmentally clueless. Yet the folks who went on those trips came back out of the wilderness, fought hard, and protected the land from logging and development.
I hope that climbers can educate ourselves and others, minimize environmental damage, and work to protect the land from long-term damage. I think that this is perhaps the central access issue now, and will certainly be in the future. As a guidebook author, I hope that (to quote the preface to Joanne Urioste's 1984 guide to Red Rocks), "a guidebook can make a conservation statement that will serve as a valuable tool in limiting possible environmental exploitation."
And I shudder to see National Parks developed for RVs and buses, made into playgrounds for the wealthy, and excluding all those without the money to afford a week long trip to Yosemite with the kids. Kids that may never grow up experiencing the outdoors, and who in 40 years may vote to eliminate "unnecessary" National Parks...
|
|
|
|
|
jds100
Dec 26, 2003, 4:36 PM
Post #9 of 14
(3454 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 5, 2001
Posts: 1008
|
I agree with Karl that, by strict definition, the present administration does not practice fiscal conservatism (much to the chagrin of Grover Norquist and his minions), but it is one goal of Norquist and the Americans for Tax Reform organization which he heads -and which has profound influence on the Bush administration- to deplete the government of funds as much as possible. The idea is to "reduce" government. As is clear with the Bush administration's policies and actions, their goal is to privatize as many functions of the government as they can, before they are out of power, either after 4 years or 8 years. The depletion of funds, such as by ballooning the deficit to record levels, will leave whatever administration follows -Republican, Democrat, or independent, it doesn't matter- unable to fund programs of all types, including environmental programs through the Park Service, the National Forest Service, etc. etc. etc.
The international situation has occupied the public presentation of the Bush administration, while officials in domestic agencies have been very active -some might even say "extremely active"- in rolling back decades of environmental protection acts. The most recent that I've seen was a reversal of protection that had been put in place by the Clinton administration of a huge tract in Alaska, that environmental experts (not whackos) have called the last pristine forest of its type in the world. If the Bush administration is successful -goes unchallenged in court- the world will lose yet another gem, permanently, to short-sighted commercial development. (The Arctic Wildlife Preserve issue is typical of how the administration overstates and obfuscates, in that the reserves of oil that might be there represent maybe 3 years of use, and wouldn't be available to the U.S. for 10 years, and probably would never be used in the U.S., but, rather, sold for export.)
One other effect that these fiscal policies have is that they cause a trickle-down negative effect on the budgets of state and local governments. So, as federal funds disappear, the state and local funds are unable to meet the requirements of managing the parks and wild lands owned, essentially, by the public. One solution is to sell off the lands to increase general revenue, and hope (probably reasonably) that most voters won't notice or care. The voting constituency who do care about land management and land use policies is relatively small, and, as in the case of an "extreme sport" like climbing, these particular voters can be portrayed as a fringe element, and are, in fact, a minority that most politicians feel safe in ignoring or sacrificing. That's what the governor (I think) of Utah apparently thought, until the outdoor retail industry and user groups joined together, to demonstrate a strong voting block.
Everybody thinks it's great to get a few bucks back in their pocket from the Bush tax refund, but that immediately caused a huge national deficit, and now states have to deal directly with their own deficits by slashing funding for everything and anything they can find. The environment is one of the first things to be sacrificed on the altar of "smaller government".
It's going to be a very tough fight, to prevent the privatization -the disneyfication- of Yosemite and other Park and wilderness lands. The country will be focussed on other matters that feel immediate than remediating the environmental rape that the Bush administration is committing daily. It will take dedication and persistence to stay on course and not get frustrated with a slow pace, but I encourage everyone to stay informed, and to support the organizations that are in place now that struggle for your interests and for the interests of your descendants. And, I encourage everyone to vote for an opposition candidate that can realistically defeat a second Bush administration, even if that candidate does not meet every criteria that you'd prefer. The votes cast for Nader in the last election were known to be nothing more than a personal statement, that Nader had no chance of winning, but they also assured a victory for Bush, and all that that has entailed.
|
|
|
|
|
dirko
Dec 26, 2003, 8:26 PM
Post #10 of 14
(3454 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 5, 2002
Posts: 374
|
Everybody thinks it's great to get a few bucks back in their pocket from the Bush tax refund, but that immediately caused a huge national deficit, and now states have to deal directly with their own deficits by slashing funding for everything and anything they can find. The environment is one of the first things to be sacrificed on the altar of "smaller government".
....no sh1t.
Re: fiscal conservative:
Good point, Karl. I meant that fiscal conservativism is championed even if it is not practiced across the board.
Government programs such as the military and big business subsidies create massive deficits, and social/environmental programs get blamed are and slashed. Yay.
If these Looney Tunes stay in office for another four years, I'm going to have to switch from the Access Fund to the Sierra Club.
|
|
|
|
|
skiclimb
Feb 9, 2004, 3:57 AM
Post #11 of 14
(3454 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 11, 2004
Posts: 1938
|
Or Al-Kaida
|
|
|
|
|
climbcrazy
Feb 9, 2004, 6:14 AM
Post #12 of 14
(3454 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 17, 2003
Posts: 12
|
I encourage everyone to get envolved and try and make a difference. I know you all will. I go to PSU, and all of us who attend universities have easy access to many college students. I am going to try and get the campus involved. If we all work together maybe we can make a difference, but it will take more than just a couple of people. Let's see what we can do.
|
|
|
|
|
maculated
Feb 9, 2004, 6:49 AM
Post #13 of 14
(3454 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 23, 2001
Posts: 6179
|
You know . . . I think we all may be freaking out a bit. I missed the first go round of this issue. I am all for awareness and guardianship, but I happened to meet Fran, the director of NPS while i was visiting friends and she was getting shown around. Her interest is with the parks, not with money. I've also met the superintendent, etc, and the same is true there. People do not get into the park business because they want to "Disneyfy" anything. Yes, the chance is there for this to become a slippery slope, but please.
This coming from a bleeding liberal, too.
|
|
|
|
|
c-dub
Deleted
May 13, 2004, 4:01 PM
Post #14 of 14
(3454 views)
Shortcut
Registered:
Posts:
|
"Or Al-Kaida"
in no way, shape, or form could that be funny.
|
|
|
|
|
|
