Hacker News Reader

Comment by matthoiland | Hacker News Reader

I think this goes against the initial concept of the US National Parks. It's owned by the people, and meant to be seen and experienced at any time.

There are days that I needed to be recharged emotionally and could drive to Yosemite Valley and sit on a rock and listen to the wind. Yes, there we lots of people, but the quiet and calm was respected and maintained.

Perhaps a better solution would be stronger consequences to those who violate trash, light, and sound pollution or those who damage the wildness intentionally.

But people need to have the freedom to visit these places on a whim.

View on HN

That won't hold up when a million other people also want to go sit on a rock and listen to the wind at the same time. At least the experience, and place, will be... quite different. There are requirements for infrastructure and unavoidable damage done when visitor numbers increase. Even if you don't think we're near the point where the trade-off's too great—surely there exists such a point, right? Where access has to be limited somewhat to protect the thing being accessed?

I don't know when you were going to Yosemite, but the really cool stuff is either (1) limited access based on lotteries, (2) paved trails with trash cans, guard rails, and foot patrols. There are also small fees all over the place.

The "zero limits" model you appear to be advocating for does not exist. The "lock the gates" dystopia you're arguing against is not what I'm advocating for.

I'm talking about using a more holistic approach to access limit where access limits are already in place and having a frame work for extending access limits when and where access limits are the best way to preserve the experience.

I'll confess that my last visit was in 2015, but I've never felt crowded there during my many visits. And of course, a "zero limits" model is not what anyone wants, nor what I'm advocating.

Half Dome is the only lottery-limited trail, and only the very end of the trail, at that.

Other than the entry fee, and a campsite fee if you're camping, there are no other fees.

quibbles: There are also back country fees and the back country and Donohue are access limited, though not by lottery.

The back country fees are for permits for camping in the back country. They are just a different kind of camping fee.

If you are just day hiking you don't need to pay a fee. The back country is not limited by anything other than the amount of work involved in reaching the back country, which varies from as little as 2-3 miles in the High Sierra portion of Yosemite or 5-6 miles from the Valley.

The Donohue restrictions were intended for the primary purpose of maintaining access to back country trails for Yosemite visitors, who were being crowded out by JMT hikers using non-traditional trailheads to get around capacity limits on the traditional JMT trailheads in Yosemite (i.e., Happy Isles).

> Perhaps a better solution would be stronger consequences to those who violate trash, light, and sound pollution or those who damage the wildness intentionally.

I like the idea - asshole tax. Littered in your own city? That's another few months wait for that vacation. Vegetarian, or vegan? Cheaper flights. It'd force people to be "pious", which would be great in some respects, but mostly police-statey...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com