Yosemite Plan, Though Imperfect, Should Be Kept

Editorial
The Modesto Bee - April 22, 2003

If it's ever made into a movie, the saga of the Yosemite plan would have to be called something like "The Never-ending Process." How to manage this jewel in the crown of the national park system has been a contentious subject since the park was first formed, and that shows no sign of abating any time soon.

At the moment, campsites in Yosemite Valley are the focus of the furor, and the principal topic of a hearing in the park this morning by the national parks, recreation and public lands subcommittee of the House of Representatives. At issue is whether 361 campsites lost in the January 1997 flood of the Merced River should be replaced, in full or in part. Those who have long wished to restore a more natural aspect to the valley -- including the National Park Service -- don't want the campsites replaced.

But powerful forces are arrayed in favor of rebuilding those lost sites, and may be adding more. Those forces include Rep. George Radanovich, whose district takes in all of Yosemite and many of the gateway communities that make a living serving the park. Radanovich has made it clear he doesn't like the cutback in campsites; neither do most of his constituents.

One of the arguments in favor of restoring or adding campsites is that they are more affordable than the upscale alternatives in the valley, the Ahwahnee Hotel and Yosemite Lodge. Thus, the argument goes, this plan, proposing a cutback in campsites, excludes lower-income people from enjoying the park. It's an argument to which we should all be sensitive.

But it's not compelling. There may be a way to adjust the numbers of campsites in the valley slightly, and if that emerges from today's hearing, fine. There also are other places in the park or in its immediate vicinity that new campsites could be created, sparing the valley itself from the impact. Those alternatives should be examined. But the longtime goal of removing as much development as possible from the floor of Yosemite Valley is still the best path for the park's survival.

The Bee has supported the existing Yosemite Plan and continues to do so. It is the culmination of about 11,000 public comments and 18 public hearings. It is not perfect -- no plan for the park could be. That's because the twin imperatives that drive policy on Yosemite are in perfect conflict: On the one hand, the park should be maintained in as close to a natural state as we can manage.

On the other hand, it belongs to the American people and should be open to them for recreation and other enjoyment. It's terribly difficult to find a middle ground that works, and nearly impossible to find one that suits everybody.