Yosemite has announced plans to cut down hundreds (if not thousands) of trees to improve the tourista views of the granite cliffs, waterfalls, and vistas.
Since the "protected" park has not benefitted from the regular burn-offs of brush and deadwood from lightning or the fires wisely and intentionally set by the Native-Americans for centuries, many of the famous views are now partially or totally obscured.
Per the study conducted, 181 of the park's most scenic historic views were ranked. 28% of them were completely obscured and 54% were partially blocked.
Cutting begins in 2012. They say great care will be taken to avoid use of chain saws in nesting season or bat hibernation times.
While the thought of hearing chainsaws and seeing trees fall at Yosemite truly sickens me, I do see the benefits as well.
Anyone care to share thoughts?
One of many articles, and links to others, here:
http://www.mercurynews.com/science/ci_18539564
Sandy
Posted by Richard Hahn on July 27, 2011 at 10:56 PM
Sandy,
My opinion is that big brother should allow nature to take its own path. I can under stand that the trees may be blocking some of the view, but that is life. With the government telling us that they have no money and constantly taken more money from our pay checks, how about using that money in a different way.
Have they given any thought as to what the ground will look like after they cuts the trees down? What are they going to do with the cut trees? What about the damage that will be done to the ground from trucks and heavy equiment used to cut the trees down.
Posted by Brian Gatlin on July 27, 2011 at 11:21 PM
Richard, I think you're missing the complexity of the situation when you say that "big brother should allow nature to take its own path."
A century of fire suppression (paid for by the federal government) is what created the present situation, not "allowing nature to take its own path." This is an attempt to return to a more natural state (though one can argue what that really is).
As for the questions you ask, those things will certainly be considered. If this is a project of any scale, they will have to (that is, be required by law to) do environmental (NEPA) compliance that takes all those things into account.
The tone of your response suggests to me that maybe you're more opposed to government in general than to the specific actions being considered here.
Sandy, your topic is a really complex and interesting one that gets to the real heart of the ideas that underlie how we manage our public lands, and what is appropriate. The Leopold Report from the early 60s is one that guides much of the philosophy of how National Parks have been managed. I believe that they used language very close to this: that they should represent vignettes of primitive America. But that perspective tended to view America as untouched before European settlement, denying the influence that Native Americans had in shaping the environment (as you point out). The question of what is truly natural, and what is truly wild, is not an easy one to answer. But it's one that every management decision by the NPS (or, in wilderness areas, the USFS), answers in practice, whether it has been explicitly addressed or not. This question, and questions about how to manage lands and species, will only become more difficult as human impact (i.e., climate change) begins to have more effects. Should land managers transplant species to areas that will become hospitable to them as they lose traditional breeding grounds? Should they abstain from active management in this way and instead create corridors for species to migrate and adapt? Should they water ancient and precious trees to try to preserve them when the climate becomes too dry and they begin to die?
All of these things are difficult questions. Even the idea of managing wildlands is inherently contradictory. But in my experience, when you hear someone argue against a preservation action by saying we should let nature take it's course, 99 times out of 100, they're ignoring the fact that it wasn't "nature taking its course" that necessitated the action--it was our own acts.
Posted by Richard Hahn on July 28, 2011 at 12:36 AM
Brian,
So if I understand you, you are saying big brother did not allow nature to take its path for due to a century of fire suppression paid by the government. But isn't big brother cutting the trees down also not allowing nature to take its own path? Yes it is a very complex situation, but at what point does man stop messing with nature to fix it?
If the cutting of the trees is what is best for nature, then I am in favor of it. But if it is being done because it is considered what is best for man, i.e. better views, then I am against it.
I think your comments are spot on and very politely stated.
My feeling is that having ruined so much of our planet, we have a responsibility to try to restore what we can to as "natural" or sustainable a state as we can. Whatever "natural" means. Many European countries have been "managing" their landscapes responsibly for centuries. Think Switzerland or Austria. Very little of their landscape is "natural" when compared to what it looked like when people first arrived in Europe. Nevertheless, the sense of a connection to nature in those countries is awe inspiring.
If you are a Christian, another way to look at it is that we are called upon to be stewards of God's creation. Stewardship does not mean exploiting as quickly as possible to maximize short term pleasure and profit. That is what the prodigal son did, and he ended up raising pigs for pagans. Stewardship means we have a responsibility to use the resources God has given us wisely. There are too many bible references on that subject to quote here.
Getting back to just the obvious from personal experience, when I was a kid (1960s) backpacking the High Sierra or the Angeles Crest, the designated "wilderness" areas were anything but. The same has held true for my explorations of the Pacific Northwest and the western deserts. Man's heavy footprint is evident everywhere. And it has almost always been this way. Early hunters most likely caused the extinction of mammoths and many other species. People have always had an impact on the planet, and when people go too far, "nature takes its course" and the people die. Consider that Easter Island sustained a large population of Polynesians, until they cut down, ate or used up everything in reach. Then, "nature took its course", the people starved to death and the island remains a desert today.
A great deal of environmental damage occurs every day, just as a natural consequence of our lifestyles. Is global warming a way for nature to take its course? Of course it is! It took hundreds of millions of years for nature to sequester carbon in the form of oil, coal, tar sands, etc. We have released into the atmosphere, a very large portion of that fossil carbon, in something like 200 years. Now "nature is taking its course" whether we deny global warming or not.
I guess what I am saying is "big brother" hasn't caused environmental degradation. Rather, we have to first of all recognize that our own actions have an impact some good, mostly bad.
In a democracy, when a majority of people recognize that some things are not good for our society, we rely on government to take corrective action, for the common good. Working through government for the common good is really our only option, in spite of all the flaws.
I know that tea partyers and the Fox News crowd don't like to be confused by reality. They love to blame "Big Brother." For them every problem has a simple solution, if only they were in charge. That attitude reminds me of raising stubborn, self centered children. By the time they matured, they were amazed at what the old man had learned in such a short time (my apologies to Mark Twain).
Brian, although I admire your style and polite delivery, I for one am fed up with people that look to simplistic slogans to address complicated problems. I am tired of being polite and trying to persuade people that refuse to use reason. I don't care if my speaking up irritates any of them or hair-lips old river. The consequences of allowing ignorance to run rampant are just too severe.
Brian, we have real problems that require intellect, compromise, reasonableness and many other virtues that you seem to have. I wish you good luck in trying to get people to follow your example.
Finally, I thought this was a photography forum. If any of you want to express displeasure with my reaction to your political views, lets move the conversation to your favorite right wing anti-government blog. Just send me the URL!
There's nothing inherently more natural about fires set by Native American vs. fire suppression by the NPS. While the ecological effects of either scenario are debatable, keep in mind that this proposal is intended to artificially preserve a view, not to benefit the ecosystem. This I'm not comfortable with. The one constant in nature is change.
I think this calls for controlled burning. Sawing the trees down is ecologically irresponsible. Many of the plants are fire resistant or fire tolerant or rely upon fire for propagation. Politically, they may be afraid of air pollution aspects. But burning would be best for the plant and animal communities. The fertility would stay in place for the rebirth ala Yelowstone NP after the big fires there.
I think that this thread should be moved to the Hot Topics forum.
Growth of conifer stands and willow in meadows is natural succession in the glacial lake--meadow cycle. It should be allowed to continue it's natural course.
Wih regard to burning vs. cutting--It would require a high intensity firing operation to actually kill the trees (a crown fire). Doing so in Yosemite Valley would be very difficult, and extremely dangerous; not to mention the effects of the smoke such an operation would generate. Once the fire(s) are out, you would then have to deal with standing dead trees in a high-traffic area because they would be a very serious safety hazard. The dead trees would have to be cut.
--P
Posted by Rodney Ninow on July 28, 2011 at 8:32 PM
I'm all for cutting down some trees. I've seen historical images of Yosemite Valley and there were maybe only half as many conifers as there are today. Fire suppression has led to over growth in the valley, just as it has in many mountain communities, such as Lake Arrowhead near Los Angeles.
Posted by Brian Gatlin on July 28, 2011 at 11:17 PM
Roland, thanks for your thoughts, I agree with most all of them. I'm fed up too, but I think that both sides have fallen back on rhetoric and fingerpointing and in doing so have created so much animosity, antagonism, and division that they've lost the opportunity for real dialogue that can lead to real solutions. Although I'm personally far to the left of the Democrats, I recognize that the citizens of the democracy (or corporate democracy, since apparently corporations have the rights but not the responsibilities of citizens) that I live in are not, that sustainable solutions like at the center, and that the opportunity for long term change comes from changing where the center lies. But that doesn't happen with shouting or name-calling or mockery (even though I guess I enjoy that as much as anyone)...
I'm glad that NPN at least, is one place where we keep the dialogue on a civil level.
Indeed, this is a difficult topic to conclude. But, please, keep imaginary concepts such as god out of the conversation, and let's approach it as intelligent, free thinking individuals.
"I've seen historical images of Yosemite Valley and there were maybe only half as many conifers as there are today. Fire suppression has led to over growth in the valley, just as it has in many mountain communities, such as Lake Arrowhead near Los Angeles."
I first visited Yosemite Valley in 1965, and many times over the ensuing years. The growth of coniferous trees, oaks, and brush is visible to me. The Ahwahnechee used low intensity fire to clear seedling pines and cedar, as well as willow in order to promote the growth of oak trees which provided one of their food sources; acorns. The indians manipulated the Valley ecosystem for a sustainable yield: they likely didn't give a hoot about whether or not they could see Bridalveil Falls. However, later visitors, and the NPS, feel that, 'This is the way Yosemite Valley should look'.
Early fire suppression by the NPS was done to protect visitors and infrastructure, not so much to preserve the meadows and view shed. As managers learned more, they began allowing fires to burn (so long as visitors and infrastucture were safe) or ignited control burns to prevent catastrophic fire, rejuvenate the forest floor, and as a consequence, prevented the natural succession of lake-meadow-forest.
The conifer growth in the Lake Arrowhead-Big Bear area presents a different scenario. While both Yosemite and Arrowhead present urban-wildland interface issues, the Arrowhead problem is one of simply managing the forest to protect human life and infrastructure, while the Yosemite scenario is more complex. In the current context, it is one of providing an enhanced visitor experience.
To my mind, the land belongs to it's flora and fauna inhabitants--we are only transient visitors. Removing hundreds of beautiful trees in order to provide an enhanced visitor experience, and that includes photographers, simply seems shortsighted, in my opinion. If the NPS and visitors, including we as photographers, were truly 'stewards of the land', we would insist that the Valley's ecosystem be allowed to evolve in a natural way.
--P
Posted by Rodney Ninow on July 29, 2011 at 1:25 PM
If a lightning storm caused a fire in Yosemite Valley today, do you think they would extinguish it or let it burn out? It is the fact that they would extinguish it that messes with the natural order of things. Fires are allowed to burn out in the high country, because no structures are in danger, but in the valley, that is not the case. Since we don't have images of the valley before the Native Americans were present, we really have no way of knowing what the valley looked like. But fires, natural and unnatural have a way of thinning forests and are also essential to some trees being able to reproduce, such as the giant sequoia. Therefore suppression changes the way the landscape grows and evolves.
"If a lightning storm caused a fire in Yosemite Valley today, do you think they would extinguish it or let it burn out?"
Rodney, I think this would depend upon the threat to visitor safety and infrastructure. If there were no threat, or the fire could be managed to keep it from being a threat, the NPS would probably let it burn for the purpose of forest thinning, soil rejuvenation and seed propagation.
While we do not have direct imagery of The Valley prior to human intervention, the glacial lake-meadow-forest succession is well established from observations elsewhere in the Sierra and other mountain ranges. From this evidence we can make an inference as to what Yosemite Valley looked like in ancient times.
The question now becomes: Do we allow The Valley to assume a natural course of evolution, or do we manage it to make it a 'snap-shot' of some past era?
This reminds me of visiting the Grand Teton NP. I found the spot along the Snake River where Ansel made his well known image. You can hardly see the scene from that area any longer. The pines have got taller and the view is blocked. I didn't mind. Trees get taller in 50 years. Seems natural to me. I made my own image nearby, that perhaps people won't be able to make that one again in 50 years.
God may be an imaginary concept to you, and many others. But it is the opposite for me, and many others! I personally think the attempt to squelch any mention of God by those that do not believe is becoming boring. It is my personal opinion that your statement is more invasive, and less considerate than any of Roland's comments including God. It doesn't bother me when those that believe in other gods speak what they choose to believe in. If you don't believe, fine. But please don't use it as an excuse to trample on what others believe in. It wasn't being forced down anyone's throat just by being mentioned, was it??? Why can't we ALL just listen politely and discard within ourselves what we think is invalid or imaginary when it comes to religion? And now I've ignored my own advice!!!!!!!
Good idea, Preston. Request granted I'll apologize for my part in it.
As for the trees in the valley. I think they should go ahead and do some trimming. Reason is this, it's a national park created for visitors to be able to see the attractions. I'm all for leaving it alone in it's natural state. But it's too late for that now. I don't think we'll abandon the park and let it revert back to it's natural state. As long as there are roads, and bridges, and parking lots, and 4 million people a year going through there, might as well be able to see the stuff they came to see. I certainly don't want to see a bunch of evidence of chainsaw cutting on all the trees though either. I would hope that they'd use some care, and discretion there. I think there are plenty of natural, unaltered wild places to go and see for the adventurous among us. I agree with your thoughts about the natural process/evolution of a glacial valley too. I'd be perfectly happy if they left it alone. If trimming would ruin the aesthetics of the park as it is now, then I say don't do it.
I get to Yosemite about every other year on average, so changes are usually more overt than if I was able to visit more often (darn it all anyway). Getting such glimpses over the last 20 years has revealed a decided tendency for folks to wander more in the vicinity of the popular view points, all in the interest of getting a clearer views and in direct proportion to the rate that trees grow to block the views. And all of them are taking their human impacts with them wherever they wander, ranging from enhanced erosion to trash and limbs ripped or clipped for better views. The cumulative impact of all that wandering is huge at high-traffic iconic locations.
My interest in seeing the trees whacked at major viewpoints is to take away the impulse to wander for a better view. Given a nice clear view, about 99.99999999% of visitors and their impacts will be perfectly content to stay in the parking lots and view points. There's nothing whatsoever "natural" about the current state of affairs, and 4 mil people a year will continue to have impacts. You can either fence them out of sensitive areas or give them a reason to stay in the areas hardened for high traffic. Whacking a few trees for clear views is a small price to pay for that.
If only someone could have seen this coming. Actually, someone did:
The present operations in Yosemite have come under very strong criticism - both fair and unfair - but the shuttle buses, the closing off of the eastern end of the Valley to all cars, and the establishment of one-way roads have combined to achieve a remarkable quality which has never been surpassed in Yosemite and never equaled in any other Park. Unless conservative and unimaginative minds assume full control, Yosemite will progress toward a very high level of perfection and serve as a model for all reserved areas in the land. The Parks need intensive Presidential support. I am pleased to bring the foregoing points to your attention primarily the better to establish a base of reality.
Exclusion is, for me, a bad word indeed. I want people to experience Yosemite and the Sierra. The Sierra Club outings were conceived to acquaint people with the beauty of the Sierra and enlist their support in its preservation. William E. Colby once told me that he and John Muir were at Glacier Point (circa 1910) and Muir said to Colby, "Will, won't it be wonderful when one million people can see what we are seeing today?" Millions are seeing it today, and millions more are seeing and will see it through art. To experience need not imply to destroy. For a few hardy souls to demand the sealing off of the wild places represents a brutal policy I cannot condone. I am anxious, however, to promote the essential controls that will limit use so that, in the classic words of the law "the land will be inalienable for all time." The problem is to replace the Curious with the Wonderful, de-emphasize recreation in favor of the re-creation of the spirit, encourage perception, realization, and creation. Any artist in search of a theme has two that are set out clearly before him: the interpretation of the environment and the interpretation of man's relationship to it.
The artist and the photographer, especially among the young people of our time, seek the mysteries and the adventures of experience in nature. The National Parks should be totally inviting: free of the complex jangle of the cash registers, the auto horns, and the crowding of confused flesh. The basic mood must always be protective of the area and create respect and affection. Because I have reached the age when I cannot climb and scramble as I was wont to do in my remote past, does not encourage me to promote roads, trams, or helicopter services into the wild places. I would like to think of all young people of today, with their health, vigor, and creativity striding the high hills as I did so many years ago, with the beauty and the wonder of the world opening before them. --Ansel Adams
I'm surprised in all of this that no one has mentioned the cutting of the trees at Tunnel View. I was there in 2006 before the trees were cut and there were about five spots along the wall with unobstructed views of the Valley. Now completely different, the whole wall is wide open. Does anybody believe that this was done in order to enhance the view for the general public or so an entire busload or two could file off the bus and get their grab memory shot and at least have the Valley in the background? What do you really think generates most of the revenue for the park ( ie: federally operated not concessionaires? ). Irregardless I have to agree with the general consensus the trees need to go, fire is not the answer. Near El Captain meadow there are the remnants of a pretty large fire with many standing dead snags, pretty ugly, uglier than the living conifers. We can only hope it is done conscientiously, but there will be many eyes and ears watching I'm sure.
Ok. Whack the trees. How large are they anyway? How steep is the terrain? Do they intend to use horses or oxen to minimize impacts? How about balloon logging? Possibly helicopters? How about some elaborate cable logging setup? The mudslides around here were set up by logging. When a large tree comes down from natural causes, it may clear a path hundreds of yards long before it comes to a stop. Just wait until a cable breaks and a log lands on a shuttle or a prius. Ok. I'll confess. The reason that I am in favor of this is that it will almost certainly result in fires anyway. Anyone remember the Tillamook burn?
Posted by Larry Fischer on August 3, 2011 at 9:21 AM
The only thing that seems to be recurring in this and other "hot topics" is "I WRIT LARGE". This is really to each his own.
Where is the discussion about FUNDAMENTALS? That usually takes "I" out of the picture.
Either the trees should be cut, part of them should be cut, or none of them should be cut. What wisdom is available for those concepts?
Cannot a consensus be met? Never will everyone be pleased. The trick is the decision nearest "truth" is what is implemented. It would seem to my little brain that there are/or should be fundamentals to guide our society is such matters--as well as a host of others.
The majority is NOT always the answer either... nothing more than mob rule. Neither is central planning. Afterall, it is nothing more than I WRIT LARGE on the part of a small group of individuals.
Something the chew on: ARE THERE WORKABLE TRADITIONAL FUNDAMENTALS TO EVALUATE concerning TREE CUTTING AND OTHER STUFF? HOW FAR BACK TO DO WE GO? CAN WE EVEN REMEMBER? ARE THEY TRUE AT ALL TIMES AND ALL PLACES? IF NOT, WHY NOT. ----- This is the real discussion.
Someone mentioned in this thread we should be "STEWARDS". That's usually carries a good connotation. Is that a FUNDAMENTAL? From whence did it come? Is it acceptable? Etc.
Then there is ALWAYS ECONOMICS. In this case tourism. Additionally there is the "VALUE" of the trees--aesthetic vs. profit [yes, there could be money made via contract for removal if that was the decision]. What FUNDAMENTALS are involved in this?
I assert as a nation we have lost our way. We cannot arrive at any decision that seems rational, i.e. based on FUNDAMENTAL TRUTH. Rancor upon rancor. More often it is an emotional response to a logical problem. Tolerance has trumped the search for truth.
I contend emotions are best bridled by a nation with agreed upon fundamentals as a source for the decision cascade. Such fundamentals are not mutable. They can't be if they represent "truth". If those are still acceptable we should be able to arrive at decisions that, for most, make sense.
We were not founded upon majority rule but the rule of law based on fundamentals.
Perhaps we should re-vist Coke and Blackstone. Then we should ascertain from whence their fundamentals were garnered. I think they would have had an answer that a nation with agreed principles would accept.
I guess most of you know who Coke and Blackstone were...???
Bottom line, the trees will either be removed or they will not be removed. Life goes on and we need to prepare for bigger decisions than trees. Good practice, though, because much more looms on future horizons.
And I promise NOT TO RESPOND and ruin yet another thread.... Have at it...........
Larry, those are excellent points. The problem is that the fundamentals are not well defined in this case. Just look at all the ambiguous language in the NPS mission statement:
What exactly does "preserve unimpaired" mean? Is it forcefully trying to arrest a contrived view at an arbitrary point in time, or the preservation of natural forces, processes and interactions that have shaped the landscape for billions of years and will continue to morph it long after humanity is gone?
Bummer, i'm late to the party...
Well I believe Ansel said it best, so no need to expound.
Hank--I say we should train a few rabid bears to patrol the 'sensitive areas' and allow them to eat the offending tourists.
I know I've been to some overlooks before, not in Yosemite, where I thought things would be greatly improved by removing a few of the trees. This sounds pretty excessive though...It doesn't seem like the park is devoid of scenic viewpoints.
Discussion
27 repliesSince the "protected" park has not benefitted from the regular burn-offs of brush and deadwood from lightning or the fires wisely and intentionally set by the Native-Americans for centuries, many of the famous views are now partially or totally obscured.
Per the study conducted, 181 of the park's most scenic historic views were ranked. 28% of them were completely obscured and 54% were partially blocked.
Cutting begins in 2012. They say great care will be taken to avoid use of chain saws in nesting season or bat hibernation times.
While the thought of hearing chainsaws and seeing trees fall at Yosemite truly sickens me, I do see the benefits as well.
Anyone care to share thoughts?
One of many articles, and links to others, here:
http://www.mercurynews.com/science/ci_18539564
Sandy
My opinion is that big brother should allow nature to take its own path. I can under stand that the trees may be blocking some of the view, but that is life. With the government telling us that they have no money and constantly taken more money from our pay checks, how about using that money in a different way.
Have they given any thought as to what the ground will look like after they cuts the trees down? What are they going to do with the cut trees? What about the damage that will be done to the ground from trucks and heavy equiment used to cut the trees down.
A century of fire suppression (paid for by the federal government) is what created the present situation, not "allowing nature to take its own path." This is an attempt to return to a more natural state (though one can argue what that really is).
As for the questions you ask, those things will certainly be considered. If this is a project of any scale, they will have to (that is, be required by law to) do environmental (NEPA) compliance that takes all those things into account.
The tone of your response suggests to me that maybe you're more opposed to government in general than to the specific actions being considered here.
Sandy, your topic is a really complex and interesting one that gets to the real heart of the ideas that underlie how we manage our public lands, and what is appropriate. The Leopold Report from the early 60s is one that guides much of the philosophy of how National Parks have been managed. I believe that they used language very close to this: that they should represent vignettes of primitive America. But that perspective tended to view America as untouched before European settlement, denying the influence that Native Americans had in shaping the environment (as you point out). The question of what is truly natural, and what is truly wild, is not an easy one to answer. But it's one that every management decision by the NPS (or, in wilderness areas, the USFS), answers in practice, whether it has been explicitly addressed or not. This question, and questions about how to manage lands and species, will only become more difficult as human impact (i.e., climate change) begins to have more effects. Should land managers transplant species to areas that will become hospitable to them as they lose traditional breeding grounds? Should they abstain from active management in this way and instead create corridors for species to migrate and adapt? Should they water ancient and precious trees to try to preserve them when the climate becomes too dry and they begin to die?
All of these things are difficult questions. Even the idea of managing wildlands is inherently contradictory. But in my experience, when you hear someone argue against a preservation action by saying we should let nature take it's course, 99 times out of 100, they're ignoring the fact that it wasn't "nature taking its course" that necessitated the action--it was our own acts.
So if I understand you, you are saying big brother did not allow nature to take its path for due to a century of fire suppression paid by the government. But isn't big brother cutting the trees down also not allowing nature to take its own path? Yes it is a very complex situation, but at what point does man stop messing with nature to fix it?
If the cutting of the trees is what is best for nature, then I am in favor of it. But if it is being done because it is considered what is best for man, i.e. better views, then I am against it.
I think your comments are spot on and very politely stated.
My feeling is that having ruined so much of our planet, we have a responsibility to try to restore what we can to as "natural" or sustainable a state as we can. Whatever "natural" means. Many European countries have been "managing" their landscapes responsibly for centuries. Think Switzerland or Austria. Very little of their landscape is "natural" when compared to what it looked like when people first arrived in Europe. Nevertheless, the sense of a connection to nature in those countries is awe inspiring.
If you are a Christian, another way to look at it is that we are called upon to be stewards of God's creation. Stewardship does not mean exploiting as quickly as possible to maximize short term pleasure and profit. That is what the prodigal son did, and he ended up raising pigs for pagans. Stewardship means we have a responsibility to use the resources God has given us wisely. There are too many bible references on that subject to quote here.
Getting back to just the obvious from personal experience, when I was a kid (1960s) backpacking the High Sierra or the Angeles Crest, the designated "wilderness" areas were anything but. The same has held true for my explorations of the Pacific Northwest and the western deserts. Man's heavy footprint is evident everywhere. And it has almost always been this way. Early hunters most likely caused the extinction of mammoths and many other species. People have always had an impact on the planet, and when people go too far, "nature takes its course" and the people die. Consider that Easter Island sustained a large population of Polynesians, until they cut down, ate or used up everything in reach. Then, "nature took its course", the people starved to death and the island remains a desert today.
A great deal of environmental damage occurs every day, just as a natural consequence of our lifestyles. Is global warming a way for nature to take its course? Of course it is! It took hundreds of millions of years for nature to sequester carbon in the form of oil, coal, tar sands, etc. We have released into the atmosphere, a very large portion of that fossil carbon, in something like 200 years. Now "nature is taking its course" whether we deny global warming or not.
I guess what I am saying is "big brother" hasn't caused environmental degradation. Rather, we have to first of all recognize that our own actions have an impact some good, mostly bad.
In a democracy, when a majority of people recognize that some things are not good for our society, we rely on government to take corrective action, for the common good. Working through government for the common good is really our only option, in spite of all the flaws.
I know that tea partyers and the Fox News crowd don't like to be confused by reality. They love to blame "Big Brother." For them every problem has a simple solution, if only they were in charge. That attitude reminds me of raising stubborn, self centered children. By the time they matured, they were amazed at what the old man had learned in such a short time (my apologies to Mark Twain).
Brian, although I admire your style and polite delivery, I for one am fed up with people that look to simplistic slogans to address complicated problems. I am tired of being polite and trying to persuade people that refuse to use reason. I don't care if my speaking up irritates any of them or hair-lips old river. The consequences of allowing ignorance to run rampant are just too severe.
Brian, we have real problems that require intellect, compromise, reasonableness and many other virtues that you seem to have. I wish you good luck in trying to get people to follow your example.
Finally, I thought this was a photography forum. If any of you want to express displeasure with my reaction to your political views, lets move the conversation to your favorite right wing anti-government blog. Just send me the URL!
Sincerely,
Roland Burkert
Guy
Growth of conifer stands and willow in meadows is natural succession in the glacial lake--meadow cycle. It should be allowed to continue it's natural course.
Wih regard to burning vs. cutting--It would require a high intensity firing operation to actually kill the trees (a crown fire). Doing so in Yosemite Valley would be very difficult, and extremely dangerous; not to mention the effects of the smoke such an operation would generate. Once the fire(s) are out, you would then have to deal with standing dead trees in a high-traffic area because they would be a very serious safety hazard. The dead trees would have to be cut.
--P
I'm glad that NPN at least, is one place where we keep the dialogue on a civil level.
I first visited Yosemite Valley in 1965, and many times over the ensuing years. The growth of coniferous trees, oaks, and brush is visible to me. The Ahwahnechee used low intensity fire to clear seedling pines and cedar, as well as willow in order to promote the growth of oak trees which provided one of their food sources; acorns. The indians manipulated the Valley ecosystem for a sustainable yield: they likely didn't give a hoot about whether or not they could see Bridalveil Falls. However, later visitors, and the NPS, feel that, 'This is the way Yosemite Valley should look'.
Early fire suppression by the NPS was done to protect visitors and infrastructure, not so much to preserve the meadows and view shed. As managers learned more, they began allowing fires to burn (so long as visitors and infrastucture were safe) or ignited control burns to prevent catastrophic fire, rejuvenate the forest floor, and as a consequence, prevented the natural succession of lake-meadow-forest.
The conifer growth in the Lake Arrowhead-Big Bear area presents a different scenario. While both Yosemite and Arrowhead present urban-wildland interface issues, the Arrowhead problem is one of simply managing the forest to protect human life and infrastructure, while the Yosemite scenario is more complex. In the current context, it is one of providing an enhanced visitor experience.
To my mind, the land belongs to it's flora and fauna inhabitants--we are only transient visitors. Removing hundreds of beautiful trees in order to provide an enhanced visitor experience, and that includes photographers, simply seems shortsighted, in my opinion. If the NPS and visitors, including we as photographers, were truly 'stewards of the land', we would insist that the Valley's ecosystem be allowed to evolve in a natural way.
--P
Rodney, I think this would depend upon the threat to visitor safety and infrastructure. If there were no threat, or the fire could be managed to keep it from being a threat, the NPS would probably let it burn for the purpose of forest thinning, soil rejuvenation and seed propagation.
While we do not have direct imagery of The Valley prior to human intervention, the glacial lake-meadow-forest succession is well established from observations elsewhere in the Sierra and other mountain ranges. From this evidence we can make an inference as to what Yosemite Valley looked like in ancient times.
The question now becomes: Do we allow The Valley to assume a natural course of evolution, or do we manage it to make it a 'snap-shot' of some past era?
--P
God may be an imaginary concept to you, and many others. But it is the opposite for me, and many others! I personally think the attempt to squelch any mention of God by those that do not believe is becoming boring. It is my personal opinion that your statement is more invasive, and less considerate than any of Roland's comments including God. It doesn't bother me when those that believe in other gods speak what they choose to believe in. If you don't believe, fine. But please don't use it as an excuse to trample on what others believe in. It wasn't being forced down anyone's throat just by being mentioned, was it??? Why can't we ALL just listen politely and discard within ourselves what we think is invalid or imaginary when it comes to religion? And now I've ignored my own advice!!!!!!!
Chris
Thanks,
--P
As for the trees in the valley. I think they should go ahead and do some trimming. Reason is this, it's a national park created for visitors to be able to see the attractions. I'm all for leaving it alone in it's natural state. But it's too late for that now. I don't think we'll abandon the park and let it revert back to it's natural state. As long as there are roads, and bridges, and parking lots, and 4 million people a year going through there, might as well be able to see the stuff they came to see. I certainly don't want to see a bunch of evidence of chainsaw cutting on all the trees though either. I would hope that they'd use some care, and discretion there. I think there are plenty of natural, unaltered wild places to go and see for the adventurous among us. I agree with your thoughts about the natural process/evolution of a glacial valley too. I'd be perfectly happy if they left it alone. If trimming would ruin the aesthetics of the park as it is now, then I say don't do it.
Chris
My interest in seeing the trees whacked at major viewpoints is to take away the impulse to wander for a better view. Given a nice clear view, about 99.99999999% of visitors and their impacts will be perfectly content to stay in the parking lots and view points. There's nothing whatsoever "natural" about the current state of affairs, and 4 mil people a year will continue to have impacts. You can either fence them out of sensitive areas or give them a reason to stay in the areas hardened for high traffic. Whacking a few trees for clear views is a small price to pay for that.
The present operations in Yosemite have come under very strong criticism - both fair and unfair - but the shuttle buses, the closing off of the eastern end of the Valley to all cars, and the establishment of one-way roads have combined to achieve a remarkable quality which has never been surpassed in Yosemite and never equaled in any other Park. Unless conservative and unimaginative minds assume full control, Yosemite will progress toward a very high level of perfection and serve as a model for all reserved areas in the land. The Parks need intensive Presidential support. I am pleased to bring the foregoing points to your attention primarily the better to establish a base of reality.
Exclusion is, for me, a bad word indeed. I want people to experience Yosemite and the Sierra. The Sierra Club outings were conceived to acquaint people with the beauty of the Sierra and enlist their support in its preservation. William E. Colby once told me that he and John Muir were at Glacier Point (circa 1910) and Muir said to Colby, "Will, won't it be wonderful when one million people can see what we are seeing today?" Millions are seeing it today, and millions more are seeing and will see it through art. To experience need not imply to destroy. For a few hardy souls to demand the sealing off of the wild places represents a brutal policy I cannot condone. I am anxious, however, to promote the essential controls that will limit use so that, in the classic words of the law "the land will be inalienable for all time." The problem is to replace the Curious with the Wonderful, de-emphasize recreation in favor of the re-creation of the spirit, encourage perception, realization, and creation. Any artist in search of a theme has two that are set out clearly before him: the interpretation of the environment and the interpretation of man's relationship to it.
The artist and the photographer, especially among the young people of our time, seek the mysteries and the adventures of experience in nature. The National Parks should be totally inviting: free of the complex jangle of the cash registers, the auto horns, and the crowding of confused flesh. The basic mood must always be protective of the area and create respect and affection. Because I have reached the age when I cannot climb and scramble as I was wont to do in my remote past, does not encourage me to promote roads, trams, or helicopter services into the wild places. I would like to think of all young people of today, with their health, vigor, and creativity striding the high hills as I did so many years ago, with the beauty and the wonder of the world opening before them. --Ansel Adams
Paul
Where is the discussion about FUNDAMENTALS? That usually takes "I" out of the picture.
Either the trees should be cut, part of them should be cut, or none of them should be cut. What wisdom is available for those concepts?
Cannot a consensus be met? Never will everyone be pleased. The trick is the decision nearest "truth" is what is implemented. It would seem to my little brain that there are/or should be fundamentals to guide our society is such matters--as well as a host of others.
The majority is NOT always the answer either... nothing more than mob rule. Neither is central planning. Afterall, it is nothing more than I WRIT LARGE on the part of a small group of individuals.
Something the chew on: ARE THERE WORKABLE TRADITIONAL FUNDAMENTALS TO EVALUATE concerning TREE CUTTING AND OTHER STUFF? HOW FAR BACK TO DO WE GO? CAN WE EVEN REMEMBER? ARE THEY TRUE AT ALL TIMES AND ALL PLACES? IF NOT, WHY NOT. ----- This is the real discussion.
Someone mentioned in this thread we should be "STEWARDS". That's usually carries a good connotation. Is that a FUNDAMENTAL? From whence did it come? Is it acceptable? Etc.
Then there is ALWAYS ECONOMICS. In this case tourism. Additionally there is the "VALUE" of the trees--aesthetic vs. profit [yes, there could be money made via contract for removal if that was the decision]. What FUNDAMENTALS are involved in this?
I assert as a nation we have lost our way. We cannot arrive at any decision that seems rational, i.e. based on FUNDAMENTAL TRUTH. Rancor upon rancor. More often it is an emotional response to a logical problem. Tolerance has trumped the search for truth.
I contend emotions are best bridled by a nation with agreed upon fundamentals as a source for the decision cascade. Such fundamentals are not mutable. They can't be if they represent "truth". If those are still acceptable we should be able to arrive at decisions that, for most, make sense.
We were not founded upon majority rule but the rule of law based on fundamentals.
Perhaps we should re-vist Coke and Blackstone. Then we should ascertain from whence their fundamentals were garnered. I think they would have had an answer that a nation with agreed principles would accept.
I guess most of you know who Coke and Blackstone were...???
Bottom line, the trees will either be removed or they will not be removed. Life goes on and we need to prepare for bigger decisions than trees. Good practice, though, because much more looms on future horizons.
And I promise NOT TO RESPOND and ruin yet another thread.... Have at it...........
the fisch
http://www.nps.gov/legacy/mission.html
What exactly does "preserve unimpaired" mean? Is it forcefully trying to arrest a contrived view at an arbitrary point in time, or the preservation of natural forces, processes and interactions that have shaped the landscape for billions of years and will continue to morph it long after humanity is gone?
Guy
Well I believe Ansel said it best, so no need to expound.
Hank--I say we should train a few rabid bears to patrol the 'sensitive areas' and allow them to eat the offending tourists.
Just put it in a blog or hand it to a politician. It will be FACT before nightfall.