Altruistic World Online Library

by **admin** » Mon Apr 25, 2016 8:08 am

Concessions at Yosemite National Park
by Jonathon S. Feinstein
Graduate School of Business, Stanford University
© 1998

NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT

Case Teaching Package

A case teaching package is available for this case. It includes strategies for case presentation, key concepts, solutions to the assignment questions in the case, and suggestions for the most effective ways to work this case into your course.

Length

This case is 18 pages in length and its case teaching package is 4 pages.

Abstract

This case outlines the controversy surrounding the management of concessions at Yosemite National Park, and asks students to design an appropriate concessions arrangement. Should the concessions be run by a for-profit concessionaire, as in the past, a not-for-profit, or the National Park Service itself? If the concessions are operated by a for-profit or not-for-profit, how should the concessions contract be structured, and how should the National Park Service go about overseeing (regulating) the concessionaire's behavior? The case presents arguments made by a wide range of participants in the public debate over Yosemite, addressing these and other related issues.

Linkages to Textbooks or Journal Articles/Fit Within a Course

The case fits naturally either into a course on public sector economics and regulation or a course on environmental management.

Readings are cited throughout the case. Two particularly interesting readings are Alston Chase, Playing God at Yellowstone, and Alfred Runte, Yosemite: The Embattled Wilderness.

Study Questions

How should the new contract be awarded? In particular, which of the following options do you favor: a) renew the existing contract with the Curry Company; b) hold an auction, opening the bidding to other organizations; or c) have the National Park Service run the concession itself? If an auction is held, should the bidding be open to both for-profits and non-profits, or restricted to non-profits, and what sort of restrictions should be placed on bidders, for example related to a minimum level of resources?

Supposing the government does put the concessions out for bid, state the terms the government should offer on the new contract. In particular, how long a time period should the contract cover, what should the contract specify regarding implementation of the General Management Plan, and how should revenues from the concessions operation be distributed?

Supposing the Government chooses to let the concessions to either a for- or non-profit, what sort of regulatory structure should be created? Who should serve on a regulatory board? How should the Board go about overseeing the concessionaire's behavior?

by **admin** » Mon Apr 25, 2016 8:10 am

Extended Comments on Draft Yosemite Valley Plan, 2000
by David Curry
June, 2000

NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT

First I want to thank NPS planners and management for an excellent, creative draft Yosemite Valley Plan, covering many bases and varied interests with both objective reason and obvious caring for the land and its visitors. We are all faced with David Siegenthaler’s question: How does one love Yosemite in the company of its many other lovers?

My own love for the Valley began by experiencing it as a kind of second home, spending several young summers with my grandmother—Jennie or "Mother" Curry—at her cottage, supported by Grizzly Club activities, the summer children’s rodeo, and hiking and fishing everywhere feet could take me. Later I added rock climbing in a modest way, lived in the Valley for a year, and worked part way up the employment ladder (meeting John Townsley as co-porter at Camp Curry was a high point) to finally manage Tuolumne Meadows High Sierra Camp in the summer of 1951.

Since then I’ve worked mostly in the fields of transportation planning, research, and especially economics, chiefly at Stanford Research Institute and with the consulting firm of Crain & Associates in Redwood City. Two of my projects were co-authoring the 1977 "AASHTO Red Book" (see footnote 1), and in 1979 leading the development of CalTrans’ system for developing state highway project priorities in California’s annual State Transportation Plan. It is mainly from that professional perspective, and secondarily as a former Valley resident and worker, that I want to add something hopefully new to the strong case for a parking facility at Taft Toe. Then I’ll shift ground and comment briefly as a former Valley resident and subsequent family-raiser on the crucial importance of preserving a viable Valley community, even at the price of somewhat more employee housing than is now proposed in any of the alternatives.

The problem of multiple, incommensurate outcomes—environmental, visitor convenience, costs, etc.--is much the same in the Yosemite Valley Plan as in California’s annual State Transportation Plan, which must rank the relative desirability of project alternatives based, in most cases, on multiple outcomes. A sequential approach is highly recommended, starting with consideration of lower-cost alternatives and requiring higher-cost alternatives to prove their worth based on the added value of the added features that they bring to the plan. The next ideal step, to convert all values to equivalent dollars, is usually impossible or dicey. The fall-back ideal is first to calculate the added equivalent cost of any significant intangible differences between the least-cost alternative and the next most expensive alternative, and second to quantify the most important effects of the chosen vs. the rejected alternative in as meaningful a way as possible.

The draft Yosemite Valley Plan provides the necessary information for accomplishing both of these objectives, but does not at this time summarize that information in a useful way—and hence is not providing reviewers of the plan with the best guidance for helping them to make decisions among the alternatives. This point was illustrated by the two propositions in my public hearing comments (from the Sonora meeting, 6/2/00), first about the $184 million excess cost of Alternative 2 versus Alternative 3 (see footnote 2). The second proposition was about regarding parking as the highest and best use of the Taft Toe area.

One current limitation on summarizing cost or other comparative information about plan alternatives is that the National Park Service, unlike the Bureau of Reclamation for example, is apparently denied the use of benefit/cost analysis to consider environmental and other tradeoffs in project evaluation. Instead, the NPS describes the effects of each alternative. A "preferred" alternative must be identified, but not necessarily chosen later, because public responses and other later information may change the preference. Also, evaluating public response is not just a matter of counting votes—the significance of each comment is considered on its own merits, in terms of both desirability and feasibility.

The process just described leads to provision of exhaustive details in NPS plans about the consequences of each alternative, with extensive use of adjectives such as major, minor, favorable, and adverse to refer to the direction and intensity of the impacts. Yet the policy of avoiding summary comparisons can lead to uneven treatment of similar impacts. For example, the following comment appears on page 4-65 of the Plan, under the Taft Toe alternative, for the environmental consequence called "Park Operations:" "The costs for additional park personnel would represent a long-term major adverse impact." Yet these added costs are only $4.7 million/year for the Taft Toe alternative, less than half of the extra $9.7 million in added shuttle plus NPS operating costs for the preferred out-of-Valley parking alternative compared with the Taft Toe parking alternative—and that extra $9.7 million, more than double, is nowhere called out as a major long-term adverse impact. Seems inconsistent, and as already noted, such differences between the two plans add up to a very large number over 30 years, nearly $184 million.

The truth is that in the process of making a final choice between plan alternatives, all of the consequences and tradeoffs will be valued, implicitly if not explicitly. For example, if Alternative 2 is ultimately chosen, it means that the chooser or choosers have decided as follows:

Yes, environmental values such as avoiding overuse of El Capitan Meadow, having another quiet discovery zone for visitors, and avoiding disruption of local habitats and migration paths is worth an added $184 million in taxes and travel costs plus the added loss or "price" of 1) greater time and inconvenience to day visitors (especially the 30 to 50% who return to their cars and drive to the Valley anyway to take a different route out of the Park), 2) more bus noise and pollution in the East end of the Valley, and 3) 12.2 million extra gallons of fuel used (over 30 years) to service three out-of-Valley parking lots.

It is also true that there is no "objective" or value-free way in the world to make such a decision. The closest we can come, I believe, is to make it in the broadest possible concept and feeling of enlightened public interest, for present and future generations.

One possible advantage of deferring this tradeoff clarification until the final decision is that it seems to keep options more open during the public comment process. Too-early and explicit tradeoff analyses or statements might lead to biases and alliances forming around defense of one alternative, either inside or outside the NPS, rather than attempting to stay open to new information or viewpoints. It’s a judgment call, but I believe that this possible advantage is outweighed by three disadvantages:

The present lack of comparative information between plan alternatives forces every serious reader of the report to conduct an exhaustive and exhausting, error-prone search process through hundreds of paragraphs of information on the separate alternatives, looking for the differences between them. Better that this be done once and well, as a service to readers.

The average reader will not know how to summarize relevant economic and environmental data into a value-free format that simply clarifies the tradeoffs that are now only implied by the different alternatives.
The present practice of designating a preferred alternative without support of such a comparative analysis deprives the public of the best thinking—to date—and at least the tentative conclusions of the people most familiar with the problem. So long as the preference is tentative, as it is even now, the NPS will be free to change its preference based on new evidence or options, and the debate will be able to focus on real issues, such as the differences between plans and how to ameliorate any residual problems with the tentatively preferred plan.

These considerations lead me to the following Recommendation: that the National Park Service conduct a post-evaluation of the Yosemite Valley planning process, with a view to devising and seeking constructive changes in its own planning study guidelines that will allow provision of more useful information for readers in the summary section of the finished document.

Shifting now to employee housing, I’d like to begin with a third proposition, following the two propositions included in my June 2 hearing statement.

Third Proposition: Just as it takes at least a village to raise a child well, without a viable Valley community, neither the National Park Service nor concessionaires can expect to continue to attract the caliber of management and service staff that has typified the Valley and Park in the past.

Living in Yosemite Valley has long been one of the fringe benefits that attract good people to work there, both for summer and year-round employment, in spite of the constraints and often-rustic facilities. However, the amenities of daily life have steadily eroded over the years as government policy supports an increasingly Spartan community infrastructure, and encourages privatization of federal housing. Also, new flood plain, rockslide, and environmental restoration constraints on housing developments have severely shrunk prospectively available space for employee housing.

In response, the National Park Service and concessionaires are laudably trying to upgrade housing and increase its density.

These measures to improve and increase the density of housing may be too little, too late, because all action alternatives in the Yosemite Valley Plan reduce employee beds in the Valley from 1,277 at present to 683, with a shift of about 700 to 900 beds to El Portal and, under Alternatives 2 and 5, about 200 to Wawona. On page 2-33, the option of removing the school from Yosemite Valley is rejected due to its need by Valley residents. Yet on page 4-60, it is stated that "Relocation of the concession headquarters would likely have long-term major, adverse impacts on the elementary school system by threatening the viability of the Yosemite Valley school." In fact, Valley residents from my personal contacts are already concerned with decline in the diversity of the school population from past movements of jobs and employee housing out of the Valley.

One recent loss, I hear, has been of the pastor’s Valley residence, and the medical clinic will be removed under all plan alternatives, a highly negative community impact. The gas station is long gone, reputedly because it was in the flood plain, forcing residents and visitors alike to travel to the Crane Flat or El Portal stations. But, you folks mostly must know all this and more, having lived or worked or visited there enough yourselves to witness these trends. I only want to add to employee housing considerations the issue of community viability and its importance to the recruitment of good people.

At present, the word community is hardly mentioned and never explicitly considered in the Executive Summary to the Yosemite Plan beyond a brief reference on page 4-23 to a contract between NPS and the University of Utah to "gather information on the social environment of Yosemite Valley, El Portal, and Foresta." However, the results of 147 interviews by the consultants were evidently used for environmental impact analysis rather than interactive feedback with a view to modifying the Plan—not enough details are provided to say for sure. The discussion and analysis is all at the level of "employee housing" and the chances for survival of medical or educational facilities, plus some consideration of the effects on El Portal of further employee housing shifts from the Valley.

These examples should suffice to support the following

Recommendation: Give explicit and serious consideration to continuing viability of the Yosemite Valley community, and reversal of the proposed decline in employee housing there as a major means to that end.

Clearly, creative "outside the box" thought may be needed to implement this recommendation. Procedurally, the problem could be put out for competitive bids to architectural firms with interest and competence in the field. And here are a few closing, possibly off-the-wall, ideas: 1) How about using the space that would have been used for 550 visitor parking spaces in Yosemite Village (Camp 6?) in Alternative 2 for employee housing, if Alternative 3 is chosen? 2) Would the principal concessionaire agree to keep its headquarters in the Valley to help survival of the school and community, assuming housing can be retained for headquarters staff? 3) Should a competition be invited for design of compact, attractive, safe, survivable flood plain housing (probably more at the edges than on the river bank, of course, and possibly emphasizing multi-family housing, like many intentional communities or co-housing developments, with some common spaces indoors and out). 4) How about a compact, attractive service station at the edge of the flood plain or at Taft Toe with an extra $1 per gallon fee, indexed to inflation, to help pay for the shuttle service and incidentally reduce the demand for gas in the Valley? 5) Bite the bullet and go for a large-scale employee residential hotel, as attractive but not as expensive as the Ahwahnee, that needn’t be hidden in the trees, preferably outside the flood plain and with underground parking. Finally, 6) sponsor in-house or broader-based brainstorming or "thoughtstorming" (similar to brainstorming but more focused on consensus) sessions to come up with the best housing and community ideas?

Thank you for your kind attention.

1. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, A Manual on User Benefit Analysis of Highway and Bus-Transit Improvements, 1977.

2. That total cost was figured, by the way, with annual costs discounted over a 30 year period to present value at 4% interest, the accepted long-range cost of capital disregarding inflation and risk. A study period or project life of 30 years is widely used in highway economic studies. By that time, many projects need extensive review or changes, though the relative stability of Yosemite could argue for a longer study period. Increasing the study period to 50 years would increase the extra cost by 22%, to $224.5 million. The main point should not be lost, however: saving Taft Toe for its alternative use as a scenic site will cost a bundle of money that is at present not highlighted in the Plan.

David Curry, 18 Chancellor Place, Berkeley, CA 94705 (davcurry@flash.net)

by **admin** » Mon Apr 25, 2016 8:15 am

Merger Decision
Matsushita/MCA
Case No. IV/M.037
October 1, 1991

NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT

Merger Decision: Matsushita/MCA

Case No IV/M.037 -MATSUSHITA / MCA

Article 6(1)(b) NON-OPPOSITION

REGULATION (EEC) No 4064/89

MERGER PROCEDURE

Date: 10.01.1991

Also available in the CELEX database

Document No 391M0037

Office for Official Publications of the European Communities

L-2985 Luxembourg

Brussels 10.01.1991

PUBLIC VERSION

Registered with advice of delivery to Notifying party

Dear Sirs,

Subject: Case No. IV/M037 - Matsushita/MCA
Notification of 3.12.1990 pursuant to Article 4 of Council
Regulation No 4064/891.

1. The above notification concerns the acquisition of the whole of MCA Inc. (MCA) by Matsushita Acquisition Corp., a subsidiary of Matsushita Electrical Industrial Co. Ltd. (MEI). Excluded from the acquisition are the American television station WWOR-TV and the concessioner of Yosemite Park, the Yosemite Park and Curry Company.

2. After full examination of the notification, the Commission has come to the conclusion that the notified operation falls within the scope of Council Regulation No 4064/89 and does not raise serious doubts as to its compatibility with the common market.

I. Concentration

3. The acquisition of the whole of MCA by MEI through an agreed bid is a concentration within the meaning of Article 3 (1)(b) of Regulation No. 4064/89.

II. Community dimension

4. The combined turnover of MEI and MCA in the last financial year was 43 billion Ecu. Both undertakings concerned meet the requirements of Article 1(2)(b), MEI and MCA each having an aggregate Community-wide turnover of more than 250 million Ecu, of which not more than two thirds is achieved in one and the same Member State. The proposed concentration therefore has a Community dimension.

III. Compatibility with the common market

1. Main characteristics of the proposed concentration

5. With regard to horizontal relationships, the activities of MEI and MCA do not overlap. MEI manufactures consumer electronic products ("Technics", "Panasonic", "JVC"), and consumer household electric appliances, as well as communication and industrial equipment, electronic components, kitchen-related products and batteries. MCA's activities are filmed and music entertainment ("Universal Pictures", "Universal Television", "MCA Records"), book publishing, retail and mail order and other businesses including theme parks. (Its broadcasting and cable business will be spun-off and not be taken over by MEI. The Yosemite Park and Curry Company will according to the parties, be sold to an American buyer after the closing of the acquisition).

6. The most important aspect of the proposed concentration is the possibility that the combination of the massive resources of MEI with the market position of either party might create considerable competitive advantages. These structural characteristics and their possible impact on competition have also to be appraised according to Article 2 (1)(b) of Regulation No. 4064/89 with regard to the market position of the undertakings concerned and their economic and financial power, their access to markets and any barriers to entry, in order to establish whether or not the concentration is compatible with the common market.

2.The relevant markets

7. Both parties hold significant market positions. MEI is one of the leading producers of consumer audio and video equipment. The company is especially strong in video equipment where it leads the world production of home-use video cassette tape recorders (VCR's) and related products; on these markets MEI has significant market shares within the Community. In VCR's, for instance, MEI's market share amounts to 15% Community-wide and from 7% to 34% according to the Member State in question. Furthermore, as far as the Commission is aware the VCR's produced within the Community under the VHS standard are produced under the licence of MEI, or in joint ventures with MEI.

8. MCA is a major producer of motion picture films for theatrical release, television, pay television, cable and home video with market shares below or slightly above 10% in the Community. It also manufactures and distributes recorded music, with a market share below 5% in the EEC.

9. Firstly, therefore, with regard to the relevant consumer "software" entertainment markets there is a linkage of the financial resources of MEI with MCA's activities where adequate finance is an important precondition of competitiveness. The principal competitors of MCA, however, have financially strong shareholders or parent companies as well, like Paramount (Gulf and Western), Warner (Time-Warner), Columbia Pictures (Sony) and Twentieth Century Fox (News Corporation). This linkage does, therefore, not raise serious doubts as to its compatibility with the common market.

10. Secondly, with regard to the consumer electronic hardware markets on which MEI is a major player, the linkage of MEI's "hardware" products with MCA's "software" seems likely to provide a significant competitive advantage to MEI. This linkage merits more consideration

2.Possible impact of the hardware-software linkage on the relevant markets.

11. In view of the information currently available to the Commission, there is a sufficient supply of motion picture films and recorded music for every major technical standard or format used for broadcasting, home audio and video systems and cinemas. Even if MCA should apply a market strategy for its software products that favours MEI's hardware after the takeover, it is unlikely that this could lead to the creation or strengthening of a dominant position on the side of MEI. The same applies for MEI favouring MCA's software products.

12. In the short term, therefore, the proposed concentration will not significantly impede competition on relevant hard- and software markets within the Community as presently constituted. The appraisal of the proposed concentration has, however, to include future developments, especially the transformation of markets through technical progress.

Video equipment markets

13. The structure of competition on the video equipment markets will in a few years be affected by the introduction of HDTV (High Definition Television) and related products. The commercial success of new or improved electronic products may at least partly depend on the availability of software which is attractive to consumers. This is especially true, when the introduction of advanced hardware goes along with the creation of a new technical standard or format. Consumers will then be willing to buy new products only if an adequate quantity of new software is available.

14. It is therefore necessary to consider whether MEI will, after the takeover of MCA, be in such an advantageous position that the creation of a dominant position on future video equipment markets (as increasingly affected by HDTV technology) is likely.

15. A hardware-software link could be particularly important for the success of HDTV hardware products in the event of there being different standards or formats for HDTV broadcasts, HDTV home video systems and HDTV cinema. In those circumstances a hardware manufacturer with a link to a software producer could facilitate the timely launch of a complete package on to a market thus attracting consumers in the crucial early days, and thereby gaining a competitive advantage over its competitors. There are two competing HDTV standards under development, the Japanese HiVision/Muse standard and the European MAC standard.

16. On the assumption that there will be competing HDTV-standards, it seems very likely that MCA as a subsidiary of MEI will be one of the first software companies to offer motion pictures under the technical standard or format of MEI's video equipment. This may, prima facie, be a competitive advantage for MEI on future hardware markets, but this would depend on a variety of factors. One such factor will presumably be the way in which HDTV is introduced into the Community markets.

17. Another such factor is the availability of filmed entertainment from producers other than MCA. Currently, there is only one other major video equipment manufacturer who is linked with a competitor of MCA (Sony and Columbia Pictures). MCA and Columbia together take a share of 16% of consumer video entertainment products in the Community. This is less than one third of the combined share of all seven major US film producing companies. No other significant software company is linked with an important consumer electronics company. These software companies will have complete freedom as to whether and under which format they will offer motion pictures. Competition on software markets may even force MCA to offer its software under several HDTV-standards.

18. Thus, there would remain a sufficient number of software companies which could offer their motion pictures under the competing HDTV-standard. On the basis of information currently available on future developments in these markets, it does not appear likely that the privileged access to software that MEI will have after the proposed concentration will lead to a dominant position which significantly impedes competition.

Audio Equipment Markets

19. The above analysis of video equipment markets applies in principle as well for future audio equipment markets. Thus, it is not likely that the improved access to recorded music that MEI will have after the takeover of MCA will lead to a dominant position which significantly impedes competition on future audio equipmentmarkets.

4.Conclusion

20. The proposed concentration does therefore not raise serious doubts as to its compatibility with the common market.

For the above reasons, the Commission has decided not to oppose the notified operation and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is adopted in application of Article 6 (1)(b)of Council Regulation No. 4064/89.

For the Commission,

by **admin** » Mon Apr 25, 2016 8:18 am

The Commodification of Nature
by Scott Silver
Executive Director, Wild Wilderness

NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT

Since the birth of our nation, America's public lands have been exploited so as to maximize the commodity value that could be extracted from them. Two hundred years later, in 1979 to be exact, a new public lands predator called the "American Recreation Coalition" (ARC) came onto the scene. Unlike earlier profiteers who sought gas, coal, logs or minerals, ARC sought to turn outdoor recreation and tourism on public lands into an extractive industry and to profit handsomely in the process.

ARC, a coalition of some 120 corporations, embraces the traditional extractors such as Chevron, Exxon and the American Petroleum Institute. But to this cadre ARC adds new interests such as Yamaha, American Motorcyclists Association, International Snowmobile Manufacturers Association, Recreation Vehicle Industry Association, and the Walt Disney Company. These new interests, not content to extract the resource wealth of the lands, seek to commodify nature itself, for fun and profit. Our mountains, rivers, deserts and woodlands have suddenly taking on new values as profiteers attempt to package, brand, market and ultimately sell America's Great Outdoors as value-added recreation products.

Perhaps nothing expresses this idea more clearly that the following quote from the US Forest Service's first ever Chief Operating Officer, Francis Pandolfi. Pandolfi came to the Forest Service in 1997 directly from the American Recreation Coalition where he had served as Chairman of their Recreation Roundtable. In 1999 he wrote:

"Have we fully explored our gold mine of recreational opportunities in this country and managed it as if it were consumer product brands? How could it be done? As federal agencies and others transition from providing outdoor recreation at no cost to the consumer to charging for access and services, we can expect to see many changes in the way we operate. Selling a product, even to an eager customer, is very different from giving it away."

Following this model, outdoor recreation on public lands would cease to be characterized primarily as experiences of physical and spiritual 're-creation' and would instead, through conscious effort, be turned into branded products created for the purpose of being sold to paying customers. It's much like the difference between the concept of romantic love and paid sex.

Any prostitute could tell you that selling a product is very different than giving it away, but the Forest Service is not just any prostitute. For one hundred years they had been mistress to the timber, mining and grazing industries and had given away America's collective wealth with wild abandon.

But attitudes have been changing and with the rise of a strong environmental movement, people stopped tolerating the plunder of our nation's public lands. Suddenly the Forest Service could no longer hide behind its friendly Smokey Bear facade. The public began to demand better management of our National Forests and the Forest Service had no option but to change with the times.

It was under these circumstances that the ARC and the recreation industry made the USFS and other land management agencies an offer they couldn't refuse. They offered a chance for land managers to get out of an abusive relationship with the extractors. They offered marriage, in the form of long-term, private/public partnerships.

The plan was simple and Pandolfi explained it well when he said:

"… a product or brand could be defined as "Hiking," "Fishing," "Camping," "Skiing," and other activities. Thinking of outdoor recreation activities as products or brands suggest applying the principles of sound, private-sector marketing as an approach for meeting recreation demands and providing satisfying outdoor recreation products and services."

ARC's member corporations include not just the manufacturers of motorized wreckreational toys. It includes resort developers, ski area associations, National Park Concessionaires, campground management providers and the like. The deal they offered was simple. They would provide the expertise and capital required to turn America's Great Outdoors into a profitable business venture. Congress would, in turn, pass whatever legislation was necessary to allow the formation of those public/private partnerships necessary to permit this development. In return, federal land management agencies would provide these corporate special interests with the access to, and a chance to assume management control of, America's Great Outdoors.

The plan was inaugurated in 1985 with Ronald Reagan's President's Commission on Americans Outdoors. ARC's President, Derrick Crandall, was more than just one of the commissioners. He controlled the process and established the agenda. This agenda was furthered by President George Bush, the man to whom Derrick Crandall presented ARC's coveted "Sheldon Coleman Great Outdoors Award" in 1990.

In 1993, ARC's Recreation Roundtable on behalf of the Chief Executive Officers of the Coleman Company, Yosemite Park and Curry Company, Kampgrounds of America, Walt Disney Attractions and 20 other 'knights of industry' presented President Clinton with a slick 30 page document titled; "Outdoor Recreation in America: An Agenda for the Clinton-Gore Administration." The report proposed many new and innovative government programs with my favorite being the very Disneyesque: "Luring International Visitors to America's Great Outdoors." The cover letter under which that report was issued was signed by Richard Nunis, CEO, Walt Disney Attractions.

For the first few years, the recreation industry and the land management agencies enjoyed a happy marriage. The Army Corps was so enamoured that they referred to this union as a "win-win-win" and spoke of it with these words:

"The private developers win because of the excellent opportunities they will have to make a profit. The public wins because of the additional recreation opportunities made available to them and the Corps and the Federal Government win because much needed public recreational facilities are provided at no cost to the Government."

There was, however, one extremely large obstacle that had to be overcome. That obstacle was a 35-year-old federal law that specifically prohibited charging the public for recreating upon America's public lands. Similarly it prohibited charging for access to those lands. The law provided but a handful of exceptions, notably entrance fees for National Parks, campground fees for developed facilities, and access fees for a handful of visitor centers. A separate law permitted charging for the use of ski areas, but that was the extent for which fees could be charged to the public for recreational use of public lands.

With these restrictions in place, there was no way in which to turn outdoor recreation into the branded products that Pandolfi envisioned simply because there was no way to make money. Without the ability to make money, there was no interest for the private sector to be part of the marriage. And without the financial backing and expertise of the private sector, federal land managers would be literally out of business. Were it not for one specific Recreation Roundtable Agenda item given to Clinton/Gore in 1993, the entire marriage could have faltered. It was that item which saved the day for some, and may prove to forever change the way the public gets to interact with their public lands.

In 1996 Congress enacted, and President Clinton signed, legislation authorizing a new program called the Recreation Fee Demonstration Program. That same year, the US Forest Service signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the American Recreation Coalition making ARC the official "Challenge Cost Share" partner for this program.

With passage of that law, Congress granted unprecedented new authority to charge and collect fees for a virtually limitless variety of public land recreation products, goods and services.

The fee demonstration program was implemented as only a "test", originally scheduled to end in 1999, but twice extended in order to give the program more time in which to be proved successful. Fee-Demo is currently authorized until September, 2002.

From now until the expiration of this test, land management agencies, with the help of their private partners and the support of free-market policy advocated in Washington DC, will be doing absolutely everything in their power to have Congress grant permanent recreation user fee authority. It is anticipated that President George W. Bush will be extremely responsive to this program and will actively encourage passage of any legislation that will more effectively commercialize, privatize or motorize recreational opportunities on America's public lands. There is a reason why it now costs $5 to walk on public lands or to stop your car long enough to watch the sun set. The reason is to create the financial incentives necessary to implement the recreation industry's intended Corporate Takeover of Nature and the Disneyfication of the Wild.

For those who believe the official propaganda saying recreation user fees are about funding much needed maintenance of decaying infrastructure, think again. In the words of the Army Corps, here is the true reason for this program:

"The intent of the program is to encourage private development of public recreation facilities such as: marinas, hotel/motel/restaurant complexes, conference centers, RV camping areas, golf courses, theme parks, and entertainment areas with shops, etc. "

###

The author, Scott Silver, is Co-Founder and Executive Director of Wild Wilderness. Located in Bend, Oregon, Wild Wilderness has fought in support of 'undeveloped recreation' since 1991. Readers can learn much more about this subject by visiting the Wild Wilderness website at -- http://www.wildwilderness.org or phone us at (541) 385-5261

References:

Pandolfi's quotes appear on pages "x" and "xi" in the Prologue of: "Outdoor Recreation in American Life: A National Assessment of Demand and Supply Trends", H. Ken Cordell Principal Investigator, Sagamore Publishing, 1999.

The complete prologue written by Pandolfi is available at: Perpetual Motion, Unicorns and Marketing In Outdoor Recreation

Both Army Corps quotes are from: "Recreation Partnership Initiative", available at Recreation Partnerships Initiative

This document was prepared by Wild Wilderness. To learn more about ongoing industry-backed congressional efforts to motorize, commercialize, and privatize America's public lands, contact:

Scott Silver, Executive Director,
248 NW Wilmington Avenue, Bend OR 97701
Phone (541) 385-5261 E-mail: ssilver@wildwilderness.org

by **admin** » Mon Apr 25, 2016 8:20 am

Trout Take Over Yosemite in Fall
by Dan Fallon
December 2, 2001

NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT

"In Yosemite, grandeur of these mountains perhaps unmatched on the globe; for here they strip themselves like athletes for exhibition and stand perpendicular granite walls, showing their entire height, and wearing a liberty cap of snow on the head."

In 1871, Ralph Waldo Emerson wrote these words in his journal as first impressions of Yosemite's divine architecture. The poet had been invited by John Muir to worship with nature in the High Sierra crown. Perhaps Emerson had the opportunity to taste the tender, wild native rainbow trout, but in the 1800s native rainbows were not easy to find. However, today in the late fall months fishing for native rainbows, eastern brook and brown trout can be a truly memorable experience.

After summer's tourist depart, anglers enter for the excellent fishing found in California's premier national park

From September to December weather permitting, trout fishermen often find themselves alone on the many lakes and streams that contain trout. The 21/2 million visitors who roam Yosemite National Park each season have left, while hungry native rainbows prowl the shallow streams in search of perfectly presented flies and salmon eggs. The pursuit of trout is the best excuse to grab a front-row seat and watch Mother Nature gently cover her Yosemite in quiet winter robes.

The rainbow is the only true native trout in the park. Its particular twist of DNA can be traced to the Merced and the Tuolumne rivers. The Pleistocene Glaciers destroyed the ancient trout habitat, and fish no longer could climb back upstream and spawn.

In the late 1800s pioneers carrying buckets and tin cans attempted to plant rainbows taken from the rivers into barren lakes like Vernon, Kibbie and Laurel. In 1892, soon after Yosemite was designated a national park, fish stocking was begun. In 1897 the first brown trout were introduced into lakes and streams. These browns are excellent fighters, and are thriving today in the lower Merced River, where warmer waters are conducive to rapid growth and reproduction.

The rare golden trout was also planted in various lakes, but today few are to be found. Several other fish such as Dolly Varden, American graylings and cutthroats were stocked over the years, but most of these fish have, disappeared. A few cutthroats can still be found in desolate high, country lakes, however.

Trout fisherman of either fly or spinning persuasion can expect to fish primarily in the lakes in fall, when the two main rivers, the Merced and the Tuolumne, are usually running at low ebb.

The great news is by late September few of the 21/2 million who visit the park each year can be found snapping a fly rod or casting a lure. In fact, less than 10 percent of all park visitors are fishermen, for the trout fishery is not the main attraction, despite the number of beautiful lakes to be found in Yosemite.

Within the 761,757,000 acres of the park, 338 lakes are thought to be capable of sustaining trout populations. Of these, 127 lakes contain enough fish for self-propagation.

Those anglers who wish to fish within easy reach of the main roads will find Tenaya Lake (named after the famous Miwok Indian chief) a good place to start.

Tenaya is located off Tioga Road and, at 150 acres, is one of the three largest lakes in the park. The trout available are brookies and rainbows - as is the case with most all the lakes.

During the tourist-thick summer these fish are hard to catch, but by late fall in early morning or late afternoon savvy fly fishermen, using eight or nine-foot medium weight fly rods, can expect good action. The most popular fall flies are black gnats, red and black ants, well-made and well-presented hoppers, mosquitos, Royal Coachman, Grey or Brown Hackle with yellow or peacock body, in sizes 10,12 or 16. Those who prefer spinning outfits should bring an assortment of lightweight lures such as Panther Martin or Mepps in silver and black.

The tried and true red salmon egg on a size 12 hook, with six feet of light leader, will always catch fish in the park. Yosemite trout are for the most part wild, but of course they are just trout, which is not to say trout as a species are gullible. But rangers do hear tales of 7-year-old youngsters with $10 plastic outfits catching limits.

Tenaya is an ideal lake to use the popular bubble and fly rig in conjunction with light spinning gear. The sliding bubble is kept above a swivel that separates the leader and fly from the main line. The bubble acts as a weight and keeps the fly afloat. This system allows the fly to be cast long distances; of course, the fly still has to be presented as naturally as possible. This is a valuable system to learn if you are not adept at fly fishing, but would like to enjoy the thrill of catching wild trout on flies.

Hetch Hetchy, the largest body of water in the park at 2000 acres, is also accessible by auto. Its trout are also a bit wily in summer, but in the fall the lake comes alive with the expanding rings of trout exploding the calm surface in pursuit of insects. This big lake has many areas with tree overhangs and boulders which cast large shadows, a favorite holding zone for veteran older trout. The careful use of hoppers and other terrestrials can be very effective, if they are presented naturally in these dark-water spots.

In 1972 a program of restoring the park's fishery to a more "natural condition" was undertaken, and lakes and streams were allowed to become self-propagating. In the years that followed only a select few lake have been stocked. As a result of this forward thinking, the eastern brookie, for instance, has returned to its ancient perfection. The distinct wavy, worm-like patterns on the backs of these wild fish are not found on hatchery-raised fingerlings. It seems only fish allowed to thrive on natural foods and left to self-propagate display these vivid vermiculated markings.

Stream fishermen, drought conditions permitting can find good action on the Merced headwaters just past Arch Rock entrance off Highway 140. Within one mile of this entrance, fly and spinner fishermen can spend rewarding late afternoons watching large numbers of rainbows and brookies swim and rise in transparent waters as falling leaves drift lazily by. Dead-drifting mosquitos or nymphs on six to nine-foot light leaders can be deadly if the bite is on. A good tip in regard to catching fall trout in times of windy, shadow-splattered water is to rig a strike indicator. One can use any of the many available, a piece of bright cork or yarn placed at water surface level will help you to spot strikes in changing conditions. Most of the trout caught in Yosemite are pan-size, with 10 or l2-inch fish most common, but these wild trout display none of the lethargy found in their hatchery-raised cousins.

Lower Cathedral Lake is only 1.5 miles from Tioga Road. This lake is 11 acres in size, and fishing is generally good if anglers employ a low profile and try to stay well back from this little lake's shore. The trout roam the shallows in early morning in search of tasty morsels, and both fly and spinner outfits work well. If one is lucky enough to witness a good insect hatch, the amount of fish rising will astonish even seasoned fishermen. The relatively low fishing pressure on this lake, as is the situation on most park lakes, translates into large trout populations.

Trekking off the beaten path, you will find Buena Vista Lake 12 miles from Glacier Point Road. This makes for a pleasant two-day trip. The fishing can be excellent - as is usually the case the farther one is from main roads. In the last hour before sunset trout are usually active and hitting lures and flies. Buena Vista is a fine spot to camp, too.

One of the best-kept secrets in the park is Washburn Lake, 6 miles from Yosemite Valley and 39 acres in size. Both rainbow and brook trout abound in this hidden pocket of water. The scenery is majestic, and when the bite is happening, the fishing is outstanding. The smaller size 16 flies which are more like the tiny insects found at higher elevations are useful here. The natural food chain, becomes much smaller the higher one ventures.

Rodgers Lake is 19 miles from Harden Lake, and is 44 acres in size. Being situated at 9000 feet altitude, this lake is lightly fished and fishing is good most of the time. In fall this lake is often deserted, and the fish are easy to catch at feeding time. The Catch and Release philosophy is made for Rodgers Lake, where one may find the fishing so good that every cast can bring a hit or fish. In this kind of trout utopia it is important to gently play and release trout unharmed, so this fragile resource is left intact for future fishermen.

Anglers not familiar with the demands of a 20-mile backcountry hike are advised that the trail to the next lake is not a walk in the park. For experienced high country fishermen, though, Benson Lake (named for one of the original protectors of the park, Col. H.C. Benson of the fourth US Cavalry) is located in the heart of the north end of Yosemite at the end of a rugged, 20-mile hike. It's two and a half days by either horse or foot. Benson, at 144 acres, is one of the three largest lakes. The fishing is superb, and the lake sees few visitors at any time of year.

The scenery is impressive at the 8000 to 9000-foot Hudsonian life zone. The fragrance of white bark pine and mountain hemlock fill the crisp air, bluebirds and black-backed woodpeckers provide the music. Belding's ground squirrels scurry about pre-winter appointments, while herds of mule deer sample tasty grasses.

John Muir often spoke of how the park carried one far beyond "human cares and human civilization." Those lucky fly and spinner enthusiasts who wonder and ponder Yosemite in the fall are indeed lifted beyond the slightest pre-winter blues.

Author Dan Fallon of Sausalito, California, has fished with fly and spinning tackle throughout the U.S., Scotland and Ireland, but says fall fishing in Yosemite has always been "a fun challenge."

© Dan Fallon 1998

Yosemite Fishing Trip Facts

How to get there: From the Highway 140 via Merced and Mariposa is less winding and subject to lighter snowfalls in autumn. The eastern approach through Tioga Pass is open only in summer. Always carry tire chains and check road conditions.

Where to stay: The Ahwanee hotel Yosemite Lodge and Wawona hotel offer hotel accommodations within the park. Curry Village has quality rooms and ten cabins for families. Motels also are available along Highway 140.

Best season: Trout fishing within the park is allowed year around but early fall to freeze-up is considered topnotch.

Approximate cost (1989): A California fishing license is required. Cost for residents is $19,25. The non resident annual fee is 51,25. A one-day resident or non-resident license costs 6,25

Who to contact: For hotel reservations Yosemite Park and Curry Company, 5410 East Home, Fresno CA. 93727 call (209) 372-8333. For guided backcountry trips, Curry Company Stables, (209) 372-1248 or 372-1327 High Sierra Pack Trips; (209) 454-2002

by **admin** » Mon Apr 25, 2016 8:23 am

Yosemite and the United States Navy
by David A. Smith, Historian
The Burdick Military History Project
San Jose State University
December 4, 1998

NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT

Subsequent to the cavalry leaving Yosemite National Park in 1913, the military's involvement with the park, with few exceptions, ceased. However, after holding a low profile for twenty-seven years, the United States Army once again returned to the area. In the face of the growing conflicts escalating overseas, 1,600 men of the Fourth Infantry Division under Major Groves arrived 1 May 1940 to participate in exercises within the park. Along with the sixty motorized units brought by the Fourth, 150 motorized units (800) men of the Tenth Field Artillery under Major A. V. Arivie were also present. The operation had two purposes--to break in new equipment, and to give the motor convoys the experience they would soon need. This operation was significant in that it introduced the park to another era of military involvement. The military would not only train in Yosemite during the Second World War, but would also set up a hospital for physical and mental treatment, and use the park for recreational purposes.

When the United States entered the war in 1941, the California National Guard was called in to protect the water supply systems which originated in the park. The northern portion of the park was closed to all visitations save that by National Park Service personnel, California National Guardsmen, fire crews, and San Francisco city officials. National Guard units were specifically ordered to protect Hetch Hetchy and Lake Eleanor Reservoirs whose waters fed the water supply of San Francisco. The National Guard detachment was quartered at Hetch Hetchy and Mather camp, and John W. Bingaman was park coordinator for the operation. The detachment stayed for the duration of the war.

Another unit which maintained a presence in the park during the war was the United States Army Signal Corps which decided to establish two seasonal training facilities in 1942. A large camp was established at Wawona, with a smaller station located at Badger Pass. Other military units from nearby bases were transported into the park for recreation; in fact, military personnel visiting in the park accounted for nearly 11 percent of the wartime visitors.

Of all the military units which either visited or located camps within Yosemite, the most predominate during the Second World War and continuing into the present has been the United States Navy. Originally, this land-locked naval force was assigned the task of converting the elegant Ahwahnee Hotel, in the Yosemite Valley, into a naval convalescent hospital. Curry Company, the owners and operators of the hotel, were losing money maintaining the hotel because of the decline in park visitations during wartime. The Navy thought it an ideal location for a convalescent hospital and filed a condemnation suit in court by which the government was to pay Curry Company $55,000 per year for the use of the hotel and to cover taxes, insurance, and depreciation of property. The owners were not pleased with the sum offered, claiming it to be insufficient to compensate for the loss in revenue they anticipated. Thus, a thirty month court battle began, but in the meantime, the Navy moved into the hotel and the first naval personnel began arriving as early as 30 May 1943; the first corpsmen under Lieutenant William Grimes, H.C., U.S.N., arrived 7 June. On 23 June, the Ahwahnee Hotel ceased operation and the Navy took over the premises. Captain Reynolds Hayden, U.S.N., became head of the hospital, and conversion was well under way when the first patients--forty-nine of them--arrived on 6 July from the Naval Hospital in Oakland, California.

The Ahwahnee Hotel and the thirty-seven acres of ground that it sat upon had to go through extensive changes in order to accommodate naval personnel. The dining room of the hotel, as one might expect, was converted into a mess hall; the lounge was turned into Ward A and was capable of holding 350 men in its five rows of double tiered cots. Other conversions were made on the inside of the hotel; the gift shop became the canteen, the writing room a Protestant chapel, the bar and cocktail lounge was turned into the Catholic chapel, and the manager's suite became the headquarters for the commanding officer.

More extensive changes were made on the grounds which surrounded the hotel. Metal "barrack type" buildings were erected on the lawn outside. These structures housed an auditorium, a pool hall, a bowling alley, a two cell brig, a large washroom, an enlisted men's club, a hobby and craft shop, and the occupational therapy quarters. Still more changes included the conversion of the Park Service's Ranger Club into the bachelor officer's quarters, and the beauty shop into the office of the Civil Readjustment Officer. Though some of the construction was performed by naval personnel, about $108,233 was paid to the Younger Construction Company of San Francisco for additional assistance needed to complete the project.

The original intention of the Navy was to use the hotel as a recovery ward for neuro-psychiatric patients, but it was found that their conditions only worsened while there. The towering cliffs of the Yosemite Valley gave the patients claustrophobia, adding another neurosis to their already complicated ailments. A change-over was ordered, and by 1944, only medical and surgical cases were admitted. To reflect this adjustment, the hospital changed its name from Naval Convalescent Hospital, Yosemite National Park, to Naval Special Hospital, Yosemite National Park.

However beautiful the naval personnel found the valley, it was not particularly the most suitable place to locate sailors. "Yosemite is a beautiful place surrounded by solitude," stated one distressed sailor. In the opinion of the sailors, Yosemite was lacking two vital elements of recreation--women and alcohol. The former proved to be a serious problem. The only women in the park were employees and those who were wives of male National Park Service and Curry Company employees. During the summer month, guards were posted around the beaches to protect the sunbathing females from harassment. There were also a few arrests for rape. Despite the difficulties caused by the lack of women, the problem of alcoholic beverages proved to be more difficult to deal with.

During the war years, Frank Kittredge was the superintendent of Yosemite National Park. Kittredge, a man of high moral standards, tolerated the presence of drink in the park. In the Yosemite Valley, drinks were available at the Yosemite Lodge bar which became a very popular spot for naval personnel. Occasionally, some sailors became a bit too intoxicated and refused to leave at closing time or destroyed furniture. This practice forced Kittredge to close down the bar for the duration of the war. This official removal of alcohol did not deter the innovative young sailors, though. They had friends and relatives bring alcoholic beverages into the valley which they hid among the rocks at the base of the cliff north of the hotel. Sailors could then slip away and have a drink at their leisure. This particular practice, along with pressure from the Navy, persuaded Kittredge to make a compromise; he would allow alcoholic beverages to be sold at the Village Store providing it was drunk on the premises. A screen was wrapped around the front porch of the store and a few chairs and tables were added. This came to be known by the sailors as "Frank's Place."

During its stay, the Navy helped the National Park Service and the Curry Company keep facilities open that would otherwise have been closed. The Lewis Memorial Hospital was staffed by Navy personnel and served both military personnel and civilians. When funding for maintaining the Badger Pass road and skiing facilities was cut, the Navy provided money to keep it open not only for the public, but also for hospital patients and personnel. Another example of the Navy's service to the public came when the sailors stepped in to operate the valley's toboggan run which had been threatened because of the extreme labor scarcity in the Yosemite Valley area during the war Years.

On 25 October 1945, the Navy announced that the hospital was to be decommissioned on 15 December 1945. After its closure, the hotel was handed over to the Bureau of Ships for reconditioning. Damages sustained because of the Navy's use of the grounds were extensive; it took $400,000 and a full year to recondition the grounds and restore the hotel. During the period the Naval special Hospital operated, it had treated 6,752 patients; at its peak, it was treating 853 sailors at once. Of the sailors who were treated, a full 65 percent of them returned to their various duties in the Navy. Though the hospital experienced its share of problems, the project was as successful as suspected, and with the easing of gasoline restrictions, public visitation increased and the park was soon back to its normal pre-war state.

For the next twenty-seven years, the Navy was absent from the park. However, in 1972, the Navy began to aid civilian search and rescue operations in cooperation with the National Search and Rescue Plan, and they have continued this practice to the present. The current presence of military aircraft within the boundaries of Yosemite National Park is not too surprising since they have been there since early in the twentieth century. The first military aircraft to visit the park was an Army Curtis JN4 which was piloted by Lieutenant J. S. Krull. Lieutenant Krull landed his craft in Leidig Meadow in the Yosemite Valley on 27 May 1919. Another aviation milestone was reached when Army Lieutenants Moore and Taylor completed their journey from San Francisco to Yosemite by landing their Curtis HN4s at Wawona on 8 December 1925. They touched down on a 3,000 foot airstrip which had been flagged out in Wawona Meadow. This experiment proved that the region could be serviced by air, and an airline out of Mariposa established regular service to Wawona.

For the next fifteen years, the sight of military aircraft was absent from the area, but with the threat of war in 1940 and the increase of air traffic over the park, it was inevitable that an air tragedy would occur. In fact, two accidents involving military aircraft took place in Yosemite during the Second World War. The first happened in the spring of 1940, when a P-38 "Night Fighter," while on a test flight, crashed near Givens Creek located in the southern area of the park. The wreckage was sighted by a packer in early summer. National Park Service and military personnel were called in to investigate, and the bodies of the pilot and co-pilot, along with valuable instruments, were packed out to Wawona. The remaining portion of the plane was broken up and buried. The second crash occurred on 27 June 1943 when a B-24 bomber collided with Kiop Peak, located near the east park boundary. All seven crewmen aboard died in the accident. The wreckage was discovered by a Curry Company employee, and the bodies were packed out by park personnel.

In 1972, the Navy began to aid in civilian search and rescue operations within the park as a part of the coordinated effort between the military and National Park Service created by the National Search and Rescue Plan. The Search and Rescue (SAR) Crew from Lemoore Naval Air Station south of Fresno was assigned the task. Lemoore Naval Air Station was built in 1961, and it has been designated as the Navy's Master Jet Air Station. The operations which take place in the park not only fulfill the Navy's obligation to serve civilians, but it helps train SAR Crews for rescues at high altitudes. Since their first mission in the park on 21 June 1972, the Navy and the personnel at Yosemite National Park have cooperated on 137 search and rescue operations.

The SAR crew is not a separate unit in itself, but is one of the many services under the Air Operations Department at Lemoore. At any one time, the SAR crew typically consists of eight pilots, fourteen crewmen, and four Bell (212) UH1N helicopters. One of the eight pilots is designated as senior pilot and is in command of the crew. One aircraft is served by five men, two of whom are pilots and the others are crewmen. Though the twenty-two member crew creates the basic core of the unit, the personnel on the ground such as mechanics and the air traffic controllers all contribute to the team effort. The members of the crew are rotated into the base regularly on a thirty-six month basis with the exception of younger pilots who only serve a twenty-four month tour. The personnel are trained at the Air crew Candidate School, Pensacola Naval Air Station, if they are to be pilots, or as a rescue swimmer at sea for crewmen. This training can take place at several locations. In the history of the SAR Crew, there have been six senior helicopter pilots. Lieutenant Commander Norman Hicks served during the first years, 1972-76; Lieutenant Commander Scott Gorden served during 1976-78; Lieutenant Commander Arlin Dyer served during 1978-79; and Lieutenant Commander Daniel Ellison served during 1980-82. The current officer in charge is Lieutenant Mike Helms.

A mission is flown into the park only if civilian agencies are unable to respond to the situation themselves. The National Park Service usually phones the naval Air Station to see if a crew is available, but after that contact, they must go through proper channels to request assistance. The Air Force Coordinating Center at Scott Air Force Base in Illinois coordinated the National Rescue Plan, and through their Operations Duty Officer, an evaluation of the situation is made and the recommendation to either launch or stay grounded is passed on to the Wing Commander (Base Commander) at Lemoore. While this is occurring, the SAR Crew prepares to launch so they can achieve a ready status by the time the Wing Commander makes his final decision. This process can take as little as an hour or as long as a day; the ability to dispatch an aircraft depends upon variables such as the availability of aircrafts and weather conditions. If Lemoore is unable to dispatch a craft, other military agencies are called upon such as the SAR units from the Army at Fort Ord and the Air Force at Travis Air Force Base.

Once in the air, the aircraft opens communication with the park officials, who direct the crew to the site. Cooperation between the National Park Service and the SAR Crew is enhanced by periodical meetings between the two agencies. This training and discussions insures smooth coordination. Once a pick-up has been made, the helicopter will land in the Ahwahnee Meadow in Yosemite Valley to evaluate the seriousness of the injury or injuries. Minor injuries are treated at Lewis Memorial Hospital in the valley; more serious situations are flown to Valley Medical center in Fresno where an excellent trauma unit is available. This service has been performed between fifteen to twenty times a year by the SAR crew at Lemoore.

Since 1972, the Navy has performed this function of aiding Yosemite National Park, but recent events forced a temporary postponement in this service. During the summer of 1983, the SAR Crew from Lemoore lost two of their helicopters while performing rescue operations in the Sierra Nevada Mountains. The unit plans to restore service by the summer of 1984, but until then, the park will have to rely on other units from the Army, Air Force, or Coast Guard should it be necessary for a military SAR unit to serve them. However, when the SAR crew from Lemoore does resume service, it will continue the association of the Navy and Yosemite, and will continue the military's presence in Yosemite National Park.

by **admin** » Mon Apr 25, 2016 8:26 am

Yosemite at 100: Trouble in Paradise
Emotions Run High as Officials Back Off Plans to Return the Park to a More Pristine State
by Kevin Roderick
Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
February 5, 1990

NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT

Yosemite National Park

Under a fresh blanket of snow, Yosemite Valley on a January morning is so peaceful that a weary coyote limps unmolested in the middle of a road. Most of the 3.4 million visitors a year who motor up mountain highways into Yosemite wait until the dogwood trees bloom and the waterfalls fill with spring runoff. In midwinter the valley is quiet and the haze hanging above the meadows is fog, not the brown campfire smoke and bus exhaust of warmer months.

By this year, when Yosemite will mark its 100th birthday as a national park, the slow charm of winter was supposed to be easier to find even on busy summer weekends. The National Park Service boldly promised as much in a 1980 master plan that declared -- after hearing from more than 20,000 Americans -- it was time to save Yosemite's grandeur from being buried in "a march of man-made development . . . and fragments of suburbia." Auto traffic was to be banned from the valley. Scores of man-made intrusions would also go, including a beauty shop, cabins, offices and the homes of Yosemite Park & Curry Co. executives, who live on a scenic meadow with afternoon views of the alpenglow on Half Dome.

"Once this development is gone from the park's most magnificent settings, the scenery that inspired the philosophy of John Muir and the art of Ansel Adams will begin to be restored," the 1980 document waxed. But a decade later, the bold plan has been left mostly on paper -- and the future of Yosemite Valley left not much clearer today than it was 100 years ago.

Traffic is up. Overnight lodgings have been added instead of torn down. And to the chagrin of purists, new businesses continue to open -- most recently a video rental store for park employees.

At the once-rustic Ahwahnee Hotel, a grand shrine to some visitors and a symbol of misplaced luxury to others, the rooms were refurbished last year with TVs, mini-bars and videos. Later this year they are slated to get air conditioning to go with the tennis courts and swimming pool.

Even so, park officials say, Yosemite is in better condition now than in 1980. High country forests and meadows -- 94% of the park -- have been designated permanent wilderness. Bighorn sheep were reintroduced. A golf course at the Ahwahnee was torn out. And a recycling center and shuttle bus system now operate in the valley.

But the Reagan Administration and Congress never put up money to carry out the most ambitious visions laid out in the 1980 plan, devised during the White House term of Jimmy Carter. The park's keepers now say many of the goals have proven impractical. And they add, maybe -- just maybe -- the 1980 plan waxed too poetic. "I think that plan was developed with the greatest sincerity," said Michael V. Finley, Yosemite's new superintendent. "But some of the things that seemed simple 10 years ago were not really so simple."

The result has been a storm of protest from conservation groups, lifelong hikers and cliff-scaling daredevils who keep a close eye on anything that happens here -- and who had spent the 1980s confident that Yosemite would become more wild, not more commercial. "Yosemite is a very emotional subject with a lot of people," said Steve Medley, president of the 5,000-member Yosemite Assn., which has joined the protest.

More than 3,000 letters and cards have flooded the park service since last summer, most demanding unequivocally that Yosemite go more natural. "It is simply too easy to visit Yosemite and be negligent," wrote Virginia Hanna of Novato. "Those of us who really want to see and experience the park would . . . happily ride a bus into the valley." "When I take children on hikes through the valley floor the levels of noise and pollution amaze me," wrote Julie Stoughton, an instructor with the Yosemite Institute. "Do we have to cater to the sedentary nature of the American public?"

In a joint letter, the Wilderness Society, Sierra Club, National Audubon Society and the National Parks and Conservation Assn. charged the park service with failing in its duty to protect Yosemite. Those organizations and a new activist group, Yosemite Action, say they represent 1.5 million members.

A target of the anger is the most visible symbol of development here -- Yosemite Park & Curry Co., the concessionaire that operates the Ahwahnee and most other businesses allowed in the park. Company executives vow that they support reducing congestion and restoring Yosemite to a more natural state. But leading conservation groups and other critics say the company, a subsidiary of entertainment giant MCA Inc. -- operator of Universal Studios Tour -- treats Yosemite more as a mountain resort than a national park.

Some frustrated environmental leaders have launched an effort to form a nonprofit group to bid for a new concession contract in 1993. They say the company has used its influence with the park service to stall the 1980 plan -- a charge company officials deny. "Yosemite Park & Curry Co. has been working to water down the 1980 plan," said Patricia Schifferle, regional director of the Wilderness Society. "But the national parks were not created to provide hot dogs on demand."

The Yosemite debate has been alive since before the high country was set aside as the third U.S. national park in 1890. (The valley and its soaring granite cliffs were added to the park in 1906). "The Yosemite is being rapidly converted into an ugly hay ranch," the San Francisco Examiner complained in the 1880s, when the valley's meadows were fenced and plowed.

The hay fields are gone, but now more than a million vehicles a year enter Yosemite. On some summer and holiday weekends the valley roads are snarled and every parking spot filled. Visitors have inflicted such a toll on the valley that rangers last year banned firewood gathering. And scattered through the valley are the dorms, cabins and houses where about 2,000 employees live.

In its 1980 master vision, the park service waxed almost rhapsodic in promising that Yosemite would soon be restored to a more pristine form. "Yosemite Valley is but a mile wide and seven miles long, yet this tiny place on the face of the planet is a premier masterwork of the natural world," the 1980 plan began. "Yosemite is too valuable to use for administration, maintenance, parking or any commercial services that do not contribute directly to a quality park experience."

The plan called private automobiles "the single greatest threat" to Yosemite's environment and also warned that visitors could eventually be rationed -- as traffic is already on busy weekends. But in an update last summer that admitted little had been accomplished, the park service said it now believes practical obstacles make some of the more publicized goals unreachable and perhaps undesirable.

Plans to move offices and employee housing outside the park to El Portal are threatened by water shortages and other troubles not known in 1980, the report said. Money may never be available to build distant parking lots and shuttle visitors into the park, it added. While visitation has jumped from 2.5 million in 1980 to 3.4 million, the park's budget last year was cut 10%. Moreover, the park service seemed to back off from the assumption that visitors may have to be inconvenienced. As the nation's population ages, the report said, Yosemite visitors want to stay close to their cars and sleep in warm rooms with their own bathrooms.

The report was heavily criticized in the Yosemite community as inaccurate. The troubles at El Portal, for instance, were grossly overstated and no different than obstacles known in 1980, several critics said. An unusually harsh critique citing "grave concerns" was leveled by the Yosemite Assn., a nonpolitical fund-raising group that operates bookstores in the park. "Yosemite should not be just another comfortable resort," the group wrote in a long letter accusing park officials of backsliding. The Yosemite Assn. also complained that the entire report "has been handled in an unfair and unreasonable manner."

Unlike the 1980 plan, which was devised after years of public meetings and hearings around the country, the update was prepared in private. Even many top staffers at Yosemite were not consulted -- in part to avoid news leaks, park service officials said. Critics say that led to the mistakes. The park service admits the report contains some errors but insists the update does not abandon the 1980 vision. "It is simply an information document, a status report," said Ray Murray, a regional park service official in San Francisco. "We still are committed to the 1980 goals. We will implement them as we get the money."

But some key park service officials also have begun to publicly complain that the 1980 vision for Yosemite was not carefully researched and leaned too far in favor of nature purists. "Somehow tent campers are considered good and people who stay in trailers are bad," Finley said recently. "I may have felt that way at one time too, but I don't hold that view anymore. Everybody loves Yosemite equally, whether they come by foot or come in Winnebagos."

Though outnumbered by the call for more nature, some letters supporting the status quo have reached the park service. "I have been visiting this park annually since 1977 and feel that every aspect of this park is perfect," wrote Marilyn Fuller of Santa Ana. "I do not find it too commercial or offensive even when it is crowded." More support for that view is expected when another 14,600 pieces of mail are delivered by Yosemite Park & Curry Co. The company last fall mailed 95,000 brochures and letters to recent customers of its hotels and motels asking them to write in opposition to cuts in overnight accommodations. "Please help protect your right to visit Yosemite in the future by writing today," company President Edward C. Hardy urged.

The letter campaign came under fire from critics, including retired park service regional director Howard Chapman, who said lobbying by a concessionaire was inappropriate. But the company was justified in helping its customers make their opinions heard, Executive Vice President Dan Jensen said.

The critics charge that the company's influence over the park service and Yosemite's future is already too great. They say the fate of the 1980 plan will be decided in upcoming talks on a new concession contract for the firm. "The decision will be whether a lucrative private business monopoly will be allowed to continue to dominate Yosemite Valley or whether the natural and scenic qualities . . . finally will take precedence," former Yosemite Supt. Robert O. Binnewies wrote in a letter to his old park service superiors.

The role of MCA at Yosemite has been an issue since the entertainment giant bought the Curry Co. in 1973. Almost immediately MCA proposed erecting an aerial tram ride from the valley floor to Glacier Point and adding new motel rooms and convention facilities. Though the plans were dropped after vocal protests, environmental groups remained skeptical when the company fought wilderness designation for the high country.

According to a recent park service memo, the company's commercial presence in Yosemite Valley has deepened since 1980. A new pizza and ice cream stand were added at Camp Curry, vending machines were placed around the park and a new photo lab and fudge shop were added in the Yosemite Village area. A raft rental shop opened and restaurants in the valley were expanded.

Although the 1980 plan called for reducing overnight accommodations by 17% in the valley, six new luxury rooms were added at the Ahwahnee and 14 new motel-style rooms were added at the Yosemite Lodge, the memo said. Despite the 1980 vision of a less congested Yosemite, the firm spent $669,000 marketing the park in 1988, the memo said.

Saying times have changed, Yosemite Park & Curry Co. officials last month asked for an official re-examination of the 1980 plan. They said the goals of reducing overnight accommodations and tearing out parking lots are out of date. They also argued for keeping their employees and executives in the valley. But the company denies interfering with the 1980 policy. "They're picking us out to be the bad guy, but we're following all the rules," Jensen said. "We don't have undue influence."

By most accounts MCA has raised the quality of service and lodgings in Yosemite and is rated highly by the park service, which has suffered from poor service at other national parks. At Yosemite the jewel operation is the Ahwahnee Hotel, a wood edifice opened in 1927 with huge public rooms and views of the granite cliffs. Its premier event is the Christmas Bracebridge dinner, which requires reservations a year ahead. The hotel also is used for meetings and, in winter, popular weeklong gourmet cooking and wine seminars.

But some visitors, including some park service officials, consider the Ahwahnee's luxury out of place in Yosemite Valley and refuse to set foot in the place. The Ahwahnee style is most apparent in the mammoth dining room. The dress code at dinner is coats, ties and dresses. The menu offers rack of lamb, Belgian endive salad, and fresh swordfish and salmon. A $265 Chateau Lafite Rothschild graces the wine list, and diners can sip Remy Martin Louis XIII cognac at $50 a glass.

Rates at the Ahwahnee bear little relation to costs or other rules of business. They are pegged by law to the rates at two California hotels the park service judges comparable: the Biltmore in Santa Barbara and La Valenica in La Jolla. Thus the Ahwahnee gets $170 a night for a standard room this winter and $370 for suites with a view of Glacier Point.

Curry Co. executives are secretive about finances and refuse to discuss the profitability of their business in Yosemite. But it was disclosed recently through the park service that the firm's gross sales were at least $78 million in 1988, up from about $69 million two years before. Under the contract that ensures a virtual monopoly, the company pays less than 1% of its gross sales to the government -- a fee of about $590,000 in 1988. The fee rate was set in a 1963 contract that expires in 1993. In December, new Interior Secretary Manuel Lujan Jr. called for a sharp increase in the fees paid by national park concessionaires. Saying that some concessionaires were benefiting too greatly from their monopolies, he also ordered an investigation of the contracts and an audit of selected parks. Yosemite was not cited, but last week Lujan's spokesman, Steve Goldstein, said "Yosemite is a glaring example of the problem."

Still, a higher fee might not help Yosemite, which last year cut half its wilderness rangers and ended a popular horse patrol because of budget troubles. Park Supt. Finley noted that franchise fees from concessionaires are paid into the federal Treasury, not given to the national parks. But he said the new contract could require Yosemite Park & Curry Co. -- or a rival bidder -- to spend more money in the park. Environmental leaders, however, say they fear the park service lacks the sophistication to make serious demands in negotiations. "The park service," said Schifferle of the Wilderness Society, "is no match for MCA's attorneys and accountants."

by **admin** » Mon Apr 25, 2016 8:30 am

Yosemite Concession Services
by Dorothy Richards
Manager of Employment, Personnel Department
Yosemite Park and Curry Company, Yosemite National Park

NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT

(Yosemite National Park, California)
Seasonal (Summer and Winter) and Year-Round

Yosemite Concession Services operates all guest services within Yosemite National Park. Yosemite, one of the most spectacular national parks in the United States, was created when giant glaciers cut a deep canyon through the Sierra Nevadas. The resulting valley has huge sheer granite cliffs with huge waterfalls. Yosemite Concession Services operates campsites, cabins, lodges, restaurants, retail stores, recreational activities, and the luxury Awhanee Hotel.

SPECIFICS: The Yosemite Park and Curry Company receives more than 8,000 applications each year for its 1,800 peak-season positions. More than 900 new employees are hired each year. Summer is the park's busiest season; summer staff should be available to work from May through September. Applications are accepted for housekeepers, dishwashers, kitchen cleaners, buspersons, waitstaff, restaurant hosts/hostesses, retail sales clerks, hotel front desk staff, drivers, guides, recreation attendants, and wranglers. All applicants are subject to drug testing and must abide by strict grooming standards.

INSIDER TIPS: "We seek employees who enjoy guest contact and are willing to enjoy the Yosemite experience." Apply as early as possible for seasonal positions. Most park employees are required to pay modest union dues and most hiring rules and procedures are mandated by the union. Often first season employees are offered a job promise without any specific position being offered. Employees are then assigned a position based upon available openings upon arrival in Yosemite. The most desirable jobs are offered first to existing employees and new hires should expect to remain in their initial position for at least 60 days before becoming eligible for a transfer to a more highly desirable position.

PERKS: Employee housing is available in the park. A staff meal plan is offered. Employees receive a discount at retail outlets, the park grocery store, and at all recreational facilities.

TO APPLY: Applicants should write or call for an official application from:

Yosemite Concession Services Corporation
Human Resources
P.O. Box 578
Yosemite, CA 95389
(209) 372-1236

To request an application by Email, send your name and address to hr@ycsc.com.

Dorothy Richards, Manager of Employment, Personnel Department, Yosemite Park and Curry Company, Yosemite National Park,
California 95389; (209) 372-1236. Management requests applicants include a rCsumC with their completed application forms.

by **admin** » Mon Apr 25, 2016 8:46 am

Yosemite Firefall
by firefall.info
January 25, 1998

NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT

Yosemite Firefall, Mt. Clark (background), and Nevada Fall (lower left corner).
Photographed by Richard Marklin on May 18, 1963.

History and A Memory

At 9:00 each evening in Camp Curry, the crowd which had gathered for the nightly campfire program, would fall silent. A man would call out to the top of Glacier Point "Let the Fire Fall!", and a faint reply could be heard from the top of the mountain. Then a great bonfire of red fir bark would be pushed evenly over the edge of the cliff, appearing to the onlookers below as a glowing waterfall of sparks and fire.

The spectacle was the Yosemite Firefall, a nightly tradition in Yosemite National Park for some 88 years. I witnessed the Firefall myself as a child and still remember it with uncanny vividness.

At about the time of the 30th anniversary of the very last Yosemite Firefall, I felt compelled to compile this history and recollection as a tribute to the lasting impression the Firefall has had on me, and on countless others who have visited Yosemite during its first century as a National Park.

My intention was to present more than just a formal history, but to also provide a mechanism through which others could contribute to the site by recounting their own memories of the Firefall.

These contributions have been compiled in the last chapter of the history. In addition, there is even a contribution embellishing this opening page -- the photo at the top of this page.

I'd like to thank all those who have contributed to this site so far, and welcome any new readers to do the same.

The Mountain House

The early history of the Firefall dates back to the late nineteenth century, and has been credited to an Irishman by the name of James McCauley. Some of his story is well-documented, but details surrounding his contribution to the Firefall are not as easy to pin down.

Here is what we know. In 1871 James McCauley obtained permission from the Yosemite Board of Commissioners to build and operate a toll trail to Glacier Point. The trail was to start at the base of Sentinel Rock, then climb over 3,000 feet to its destination at Glacier Point. For the task, he hired Yosemite road-builder John Conway and a team of 9 men, completing the trail over the course of two summers. The project cost McCauley $4,200, which he earned back in tolls over the first two years after opening the trail.

With convenient access to Glacier Point now a reality, innkeeper Charles Peregoy built a small hotel at the overlook, completing its construction in 1873. Hikers ascending McCauley's Four Mile Trail to reach Glacier Point could now elect to rest for the night at The Mountain House, with its stunning views of Half Dome and the rest of Yosemite Valley.

McCauley leased The Mountain House in 1877, but didn't end up operating it himself until the year after his marriage to Barbara Wenger in 1879. The McCauley family ran The Mountain House from 1880 through the summer of 1897. Barbara prepared all the meals and did the housekeeping, and James waited table, tended bar, and entertained the guests.

Now, one account recalls that in 1872, McCauley built a fire near the edge of Glacier Point to entertain his hotel guests. A variation on the account suggests that the fire was built to cook that night's dinner. Then McCauley became upset that not enough people showed up, and out of anger and frustration, ended up pushing the fire over the cliff. Those who witnessed the spectacle on the valley floor were delighted and amazed, and James McCauley had a hit on his hands.

As colorful as this account may be, it is probably somewhat of a distortion of the truth. If the fire was built to entertain guests, it would have had to occur in 1880, or at the very earliest 1873, when The Mountain House was completed. However, there are indications that McCauley did not actually find innkeepers to run the hotel until 1877, when he leased the operation to Thomas and Elizabeth Glynn. And that would place the event much later in the 1870's.

Significantly, we do have an account by one of McCauley's twin sons, Fred McCauley, placing the first Firefall in 1872, and he didn't offer any explanation for why the fire was built or who was there to witness it, stating simply: "Father started the Firefall in 1872 when he pushed his campfire over the Glacier Point cliff."

Fred McCauley went on to detail how he and his twin brother John were employed to prepare the Firefalls for guests in the valley:

When visitors requested a Firefall they would meet the boys when they left school at 3:30, which was actually a half hour early. The teacher allowed their early departure so they could reach home before nightfall. For their fee, the boys would haul the wood to the top and prepare the fire; and they were eager to do so, since they not only got out of school early, but also got to keep all the money. When the family left the hotel in 1897, the boys had saved some $200 apiece from their Firefall assignment.

The Stentor

David and Jennie Curry moved to Yosemite Valley in 1899 and established a family campground at the base of Glacier Point, called Camp Curry. The camp opened for business on June 1, 1899 and provided accommodations in as many as seven canvas tents, beneath the towering cliff, at a nightly rate of $2. Many, including Yosemite pioneer Galen Clark, predicted that the enterprise wouldn't succeed, since the site was so cold and isolated. Most visitors still preferred the more comfortable accommodations that could be had at the Sentinel Hotel for $4 a night. That summer 4,500 people visited Yosemite Valley and only 290 of them stayed at Camp Curry.

But David Curry had a few ideas to make his camp more attractive to visitors, and one of them was the reintroduction of the Firefall. The attraction was seen only rarely after McCauley's departure from Glacier Point, but Curry intended to make it a nightly tradition. He saw a clear commercial potential in the Firefall, reasoning that crowds would gather each night for the event, and end up patronizing his dining and camping concessions. And it certainly worked! One of the great advantages of staying at Camp Curry, was the very fact that it was isolated in its corner of the valley. Many campers preferred the seclusion of the camp, but most importantly, from the camp one had a perfect view of the Firefall each night.

David Curry was well known for his booming voice. He would greet visitors to his camp with a resounding "WELCOME!" which could be heard from a great distance, and would similarly see his guests off by yelling "FAREWELL!" as their wagons pulled away from the main gate. Curry's nickname was "The Stentor", a reference to his loud voice, as illustrated by this little bit he would recite each night at the campfire program as an introduction to the Firefall:

He would then throw his head back, cup his mouth with his hands, and shout to the fire tender on Glacier Point, "Is the fire ready?" The faint answer could then be heard, "The fire is ready!" followed by Curry's roaring command "Let 'er go Gallagher!" And the glowing embers would begin their plunge off the edge of the cliff to their resting place on a ledge 1,700 feet below. Presumably Gallagher was the regular fire tender at that time. The call was changed to "Let the Fire Fall!" in later years.

The Firefall was cancelled for a 4 year period between 1913 and 1916 due to a disagreement between David Curry and the Assistant Secretary of the Interior at the time, Adolph C. Miller. Curry had been attempting to convince the Department to sign off on his plans for expanding Camp Curry. But his plans ran counter to the Department of Interior's wishes to halt further expansion in the valley, and to take a more active role in supervising the National Parks. It was not uncommon for Curry to openly complain about the Department and Secretary of the Interior during his nightly campfire programs, and this got back to Miller. The Secretary reportedly took away the Firefall as a way of retaliating against Curry for his belligerence, saying:

The Firefall was reinstituted in the summer of 1917, however David Curry never got a chance to see the spectacle again, as he died of blood poisoning in April of that year.

The Curry Legacy

Curry's wife Jennie and son Foster Curry (young Foster pictured here at age 11) took over the operations of Camp Curry after David Curry's death. The highlight of that summer was the reintroduction of the Firefall, described by employee John Fahey:

During World War I, one of the fire builders, Herbert Wilson, was urged by Foster Curry to put some zip into the Firefall. He made bigger fires, which created longer falls, and even established a record in climbing up the trail from camp to point in 54 minutes. Wilson worked the Firefall detail for 15 years.

Another regular fire builder during the 1920's was Alex Beck who would use an open-roofed touring car to haul the red-fir bark for the fire down to the cliff's edge. He would light the fire an hour or so before 9:00 pm then push it off slowly with a long-handled rake. On one Fourth of July he pushed off three Firefalls simultaneously: a big one he dedicated to his wife, and two smaller, flanking ones for his two daughters. During this period, to insure proper timing, a light, that shone from the top of a tall pine tree in Camp Curry, was switched on just before the first call to alert the team on the cliff.

A large warning sign was erected at this time in an attempt to keep people from climbing out onto the precarious Overhanging Rock, and from standing too close to the edge of the cliffs at Glacier Point. The sign was rather blunt and read:

When pipe railings were finally installed on the cliff's edge, the sign disappeared. Alex Beck chopped it up, mixed the wood in with the normal red-fir bark, and let it go over the edge with the next Firefall.

When Foster Curry took ill with leukemia, he told his wife and mother that he wanted his ashes pushed over the cliff with a Firefall. But his mother refused, saying: "If that were done, I could never bear to look at a Firefall again!" He died in 1932, and a few months later, a small plane flew over Yosemite and scattered his ashes over the valley.

The War YearsAt the onset of World War II, the Firefall was again cancelled, and was not reinstituted until after the war's end. During the war,Yosemite Valley was used by the military. Camp 11, now known as Upper Pines Campground became a small army camp. And the Ahwahnee Hotel served as a navy convalescent hospital.

Even though the Firefall was in limbo, in 1943 the resident army commander asked the new park superintendent Frank Kittredge to make an exception and prepare a Firefall for the troops. Stewart Cramer, a young resident in the valley at the time, described the event:

Recent Memories

Nic Fiore, Glacier Point Hotel innkeeper and fire builder from 1954 and beyond, remembers that his normal routine was to start gathering bark for the fire between 4:30 - 5:00 am, so it could be done before tourists arrived to enjoy the view of the valley from Glacier Point.

He would build the fire with 10 wheel barrels full of red-fir bark. Even that early in the morning, invariably someone would want to take a picture with him holding up one of the pieces of bark, and he would never disappoint them. The fire would be started at 7:00 in the evening so that it could burn down to glowing embers by 9:00.

Down at Camp Curry, the crowds would start to gather at 6:00 in the evening to get a seat at the outdoor stage, and would wait two hours for the show, which ran from 8:00 to 9:00, ending with the Firefall as its finale. The fire builder on Glacier Point and another individual near the Camp Curry stage would signal to each other by flashlight. When contact was made, the calls would begin.

The fire caller at Camp Curry would yell in a loud voice: "Hello Glacier!" In the dead silence, the crowd could hear the faint response from the cliff: "Hello Camp Curry!" The fire caller would then yell: "Let the Fire Fall!" And the crowd could hear the final response: "The Fire is Falling!" At that point the fire would be gradually and consistently pushed over the edge. Great care was taken to ensure that the embers were pushed evenly off the edge, to simulate a steady flow and produce the illusion of a waterfall of fire.

While the fire was falling, a performer on the Camp Curry stage would sing The Indian Love Call, accompanied by piano or violin. When the song and the Firefall was over, the crowd would remain silent. Bill Lane, fire caller from the 1930's up through 1942, described the mood afterwards:

In 1954, the year I was born, Yosemite National Park visitors exceeded 1 million for the first time. The Firefall was a well-established tradition by the time my family began to visit the park, and was viewed by more and more spectators each year.

As a child, I remember the excitement of the Firefall. The crowds would begin to gather for the nightly campfire at Camp Curry early in the evening, and as the time for the Firefall approached, the anticipation was almost unbearable. What impressed me the most was when the fire caller asked the crowd for silence, and the exchange of calls began. I was astounded by the fact that the human voice could carry so far to the top of that cliff, over 3,000 feet into the night sky. It was almost unbelievable!

And then it fell, looking nothing like the time-exposure photography that would appear on postcards, depicting that solid line of orange extending down the cliff. Instead, it would be little sparks -- thousands and thousands of individually discernible sparks -- floating down the cliff in complete silence.

It took me some time to write those last paragraphs, because each time I made a revision and read it back I would get very emotional. When I first started researching this project, I experienced similar moments, fighting back tears (or not) while fleshing out the story of this tradition. At first I felt a bit silly getting so worked up about it, until I viewed a documentary about the Firefall, and saw Bill Lane (quoted above) moved to tears by the time he ended his account. The interviewer's voice was breaking as well! What is it about these memories that make their retelling so poignant and moving?

My best guess is that the Firefall was not just a spectacle, not just entertainment. Instead, it approached the sublime in the way that it touched those who witnessed it. Thousands of onlookers felt something in common for that short period of time. It was something parents shared with their wide-eyed children, and something that those children would never forget. It illustrated how grand Yosemite really was; how unspeakably tall were its cliffs; how quiet its forest; and how much we treasured the company of our family and our friends.

The End of a Tradition

In 1968 the Park Service Director decided that the Firefall tradition should come to an end. He reasoned that since it was just a man-made attraction, and one which caused a great deal of congestion in the park, as well as damage to the meadows from the trampling of onlookers, that it wasn't worth continuing. He went as far as to point out that it caused the unnatural and unnecessary removal of red-fir bark from the park grounds. Henry Berrey, who was in charge of public relations for the park at the time, described the last Firefall in this press release:

In my research of the Firefall, I was struck by how differently writers view the event. The accounts vary from the sentimental to the cynical. We're all grown up now, and such things as pushing fire over a cliff are considered foolish and irresponsible. But for those who experienced the Firefall in person on one of those dark summer evenings: I think they will have changed because of it, and will always look back on it with a sense of nostalgia and wonder.

A pale scar remains to this day, where the fire burned away the cliff's lichen. Someday that scar will heal, and after that, all those who remember the Firefall will also pass, and this colorful and oddly magical tradition will remain only in the pages of history.

About the photo:

The Firefall picture above was graciously contributed by Judy Simpson whose father, Richard Marklin, took the photo in the spring of 1963.

On careful observation, you might question why the sky was light in the photo. The Firefall, as you'll learn in the history, was always presented in the evening after nightfall! Marklin explains how the image was captured:

The slides were in very good condition for being 35 years old. However there was some amount of retouching required. I was faced with a decision between attempting to prepare both the left and right sides of the stereo image for presentation, or combining the two images into one. I decided on the latter, and combined the left slide, which included Nevada Fall, with the right slide which included more detail at the top of the cliff.

Consequently, the photo was created with the age-old photographic effect of double exposure, then prepared for publication using the rather newer techniques available in present-day image enhancement software to combine the two images into one. I was very happy with the final product, and am quite proud to open the Yosemite Firefall site with such a unique and fitting photo. Thank you Judy Simpson, and Richard Marklin for your contribution to the Firefall project.

by **admin** » Mon Apr 25, 2016 8:50 am

Yosemite Fund 2000 Award Recipient
Yosemite's Arvin Abbott Selected as the Yosemite Fund 2000 Award Recipient
by Karen Hales
Yosemite National Park
April 26, 2001

NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT

Contact: Karen Hales 1 (209) 372-1492; khales@dncinc.com
Public Information Number: 1 (209) 372-1000;
Web Site: http://www.YosemitePark.com

Yosemite Concession Services Corp. (YCS) is pleased to announce that Arvin Abbott, Manager of the YCS Grocery Division, was selected as The Yosemite Fund Award Recipient of the Millennium Year 2000. The Yosemite Fund Award was created in 1991 to recognize the efforts of an individual in the Yosemite community who has done notable work to enhance the value of Yosemite National Park as a national treasure.

Arvin began his career in the park in 1973 as manager of the Village Store. He soon was recognized as the fitting leader to manage the entire Grocery Division for the former concessioner, Yosemite Park & Curry Company. Arvin continues to be primarily responsible for the sustenance of those who work, live in, and visit the Park. His contagious enthusiasm, philanthropic endeavors and “never-say- no” manner have endeared him to the Yosemite community and it visitors.

“Arvin is both a model employee and citizen of this community, and he exemplifies the values we hold as a company. We’re very pleased the Yosemite Fund has recognized his many contributions to the community,” said Kevin Kelly, YCS vice president of operations.

It is Arvin’s other good works and invaluable presence in the Yosemite community that have earned him the Yosemite Fund Award for the Year 2000, which was delivered in a commendation by Yosemite Fund President Bob Hansen and Chairman Sam Livermore, and Yosemite National Park Superintendent David Mihalic.

“The good works and wonderful spirit of Arvin Abbott are legendary among long-time residents of the park, and he has truly been an unsung hero of Yosemite,” the commendation said.

Arvin volunteers a considerable portion of his free time to assist with Yosemite’s community needs. He is well known for his contributions through the Lion’s Club, from organizing Christmas tree sales to managing the biannual blood drive, and serving as Master of Ceremonies of the Mosquito Festival at the Yosemite Valley Elementary School. He also is a member and past board president of the Yosemite Community Church. Arvin also sets an excellent example of physical fitness and active enjoyment of the park by riding his bike nearly every day, hiking the many trails in the park with his wife, artist Linda Abbott, and encouraging other employees and visitors to do the same.

The Yosemite Fund is a private, non-profit charitable organization that raises money for park projects not funded through the normal government channels. The fund works directly with the National Park Service to identify and underwrite projects that will have long-lasting benefit to the park. The Yosemite Fund Award is given only to individuals who are part of the Yosemite community and whose work has made a significant positive contribution to Yosemite National Park or the visitor experience, while exemplifying the qualities of courage, diligence, energy, selflessness, sacrifice and integrity. The Yosemite Fund can be contacted at (800) 4MY-PARK; or by visiting their website at http://www.yosemitefund.org

Yosemite Concession Services Corp. is the hospitality management company authorized by the National Park Service to operate lodging, food and beverage, retail, guest recreation and transportation services in Yosemite National Park. YCS is a subsidiary of Delaware North Parks Services of Buffalo, N.Y. Information about YCS can be obtained by visiting their web site at http://www.YosemitePark.com

Altruistic World Online Library

The Ahwahnee Hotel, by National Park Service

Re: The Ahwahnee Hotel, by National Park Service

Re: The Ahwahnee Hotel, by National Park Service

Re: The Ahwahnee Hotel, by National Park Service

Re: The Ahwahnee Hotel, by National Park Service

Re: The Ahwahnee Hotel, by National Park Service

Re: The Ahwahnee Hotel, by National Park Service

Re: The Ahwahnee Hotel, by National Park Service

Re: The Ahwahnee Hotel, by National Park Service

Re: The Ahwahnee Hotel, by National Park Service

Re: The Ahwahnee Hotel, by National Park Service

Who is online