[HN Gopher] Yosemite embodies the long war over US national park...
___________________________________________________________________
Yosemite embodies the long war over US national park privatization
Author : rntn
Score : 80 points
Date : 2025-08-03 17:17 UTC (5 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (theconversation.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (theconversation.com)
| primitivesuave wrote:
| I'm a regular in the Yosemite rock climbing scene, and Aramark is
| a universally despised entity for many reasons (gross negligence,
| outright lies, rampant neglect). One of their executives recently
| lost his job for hitting golf balls into Ahwahnee Meadows.
|
| However, until people would rather camp than stay at the
| $600/night hotel, and cook over a campfire rather than eat
| overpriced food, there will always be a lucrative opportunity in
| Yosemite Valley that is only available to the most politically-
| connected companies.
| SoftTalker wrote:
| Why would Aramark try any harder, they have no competition.
| jonah wrote:
| They do. Xanterra.
|
| I have family who worked for them at Yellowstone, Crater
| Lake, and Glacier NP. (They also have the concession at the
| Grand Canyon and Death Valley among others.)
|
| Seemed like a fairly good company from what little I
| gathered.
| stenius wrote:
| There is competition, they took over the contract from
| Deleware North in 2014 IIRC.
| intended wrote:
| Competition improves consumer welfare if the competition is
| on features that improve consumer welfare.
|
| Without referees, competition can simply be on lowering costs
| and providing cheaper service.
|
| If demand is in-elastic (there's only one Yosemite) then
| simply invoking competition isn't going to be a solution.
|
| Without referees with teeth, the market can easily optimize
| for profit without giving a damn about anything else.
| thrance wrote:
| > However, until people would rather camp than stay at the
| $600/night hotel, and cook over a campfire rather than eat
| overpriced food, there will always be a lucrative opportunity
| in Yosemite Valley that is only available to the most
| politically-connected companies.
|
| Blaming "people" accomplishes nothing.
| ghaff wrote:
| Well, and no idea what it's like these days given ownership
| changes and time generally, but it used to be a very nice--
| albeit expensive--lodge, at least in the public areas
| including dining room.
| harmmonica wrote:
| When the north rim lodge recently burned down at the Grand
| Canyon my reaction was "how could they not deploy resources
| fast enough to save it?," followed by "who stands to gain from
| it burning down?" So I learn Aramark is/was the manager of the
| lodge. Fast forward a year and you'll hear about a joint
| venture between Aramark, someone high up in the current
| administration, and (as an example) Aman announcing Aman North
| Rim.
|
| That's obviously conspiracy-level thinking and totally untrue,
| but given the attempt to sell public lands in the BBB, and the
| material staffing cuts at the park service (and more broadly),
| it's really easy to believe that these types of efforts will
| lead to cordoning off these spaces for private profit
| ("Yosemite's hundreds of thousands of acres, we're only taking
| away 20 for the hotel, no biggie!"). Gotta remain vigilant or I
| think that's where all of this ends up.
|
| Note that the prices for the lodge at the north rim were pretty
| expensive already so not saying that hasn't already somewhat
| been the case, but it's not (or was not) physically off limits
| to the public or only reserved for the richest of the rich and
| that's where I fear this is headed.
| whyenot wrote:
| > However, until people would rather camp than stay at the
| $600/night hotel, and cook over a campfire rather than eat
| overpriced food
|
| I think this borders on "gatekeeping." There are other lodging
| options in Yosemite Valley which are much less expensive than
| the Ahwahnee. Yosemite belongs to the American people, and
| everyone should have a chance to enjoy it, not only those who
| want to sleep in a tent and cook on a fire. There has been paid
| lodging in the valley since before Yosemite was a park.
|
| Food and lodging in the valley are expensive. The shuttle bus
| system is currently a joke. Aramark, Delaware North, and YP&CC
| (especially in the malaise years 1970-1993) have not always
| been good stewards, but in spite of that, the park is a
| national treasure that all should have a chance to enjoy, not
| just those in the "rock climbing scene" who want to stay at
| Camp 4 and rough it.
|
| Aramark's contract should be cancelled. It happened at Crater
| Lake, and the NPS would have justification to do it in
| Yosemite, but the last two transitions between concessioners
| was pretty bad; there is good reason for the NPS to be
| cautious. If there was the capacity for better NPS oversight,
| the best move would probably be to break up the contract into
| smaller pieces and have more than one main concessioner. The
| Ansel Adams Gallery and Yosemite Mountaineering School are
| already under different contracts and there is precedent from
| other national parks (for example Glacier).
| stickfigure wrote:
| I think you're right that there needs to be actual
| competition between park services, but I am doubtful it will
| make that much of a difference. The public appetite for
| attendance absolutely dwarfs the capacity of the park. To
| meet demand you'd have to build a whole city.
|
| I've given up on Yosemite. There are lots of other places to
| go in California (and beyond). Although they are starting to
| get crowded too...
| whyenot wrote:
| You may be right, but even if the concessioners aren't
| great, the valley can still be a wonderful, quiet, peaceful
| place to be. Especially in late spring when the dogwoods
| are in full bloom, the waterfalls are full, and the summer
| crowds haven't arrived yet. After Labor Day is also nice.
| Summer crowds aren't fun, but I do feel like there is
| another way of looking at it: so many people going outside
| and enjoying nature instead of looking at the world through
| their phones. There was a time pre-Covid when attendance
| and interest in national parks and state parks was kind of
| on the wane, and it's nice that so many people want to come
| and enjoy these places.
| pfannkuchen wrote:
| How much of the demand is domestic I wonder? When I've been
| to places like this there seems to be a lot of
| international tourists.
| bix6 wrote:
| Roughly a quarter are international.
| terminalshort wrote:
| > Yosemite belongs to the American people, and everyone
| should have a chance to enjoy it, not only those who want to
| sleep in a tent and cook on a fire.
|
| Why? It's a wilderness park. The other 99.99% of America is
| always available to people who only want to stay in hotels
| and eat at restaurants.
| ryandrake wrote:
| Why do there even need to be corporate, profit-maximizing
| concessionaires? Couldn't the NPS itself develop this
| expertise and run them directly? So frustrating this trend
| where the government doesn't allow itself to do anything,
| instead funneling taxpayer money into the pockets of profit-
| seeking businesses.
| thrance wrote:
| Sometimes I wonder about the far future. Just looking at how hard
| it is to fight the urge by some to fell those trees for a quick
| buck, and seeing how preventing that requires a constant fight
| that comes back every 10 years and needs to be restarted all over
| again... It seems inevitable that at some point the stars will
| align and they will get their way.
|
| I wonder, after 500 years, after 1000 years of industrialization,
| what will be left of Earth?
| hdgvhicv wrote:
| They'll pave paradise and put up a parking lot?
| hoten wrote:
| A sad eventuality, but perhaps at least an interesting game.
|
| Just saw an trailer for an unreleased game: rollercoaster
| tycoon, but for parking lots.
|
| https://store.steampowered.com/app/3031880/Car_Park_Capital/
| JKCalhoun wrote:
| I assumed it was being ironic?
| throwup238 wrote:
| _> I wonder, after 500 years, after 1000 years of
| industrialization, what will be left of Earth?_
|
| In the last 150 years we went from almost zero protected areas
| to 26 million sq km of nature preserve, or a fifth of the
| Earth's total landmass (excluding Antarctica, which is also
| protected). Out of the ~106 million sq km of habitable land,
| half of it is unprotected forest (37%) and shrubland. Only
| about a third of that forest is used for lumber so there's room
| to protect about thrice as much as is already protected.
|
| We have to remain vigilant but the global zeitgeist is very
| much on the side of preserving more nature rather than less.
| There will be more hickups but I wouldn't be surprised if we
| double the amount of protected land in the next 100 years.
| parineum wrote:
| It's funny that a movement can be so successful and not just
| underestimate it's success but completely misunderstood the
| directionality of the trend.
| CharlesW wrote:
| It was nice while it lasted, but the "shining city upon a
| hill" era is dead and gone. There's a Project 2025 effort to
| lift protections for nearly 60 million acres, and that's
| surely just the beginning unless the U.S. un-loses its mind.
| https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/white-house-set-to-roll-
| ba...
| intended wrote:
| This is reading the past and forgetting the forces active
| since WW2 and the 1960s.
|
| We do NOT live in those times, and the edifices propped up
| and successful in Europe and America, well and truly wish to
| undermine those protections.
|
| It takes resources and it takes a middle class / working
| class for the collective will to matter. When those groups
| are under resourced, then it's a question on whether nature
| appeals to some coterie of elites.
| throwup238 wrote:
| I was just talking about protected land mass. Since the
| 1990s the focus has shifted to protecting marine
| environments with 28 million sq km of ocean protected since
| then. It's only 7% of the ocean for the moment but its only
| been a few decades.
| intended wrote:
| I am against this reading of hopefulness.
|
| It creates a narrative of momentum, which is necessary to
| not be overwhelmed by the situations we face, but it's no
| longer viable to ignore it.
|
| As just one sign - Academics in environmental science and
| conversation have PTSD, because of how hopeless things
| are.
|
| In that same 150 year period, more species have been
| wiped out by man than in history.
|
| As a species we are a force of nature.
|
| I can find common ground that some of us are changing and
| that efforts are being made.
|
| I disagree that it is inevitable- it's hard won and must
| continue to be fight for
| throwawaymaths wrote:
| > some coterie of elites.
|
| hate to break it to you but over the span of history,
| elites have been way better at natural preservation than
| the middle and working classes.
| intended wrote:
| The elites have had power for the largest span of our
| history.
|
| Correlation here is not causation. By that same criteria,
| elites have been responsible for the grandest acts of
| destruction and waste as well.
|
| But I suppose someone may want to leave preservation
| efforts up to random chance and inheritance. Subjective
| preferences can't be debated after all.
| throwawaymaths wrote:
| ok that's fine. I'll ignore the irrelevant whataboutism.
| as correlation is not causation what makes you think the
| elites would cease to preserve nature in the way they
| have? what is your mechanism for this shift in behaviour?
| timeon wrote:
| > after 500 years
|
| 500 years sounds optimistic. Are we ignoring climate change
| here?
| maxerickson wrote:
| Michigan was basically clear cut in the late 1800s. It's quite
| forested now.
|
| We lost the majority of the old, large trees, but the forests
| came back.
| crabmusket wrote:
| Jacques Ellul in full old testament prophet mode:
|
| > The world that is being created by the accumulation of
| technical means is an artificial world and hence radically
| different from the natural world.
|
| > It destroys, eliminates, or subordinates the natural world,
| and does not allow this world to restore itself or even to
| enter into a symbiotic relation with it. The two worlds obey
| different imperatives, different directives, and different laws
| which have nothing in common.
|
| > Just as hydroelectric installations take waterfalls and lead
| them into conduits, so the technical milieu absorbs the
| natural. We are rapidly approaching the time when there will be
| no longer any natural environment at all. When we succeed in
| producing artificial aurorae boreales, night will disappear and
| perpetual day will reign over the planet.
| ryandrake wrote:
| The destroyers only have to win once. The preservers have to
| win every single time the destroyers make an attempt.
| WaitWaitWha wrote:
| I do not understand. Is Yosemite under the National Park Service,
| which is within US Dept of the Interior, which is subject to FAR?
|
| There is no justification for Sole Source Contract here. There
| are many companies that can run hotels, concession stands, and
| such.
|
| Full and open competition.
| bix6 wrote:
| It's not under FAR because concessionaires are under a separate
| 1998 law. The concessionaire pays fees instead of the
| government paying for goods. There is still supposed to be
| competition but it can be limited eg incumbents may get
| preference.
| bix6 wrote:
| It seems like concessionaires and operators are increasingly
| abdicating their responsibility. I was at another site in CA that
| was so poorly managed the employee was trash talking management
| (for verbally and even physically assaulting the employees among
| other failures). The company got a fixed amount of money from the
| government for things like upkeep so they seemed to think it was
| in their best interest to spend as little as possible on upkeep
| to maximize profit. Unfortunately this was to the detriment of
| everyone staying at the site as the host burdens were so onerous
| for so little pay that the hosts kept bailing. And maintenance
| and janitorial was severely understaffed.
| Johnny555 wrote:
| I thought the article would have mentioned that putting for-
| profit companies in charge of maintaining historic buildings
| doesn't mean those buildings will be maintained:
|
| https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/news/2025/06/25/yosemi...
| lawlessone wrote:
| In a lot of Europe 'the great outdoors' is parks and agricultural
| land (not all of of course but a lot).
|
| You have lots of great parks with forests and actual wildlife
|
| I hope you don't repeat our mistake.
| 12ian34 wrote:
| yosemite has absolutely incredible nature but come on, some
| parts of the valley feel like a highway, and you need to get
| there at like 6am to avoid queuing for everything including
| parking spots and behind other hikers on trails.
| MangoToupe wrote:
| Yosemite is also a tiny, tiny percentage of national park
| land.
| lawlessone wrote:
| Maybe but you have so much actual wild land that you can
| support actual populations animals like bears, mountain
| lions, wolves.
| terminalshort wrote:
| The idea of running commercial services inside a national park
| seems to me to be ridiculous as a concept. The idea that a strip
| mall with grocery stores, hotels, and gas stations (and yes they
| have that in Yellowstone) is "national park" land makes the
| concept of a national park ridiculous.
|
| Why not just take the areas inside national parks that are
| currently commercially developed, remove them from the park, and
| sell them off to private owners. Now there can just be a law that
| you can't build a damn thing on national park land, and then
| private companies can run commercial services on non-park land
| and there won't be this conflict of interest.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-08-03 23:00 UTC)