THIS IS AN ARCHIVE OF LAKE TAHOE NEWS, WHICH WAS OPERATIONAL FROM 2009-2018. IT IS FREELY AVAILABLE FOR RESEARCH. THE WEBSITE IS NO LONGER UPDATED WITH NEW ARTICLES.

McClintock against expanding Yosemite


image_pdfimage_print

By Michael Doyle, Fresno Bee

WASHINGTON — A bill to expand Yosemite National Park has won the support of California’s senators, but there’s apparent skepticism from the conservative congressman who now represents the park region.

The Capitol Hill split could hinder the park expansion legislation that lawmakers will soon re-introduce. More broadly, it underscores the challenges looming as Yosemite aficionados and Rep. Tom McClintock get to know one another, like partners in an arranged marriage.

“We look forward to working with the congressman so he understands the issues,” Mariposa County Supervisor Kevin Cann said.

Yosemite National Park only recently became part of Rep. Tom McClintock's district. Photo/LTN file

Yosemite National Park only recently became part of Rep. Tom McClintock’s district. Photo/LTN file

McClintock, R-Elk Grove, visited Yosemite this week for his first time as the park’s congressman. The 56-year-old career lawmaker met with park officials for about two hours before attending a Mariposa town hall meeting Tuesday night.

The world famous park fell into McClintock’s 4th Congressional District when a state commission redrew legislative lines last year. The district now includes a big sweep of the Sierra Nevada mountains, from Lake Tahoe in the north to Sequoia National Park in the south. Yosemite is the district’s crown jewel, one that repeatedly invites political intervention.

Last Congress, for instance, the lawmaker who represented Yosemite at the time — Rep. Jeff Denham, R-Turlock — introduced a bill to authorize the park service to acquire 18 acres for a new Yosemite visitors center in Mariposa.

McClintock didn’t like that proposal. A member of the House Natural Resources Committee, he argued at a hearing last June that the park service would be better off using existing vacant buildings in Mariposa, and he asserted a new Mariposa center would put gateway communities in Madera and Tuolumne counties at a disadvantage.

“Why would we be having the federal government build yet another office facility?” McClintock asked, adding that “this is a plan that picks one winner out of many losers.”

A member of the Mariposa Tea Party Patriots shared McClintock’s skepticism and testified against the bill at the House hearing. The legislation died, and it has not been re-introduced.

McClintock did not respond to multiple requests for an interview or information over the past week.

He told Mariposa County supervisors on Tuesday that he would seek an investigation “to fully expose” a Yosemite plan that restricts certain commercial operations.

The congressman’s staff has reportedly already communicated to park advocates that he won’t support a separate Yosemite bill that will resurface in a few days.

The legislation, to be introduced by Rep. Jim Costa, D-Fresno, in the House and by California Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein in the Senate will OK buying about 1,600 acres in Mariposa County for an addition to the park. The land is near a development called Yosemite West, and was reportedly part of naturalist John Muir’s original plan for Yosemite.

“We haven’t made an expansion to the park in over 85 years,” said Laurie Wayburn, president of the Pacific Forest Trust. “I think this would be an extraordinary opportunity to get ready for the 2016 celebration of the park’s centennial.”

The Pacific Forest Trust owns about half of the land covered by the bill, and a partnership of medical professionals owns the other half. The bill authorizes the land purchase by the park service, but does not mandate it.

“This has been something that has been discussed for some time,” Costa said, “and it’s got bipartisan support.”

Costa added that “it would be very good” if McClintock supported the bill, which has been backed by Mariposa County supervisors. Wayburn, though, said McClintock’s staff has indicated he doesn’t support the park expansion.

In general, McClintock believes the federal government is too big. He is also critical of park service officials, as when he denounced Lassen Volcanic National Park wildland fire managers last year as “people who lack the simple common sense that God gave a squirrel,” following a blaze that blew out of control.

McClintock, without fanfare, introduced his own initial Yosemite-related bill last month. The measure would rename Mammoth Peak as Mount Jessie Benton Fremont. The mountain re-naming bill, which does not have any co-sponsors, would honor the 19th century woman whose writings helped inspire Yosemite protection efforts.

A 12,117-foot landmark near Kuna Lake, Mammoth is Yosemite’s sixth-highest peak. It’s been officially called Mammoth Peak since 1932, according to the Board on Geographic Names’ records.

McClintock publicly articulated some other intentions at the town meeting, including possible legislation blocking the park’s Merced River plan. The plan calls for the elimination of some Yosemite Valley commercial ventures, including an ice rink and bike rental operations.

“I want to sound the alarm over proposals for Yosemite from the National Park Service,” McClintock told Mariposa County supervisors Tuesday. “Yosemite belongs to the American people, and the park service’s job is to welcome and accommodate them, not to restrict and harass them.”

image_pdfimage_print

About author

This article was written by admin

Comments

Comments (10)
  1. Bijou Bill says - Posted: April 7, 2013

    Let’s see… who do you think has a more intelligent idea about what should happen at Yosemite, our National Treasure State Park… The plan that John Muir had in mind or teabag Tom’s doofus hate gov’t stupidity?

  2. Steven says - Posted: April 7, 2013

    It’s “carpet bagger tom”. He will go anywhere in the state if he thinks he can get elected to public office. He has been living off the tax payers for decades. Get rid of him.

  3. concerned says - Posted: April 8, 2013

    The libtards are at it again. Big government good, less government bad. If Firestein and other demos are for it then it must be a government grab.
    Thank goodness for Tom. How do you like them apples.
    Are you frothing at the mouth yet?

  4. MTT says - Posted: April 8, 2013

    I like what he is doing. Not sure about renaming Mammoth Peak? Need to look into that a bit more.

    I do not think they need to buy up another 1,600 acres. They have not done a stellar job maintaining what they have now. Upgrades for campers and Visitors is what they should focus on now.

  5. AROD says - Posted: April 8, 2013

    Tommy boy needs to go back to Thousand Oaks. He has done absolutely nothing for our district. He is a teabagger with no vision for the future. Tows the party line without an original thought. Please vote him out next election.

  6. orale says - Posted: April 8, 2013

    I don’t think he’s a good fit for the basin. Time to vote him out indeed.

    Grass roots advocacy anyone?

  7. tahoedad says - Posted: April 8, 2013

    There are several alternatives proposed for Yosemite Valley restoration. The one McClintock is protesting was developed after extensive input by park resource scientists and outreach to the public. It calls for, among other things, an expansion of campgrounds in Yosemite Valley, but a curtailment of certain commercial activities. The kind of things one would find appropriate for a national park.

    Other alternatives would either provide more restoration or more development. The one chosen by the Park Service tries to strike the right balance between park protection and access. Is it a surprise that McClintock would not be in favor of balance or anything with a dose of environmental protection?

    Given the fact that McClintock hadn’t even visited this world treasure park in his district before traveling there to grandstand last week, does anyone really think he understands the issues being debated, or that he has the best interests of Yosemite or visitors in mind?

  8. orale says - Posted: April 8, 2013

    Dear Concerned:
    It sounds like the proposal McClintock is against was developed by those on the ground with input from the community. His stance against it is therefore a big government stance – the folks in D.C. know better than those who actually live there. He is against a local solution to a local issue.

    Not frothing, just amazed at the cognitive dissonance.

  9. nature bats last says - Posted: April 13, 2013

    the picture of teabag tom looks like he is trying out for some sort of movie with his hard hat cocked to the side. This clown is about the worst government representative there is. Talk about career politician. I cant think of one thing he has done that is positive for our state. Really, what a looser

  10. MTT says - Posted: April 13, 2013

    Nature bats. You must really be into getting teabagged. You mention that sex act so often. Surprised the admin allows it.

    Does