Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:03, 20 February 2005

Some doubts about recent changes:

• I thought Yellowstone is the first National Park, not Yosemite
• Sequoia and Kings Canyon are two separated national parks though they are neighbors joined by their border. The original text had them separted as two links, the recent change merged the two together into one.

----

Yellowstone was the first national park created by that name in roughtly its current form, and the Act of Congress that establishing it set the pattern for the national park system. But the first effort by a modern state to set aside such an natural area was the ceding of Yosemite Valley (a small part of today's park) to the control of the State of California during the Civil War, some years before Yellowstone. Some historical materials seem to indicate that the more sweeping Yellowstone legislation was prompted by the mixed (at best) results of the Yosemite experiment. The Park Service, Smokey Bear hats and all, didn't come into existence until 1916, when there were 14 parks and 21 national monuments. (see http://www.cr.nps.gov/history/hisnps/NPSHistory/npshisto.htm) Some countries have never set up a unform system of parks, even though they do set areas aside.

The relationship between Yellowstone and Yosemite does make for some minor rivalry and a great trivia question or two.

As for Sequoia - Kings Canyon, they were established separately (Sequoia first) but are contiguous and are managed as a single unit. (see http://www.nps.gov/seki/index.htm) ClaudeMuncey, Thursday, April 18, 2002

Mav: interesting stuff about geology of Yosemite. I haven't heard anything at all about the school of geologists who don't think that glaciation and uplift had a major effect. I went to a Open House at the Menlo Park USGS back in 1995 or so and didn't see anything about that. And there is lots of glacial polish well above 5600'... Well, you properly NPOV-ed it.. Is it possible to give sources on it? I'd like to poke around some more...

I think the large amount of uplift of the Sierra is pretty well established --- the faults along the eastern Sierra have undergone a large amount of vertical displacement (the westernmost Basin and Range fault) .. For example, the Alabama hills in the Owens Valley have the same granite as near Mt. Whitney, but are much lower. Anyway, it seems difficult to reconcile with the "glaciation and uplift are unimportant" theory. Say more? -- hike395 00:19 8 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I didn't say that the newer school thought that uplift did not have a major effect. I did say that this newer school has attacked the longstanding idea that rapid uplift over the past 2 million years combined with highly abrasive glaciations has been the major shaping force of the parks topography. They state that the uplift happened much more slowly and much further in the past and that jointing was the major dictator of events (of course all types of erosion will take advantage of weaknesses and joints provide those weaknesses). This new line of thought has been led by Jeffrey P. Schaffer (see cite below). Much of what I read in the cite was statements of fact with little supporting evidence (which in understandable considering the book I read was a natural history guide). But I'm sure his earlier work The Geomorphic Evolution of the Yosemite Valley and the Sierra Nevada Landscapes will have all his evidence. I just report what I read and try to NPOV it - thus the last paragraph was a compromise between Geology of the National Parks and Schaffer's natural history guide.

Yosemite National Park: A Natural History Guide to Yosemite and Its Trails, Jeffrey P. Schaffer, (Wilderness Press, Berkeley; 1999) ISBN 0-89997-244-6

Oh and Schaffer is not arguing that that glaciers did not effect anything above 5600 feet. I know for a fact that glaciers did cover areas well above 9,000 feet in at least the high country since I saw (and photographed) a several ton glacial erratic on top of Lambert Dome. The erratic was unmistakable since the rock type of the boulder was markably different and it still had glacial polish and striations below its base (meaning that it was transported and did not erode in place). Schaffer does disagree with the prevailing view that Lambert Dome is the shape it is because it is a huge roche mountonnee, however. He points out, and I have to somewhat agree, that the cliff face of Lambert (and Liberty Cap for that matter) does not look at all like it was formed by glacial plucking (which would result in a great many concave depressions in the rock face). It looks to me more like a joint plane (very similar to Half Dome's steep face). Of course glaciers would have taken advantage of the joint plane and helped to sheer off large slabs of the face but Shaffer states that without the joint plane there would not have been a vertical cliff (thus Lambert and Liberty Cap are not roche mountonees). His overall theme, I gather, is that the granitic rock of the Yosemite area is very resistant to erosion and when it does erode it almost allways follows major joint planes.

I may have given Schaffer's views more credit than warrented (since I'm not a professional geologist and do not really know what the consensus view on this is) so if that is the case then please attribute those views to just Schaffer. Also, IIRC, Muir and a prominent contemporary geologist (whose name escapes me for the moment) also differed on this exact point; Muir thought that glaciers were the primary shaping force of the valley but this geologist (who was apparently highly respected in his time) thought that major joints where the primary shaping force of the valley. It would be great if we put this argument into its historical context. --mav 02:45 8 Jul 2003 (UTC)

OK.. I'll try and investigate and see if more people than Schaffer believe it. I've found that we have to be careful about those guides, sometimes: the Roadside Geology of Washington had the "asteroid hitting the hot spot causing the Basin and Range" hypothesis that I mentioned in Talk:Basin and Range Province.. I suspect that people use guides as a bully pulpit for their favorite hypothesis. But, you did NPOV it well.

Oh, btw --- The contemporary geologist you are thinking of is Josiah Whitney, the chief geologist of California at the time. Mount Whitney is named after him. -- hike395 14:40 8 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Yeah I've heard about the "asteroid impact as origin of Yellowstone/Snake River Plane Hot Spot" hyp too, but only via one Discovery Channel TV program. I do have a policy whereby anything I see on TV has to be backed-up by a reputable-looking print reference but it seems that print media has similar problems regarding the advancement of less-than-mainstream ideas. BTW my geography instructor for my last Yosemite trip and my geology instructor for my previous trip to Yosemite both indicated there is renewed controversy about the relative role glaciers had in shaping the park and esp the Valley (my geography instructor specifically mentioned Schaffer). Oh and thanks for the Whitney ref (D'oh! How could I have forgotten that?). --mav 18:05 8 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Hunting around on the Web, I cannot find much support for Schaffer's views, other than from Schaffer himself: (Schaffer wrote the review of the book in the second link). It is clear that Schaffer is very passionate about his hypothesis! Unfortunately, not being an expert in geomorphology, I cannot evaluate his hypothesis without a lot more research (and now I'm hours away from a technical library). I'm a little dubious about his application of Alaska mass wasting data to the Sierra Nevada, but again, I'm not an expert.

I'd like to suggest attributing the "old canyon" hypothesis directly to Schaffer. If he turns out to be correct, then we've given him the credit he deserves for destroying a bad paradigm. If he turns out to be incorrect, then the article is still factually valid. What do you think? -- hike395 06:42 10 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I think that is a good idea. I'm planning on expanding the geology section much more in the next week or so. I'll change the ref then if you don't beat me to it. --mav

I agree that the article needs a beautiful photo, I just worry about overlap with Yosemite Valley. Does someone have a different photo, like of Cathedral Peak? If not, I can try and dig one out of my collection (or just go and take a photo). -- hike395 07:52 10 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Yeah, preferably it'd have its own photograph. Really though any photograph we could put here could conceivably go on another page as well, since all the really picturesque locations are also famous in their own right. Perhaps two different images of the same thing so at least they're not identical? If nobody else has one, I can try to dig one up, but my last trip to Yosemite dates from before I got a digital camera, so it may take some digging (and finding a scanner). --Delirium 07:55 10 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I have a whole bunch of digital Yosemite photos from two different trips but I still haven't got around to doing the name, crop, resize, upload bit. With any luck I'll get to this by the end of Sunday. --mav

Cool! I don't have any digital Yosemite photos (I checked), so please go ahead. -- hike395 08:09 10 Jul 2003 (UTC)

OK - have fun with these photos (it might be some time before I'll have much time integrating them into Misplaced Pages so please beat me to that if you have time): User:Maveric149/Images - Yosemite National Park. --mav

For what it's worth I definitely think we should have the tunnel view photo on this page. It is gorgeous and the symbol of Yosemite. I'm not worried that the same photo also appears on Yosemite Valley. Tempshill 04:35, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Pronunciation

I think the transcription "yo-SEM-mi-tee" is misleading. My understanding (Webster) is that it's pronounced -m&-tee. Where & is schwa (or perhaps a hinted i as in "pit") and NOT i as in "fight" or "bike". The openness of the penultimate syllable would tempt people to opt for the "bike" though.

Whether my understanding is correct or not, I'd suggest using a better transcription or perhaps adding an additional IPA or SAMPA transcription. Glimz 09:28, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)

You are correct. I don't understand SAMPA --- could you add a transcription?

Climbing Discussion

Yosemite is one of the key climbing destinations in the world, but no mention of climbing is made here. Many historical climbers started here and many epic and amazing climbs have been done here. Would it be appropriate to add some discussion of this here? Also some of the larger ethical issues about ecological impact have been raised here which would add to the environmental discussion already here.

Pictures

Various public domain pictures of Yosemite from http://pdphoto.org, someone more artistic can sort out which ones to use :) Tom- 12:58, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Compassmonkey links

Sequence of events:

1. User:204.75.125.173 adds Compassmonkey.com links to 4 national park articles
2. User:24.5.225.47 adds Compassmonkey.com links to 28 national parks
3. User:Trödel deletes Compassmonkey.com links from Bryce Canyon National Park, claims IP on anonymous contributor within 5 miles of owner of compassmonkey.com
4. User:SimonP deletes Compassmonkey.com links from 28 national park sites, warns User:24.5.225.47 on his/her web page against spam
5. User:Hike395 delete Compassmonkey.com links from 3 more national park articles
6. User:66.97.254.238 reverts deletion from Yosemite National Park

More information:

• Geobytes.com says that 204.75.125.173 is in San Ramon, California; 24.5.225.47 is in Dublin, California; and 66.97.254.238 is in Crosby, North Dakota.
• Zoneedit.com says that 204.75.125.173 is registered to Robert Half International, Inc. of Pleasanton, California; 24.5.225.47 is registered to Comcast, Bay Area; 66.97.254.238 is registered to Dakota Carrier Network.

Thus, 66.97.254.238 is probably not the same person as 204.75.125.173 and/or 24.5.225.47 .

I personally don't much care whether the compassmonkey.com links are in or out, but I think we should be consistent about it across all 30+ articles.

Comments? -- hike395 06:38, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Our external links policy states that they should be to high content sites that add information Misplaced Pages articles lack. Compassmonkey consists simply of brief bits of public domain U.S. government information repackaged with ads. - SimonP 06:49, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

The reversion by User:66.97.254.238 was me, not noticing that I was no longer logged in. I don't particularly care one way or another, and haven't even looked into this yet. But the main point is that I don't like somebody claiming "consensus" on something that hasn't even been mentioned on the talk page (a reference to anther talk page may do if it is under discussion in detail elsewhere). Gene Nygaard 11:03, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)