This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Hike395 (talk | contribs) at 00:19, 8 July 2003 (uplift seems pretty well established). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 00:19, 8 July 2003 by Hike395 (talk | contribs) (uplift seems pretty well established)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)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)