Would it be blasphemy to suggest that Yosemite National Park get out of the ski business?
Now, that's not expected to happen any time soon, but that question does come to mind as park officials turn to the task of tending to the time-burdened Badger Pass Ski Lodge, an historic structure in California's alpine ski history. Built in 1935, the day lodge not only anchored that state's very first alpine resort, but its architecture also reflected "Parkitecture" with a dollop of Swiss chalet influence.
As time understandably has taken a toll on the resort lodge, Yosemite officials now want your input on how best to address that toll. Beginning on January 14 and running for 30 days, Yosemite officials will take your comments to help them compile an environmental assessment outlining how best to tend to the lodge's needs.
The purpose of the rehabilitation project is to provide a phased program for rehabilitation of the Badger Pass Ski Lodge that will:
* Maintain and protect the integrity of the historic Badger Pass Day Lodge and character-defining features of the Badger Pass cultural landscape;
* Treat critical deck, structural, and drainage deficiencies contributing to past and ongoing water-intrusion damage;
* Replace temporary structures with permanent buildings of compatible construction to maintain continued ski area operations; and
* Maintain ski area service and support functions while protecting the winter recreation visitor experience at Badger Pass Ski Area.
The rehabilitation would protect areas of primary historical significance, while allowing flexibility to accommodate the needs associated with current and future Ski Area use in non-character-defining areas.
The lodge rests in Monroe Meadow at an elevation of 7,200 feet at Badger Pass, roughly midway between Wawona and Yosemite Valley. It is accessible year round via Glacier Point Road and has served as a family ski area and winter recreation center in Yosemite since 1935.
Park officials say repairs to the lodge are needed to "protect its historic integrity, assure visitor safety, and maintain ski-area visitor services while preserving the natural and cultural resources at the ski area."
But what if someone suggested that the lodge be wiped from the park's landscape? Would Yosemite officials consider that? How appropriate is it for a national park to feature a downhill ski resort? After all, when the Disney empire wanted to build such a resort in the Mineral Basin area of what today is part of Sequoia National Park, there was an incredible uproar, one that lasted nearly 20 years until the U.S. Forest Service gave the land in question to the Park Service to prevent its development.
And once upon a time there was a downhill ski area in Rocky Mountain National Park, but it was shuttered in 1991 after 36 years of operations.
As to the historic nature of the Badger Pass Lodge, some no doubt would claim the O'Shaughnessy Dam that is responsible for the reservoir that fills Hetch-Hetchy Valley is historic, but many no doubt also would applaud if it were dismantled.
On the other hand, for many long-time Yosemite vacationers, Badger Pass is key to their wintry pilgrimages to the park. They learned to ski there, as did their parents, and now their kids. To them, the Badger Pass Ski Area is as much part of the Yosemite experience as is climbing Half Dome, floating the Merced, or picnicking on the shores of Tenaya Lake.
Plus, the ski area has a small footprint, covering just 80 acres, and is relatively far removed from the Yosemite Valley and its iconic geology. Expansion is not in its future, and the mellow nature of the resort -- 80 percent of the runs are rated either for beginners or intermediates -- lends to its low-key, generally unobtrusive nature.
“Badger Pass is here to stay. Anything you write, those last six words are the most important message I can give you,” says Kenny Karst, public relations manager for DNC Parks & Resorts at Yosemite, Inc., the park's main concessionaire. “It is a family institution in the Sierra. It is the oldest ski resort in the Sierra Nevada. It also is renowned for its ski school, so if someone wants to learn how to ski, Badger Pass is the place to visit.”
While there were rumblings back in 2003 that perhaps Badger Pass had outlived its usefulness, DNC thinks otherwise. This past summer it invested $2.5 million in not only applying paint to the day lodge but, essentially, rebuilding the Eagle chairlift with a new motor house, control room, wheel assemblies and haul cable. Plus, DNC has bolstered its marketing efforts.
And it shouldn't be overlooked that Badger Pass offers tubing, cross-country skiing, and snowshoeing options for winter park visitors. How fair would it be to do away with alpine skiing but allow these other winter activities to continue?
Support Essential Coverage of Essential Places
Comments
Is it "blasphemy" to take out a ski-operation & lodge in a National Park? No, I think it is viewed as blasphemous, to have such a facility in a Park.
Those who like having a resort & ski development in the Park will not regard proposals to remove it as "blasphemous", but rather as yet another example of environmentalist extremism - and intolerance.
If an old resort such as described in this article is still popular, well-liked and meeting the needs of an important part of society, then I see no compelling reason to remove it.
Actually, I suspect that it is really those who dislike the presence of this business & venue, who feel blasphemed.
Myself, I certainly see no reason to 'carry' a derelict old business on the budget, especially if is no longer filling its role. Just because we have this once-cute ol' chateau up on the mountain, does not strike me as obligating us to treat it as some shrine, pour money into something purely because it's on some 'registry'.
If the outfit is done-in and unwanted, clear it out. If it's run-down & needs work, but is well-liked and serves many people, then fix it.
The ski area in Rocky Mountain National Park mentioned above was originally called Hidden Valley and briefly renamed Ski Estes (after the town of Estes Park on the east side of the park). It was established in 1955, and although it did cease operations in 1991, it was several years before the Park Service actually took down the lifts (a couple of T-bars, a couple of Pomas and for a time, also a double chairlift) and not until 2002 that the old day lodge was demolished. There is now a warming hut and restrooms, plus sleddiing/saucering on that was once the beginner slope. The ghost ski trails are popular w/ snowshoers as well as with telemarkers and snowboarders who hike high up to the ghost runs on the upper mountain. Trail Ridge Road, which is not plowed, bissects the upper and lower parts of the former ski area.
Also in Colorado, the Berthoud Pass ski area, though on Forest Service and not on NPS land, had the first double chairlift in the state and a base lodge built in 1937 in a National Park style (i.e., boxy and brown). In the '40s, roughly 1/3 of all Colorado skiers skied at Berthoud. I-70 and the big resorts later eclipsed it, and it limped in and out of service through several owners. In the end, the USFS removed the lifts and tore down the old lodge in 2005, later replacing it with a warming hut. It too is a popular area for backcountry skiers.
There was also once a ski area at Lassen Volcano NP in California. Its old A-frame lodge is still standing, or was when we went there five or so years ago.
All, some or none of this may relate to the ultimate fate of the Badger Pass lodge.
Claire @ http://travel-babel.blogspot.com
I have mixed feelings on the issue of downhill ski facilities in the National Parks. On the one hand, thousands of sharp ski edges and the oil dripping from the lift cables & grooming machinery cause noticeable vegetative impacts. Ski areas do provide more incentive for the NPS to provide access for other types of non-motorized winter recreation, though.
When the small poma lift & rope tows operated at Paradise here at Mount Rainier until the early 70's, the Park Service seemed to take pride in meeting the challenge of opening the road daily and most of the Rangers actually ranged on skis. Even with 2WD GSA patrol vehicles and surplus beater plows & trucks from Bremerton that the Navy had given up on, on average the road opened about one hour past eight AM for every six inches of new snow. Currently that figure is about one hour for every two inches and declining every year. This despite less average snow, more powerful equipment, and a fleet of SUV's that would make a Saudi prince blush.
Non-openings and extended closures are also increasingly common. A large percentage of local winter recreationists are choosing not to waste their time here, to the dismay of local businesses. It seems as though the NPS would rather raise the drawbridge and polish their brass buffaloes all winter.
C'mon Frank, this is America. Isn't becoming a success the American dream? Don't you aspire to better yourself and your family? The Jacobs' family success is the American dream, with three brothers earning their start in business selling peanuts and popcorn at ball games.
Now, I'm not taking sides pro- or con-concessionaires, but if you're going to deride Mr. Jacobs the flip side should at least point out that while he is a billionaire, he and his wife also give millions to charities each year.
Source: Wikipedia.org
At first, I was tempted to comment on keeping this "precuious jewel" and continue the tradition for a relaxing getaway for many world families to visit. However, when I read Mr. Repanshek's sob story of how my federal tax dollars are used to maintain a wealthy man wealthier.....I think you should geat real. Hell, If i was rich, I too would donate millions of dollars to my faviorite charity. You are a typical "American Business sucker" who falls for the small change money when tax payers are footing the bigger bill.
I believe that the resort needs to be torn down and or have a "real" private corporation build a new resort without the help of our federal tax dollars.
And for Frank, thank you for the information. You keep fighting! Becuase I do the same in my region of the country! You are not alone.
If we could retire All the persons in the world who think and act like Mr. Repanshek, Our Great Country will be restored as it was once with "Good Morals and Ethics".
Happy New year to all
I was the ranger at Badger for a couple winters. There is a lot of park history tied up in downhill skiing at the park. I am inclined to vote for keeping it as a low-key, family-oriented place. It's also a great jumping off point for day ski tours to Dewey Pt. and longer overnight tours to Glacier Point and the Ostrander ski hut.
I'll leave the argument about concessions, capitalism, corporate-bashing and what constitutes success to other posters.
Rick Smith
Geez, Alexander, Happy New Year to you, too!
I don't see where I was telling a "sob story" at all. All I was merely pointing out (after noting that I was not taking a stand one way or another on the business practices of concessionaires) was that the Jacobs family had very American roots but because they succeeded at their business (under the rules of the game, by the way) they were being ridiculed. You might say they succeeded because of "Our Great Country" and the opportunities it offers.
And really, it's not federal dollars that are keeping DNC in business. It's the dollars out of the pockets of Yosemite visitors. True, the federal government technically owns the structures that DNC runs its operations out of, and is responsible for most of the upkeep beyond the 17-20 percent (if that's the correct percentage) that DNC must send back to the government. But if the rooms weren't full, if the restaurants weren't busy, if the gift shops weren't crowded, DNC wouldn't be there.
And if you've been following the state of the National Park System, you know the government's not doing the best job in maintaining those facilities. Indeed, as I understand it one of the reasons the DNCs, Xanterras and ARAMARKS of the world have little competition for park concession contracts is because 1) the rate of return is so low and/or 2) smaller companies just don't have the financial wherewithal to survive in a highly seasonal market with rundown facilities.
If it weren't for government oversight, would it be too hard to assume that concessionaires likely would invest more heavily to upgrade these facilities and pass the cost on to the taxpayers in the form of higher rates (and possibly pay their employees more, but that's just speculation). And then taxpayers would be howling that the government isn't doing enough to make national parks affordable. So which model would you prefer?
Suffice to say that the intricacies of the national park concessions market are too many to distill in a few short graphs.
And finally, Alexander, before you measure me for a coffin, know that sometimes, just sometimes, I take an approach to spur dialog, not to hold it out as my strongly held personal view.
Frank, I follow your point re the transfer of wealth but, sadly, it too is the American way, is it not?. Standard Oil might have been the model. Wall Street firms are only the latest iteration. And what did public outrage in light of those bloated salaries and insane bonuses produce? Some of the fat cats are going to forgo their year-end 2008 bonuses. Gosh. It might be said that we (America) are victims of our own success, no?
As for DNC's pay practices, are they not the industry standard? Wal-Mart might have perfected the use of retirees as door greeters, but if you look around many park concession operations you'll see retirees working the tills, as well as young (low-paid) college students interested in an adventure before they get serious with life and, of late, Eastern Europeans or Asians looking to solidify a foot in the U.S. (To be fair, I understand some operations offer benefit packages and 401Ks, but I don't know the extent of those or how widespread (up and down the pay scale or throughout the operation) that practice is.)
I'm not endorsing that model in the least. In a way it's not too far removed from the Park Service's move to use volunteers, seasonals and outsourcing to replace full-time rangers, a practice I've long criticized. Unfortunately, it seems to be what society is tolerating.
And really, isn't what's transpiring with the concessions companies simply free-market economics? If the market balked at their rates and their employment practices, wouldn't that lead to change or failure?
Beyond all that, though, what model would you suggest replace the concessions companies? Should the federal government buy out the DNCs and Xanterras of the world and hand the businesses over to non-profits? And if so, where would the government find the hundreds of millions (small billions?) and the non-profits fully capable of running such businesses to do so?
And let's not overlook that non-profits have been known to overpay their top executives (I believe the head of the Boy Scouts gets nearly $1 million annually) while the minions far below are volunteers. Some university trusts pay their managers exorbitant salaries and bonuses. I would suggest the situation in the parks you decry is not that far removed from what's going on in the rest of America's business sectors.
Frank,
Interesting concept, but.....
...You paid 16 pounds per ticket, which works out (today) to about $46 and change for the two of you to tour the Tower. So a family of four could be expected to pay between $75-$100 just to gain entrance for one day? So you're OK with denying access to Americans, whose taxes go a good ways to supporting the National Park System (in theory), who balk at such pricing?
...The non-profit partners with the Diamond Trading Company, aka De Beers, and a private investing firm to achieve its financial goals, so the business isn't entirely self-supporting.
...The report is a bit cryptic, but it seems to indicate they stage private events in the Tower (and other properties) to defray costs. Now, I realize some park units lease out their facilities for events, but I don't think for a profit.
...They are dragging their feet on paying bills:
...Four of their staff were paid between $159,000 and $174,000 annually, 12 made nearly $87,000. The CEO made $202,000+ this past year, an increase of $10,000+ from the year before (an increase of roughly 5% in salary, plus another 3.6% in pension benefits). It's unclear what the salary ranges of the rest of the staff of 564 were, so it's hard without further sleuthing to compare this salary structure to that of an American concessionaire.
All that said, I'm in favor of searching for a better business model. I just don't think it's easily attainable due to the scale involved with the National Park System.