The iconic Yosemite National Park in the United States has long been a target for commercial interests. The latest example: disclosures that the Trump administration explored a land swap that could let a private developer build a road to a resort adjacent to the park.
In the U.S., reporting has revealed that the Trump White House considered a parcel exchange that would enable a private developer to construct a roadway providing access to a real-estate development on the edge of Yosemite — the country’s first national park, home to the famous climbing wall El Capitan. For Michael W. Childers, historian and author of The Mountains Are Calling: Tourists and the Unmaking of Yosemite National Park, this episode is part of a long trend toward commercialization and gradual privatization of the park, with serious risks for its ecological health. We spoke about a future that could quickly unravel.
Vertige Media — A few weeks ago, U.S. outlet Notus (now The Washington Sun) reported that a private real-estate project might gain road access to Yosemite. What exactly is being proposed?
Why a Simple Mistake in Your Online Pension Application Could Cost You Your Retirement Benefits
The ultimate trick to banish mold from your bathroom grout in just 7 minutes—no vinegar or baking soda needed
Michael W. Childers — A Las Vegas developer wants to build a tourist complex immediately west of the park. To get there, the plan envisions a private road crossing land that is currently part of Yosemite. The developer would give up a parcel to the federal government in exchange for a strip of park-adjacent land that would connect the resort to the park’s road system.
But the stakes go beyond that single land deal. The proposal would allow a private development to leverage Yosemite as a commercial asset and would continue a trend of ever-larger developments springing up around and within national parks.
What does this project say about current park policy?
It comes while the Trump administration has been cutting resources for the National Park Service and pushing for greater private-sector involvement in park management. The core debate is about purpose: should parks be profit centers, or preserved public places for Americans to enjoy?
Federal administrations can reshape budgets, staffing, and priorities at the Park Service. Over the last 25 years there’s been a pendulum swing between conservation and state retrenchment, which has made park maintenance and wildlife protection more difficult.
Is the push to make parks profitable grounded in real economic interests?
Yes. Towns around Yosemite — places like Mariposa, Lee Vining, and Oakhurst — rely heavily on visitor spending. National parks generate hundreds of millions of dollars for the U.S. economy through lodging, campgrounds, restaurants, transportation and other tourism-related expenditures. That economic dependence complicates the debate: locals need the income, but growing tourism can damage the very places that attract visitors.
When did private interests start trying to profit from Yosemite?
Almost from the beginning. In 1859 James Hutchings settled in the valley a few years after the military conquest of the land and the displacement of Indigenous peoples. He built one of the first visitor lodgings, hosted tourists, and tried to claim roughly 160 acres (about 65 hectares). The Supreme Court rejected his claim, but his activity introduced the problem: how to prevent private profiteering from land many considered a common good.
In 1864 the valley and the Mariposa Grove of giant sequoias were entrusted to California to try to stave off private takeover. The state invested little, however. A national park was established in 1890 but didn’t initially include the valley; the valley returned to federal control in the early 20th century, and by then private businesses had already established themselves.
During the 1920s the National Park Service granted all the concessions to a single company, the Curry Company, which gradually built a commercial system: lodges, campgrounds, restaurants, gas stations, and more. That concentration made administration simpler but gave one company enormous influence over visitors’ experiences.
What exactly did Lincoln’s Yosemite Grant of 1864 protect?
First, keep in mind this was passed during the Civil War, a brutal conflict. San Francisco was prospering from the Gold Rush and a local elite sought to protect Yosemite as they’d sought to preserve Niagara Falls. These notables also supported the war effort financially, and California was politically important for Abraham Lincoln. So the Yosemite Grant was both conservationist and political.
The Grant gave California control of Yosemite Valley and the Mariposa Grove on the condition that they be preserved for public use, recreation, and enjoyment. The idea of a “resort” could, though, encourage visitation that favored wealthier classes.
Frederick Law Olmsted, who was charged with advising on management, argued for a more democratic vision: experiencing nature was essential for all citizens, especially after the war. He believed Yosemite should be accessible to the broad public. Because California didn’t commit adequate resources, pressure grew for federal protection. Yellowstone — created in 1872 as the first national park — would later provide a model for this new federal conservation policy.
You tell an illuminating story in your book about Galen Clark. Who was he?
Galen Clark was a failed farmer who had endured a number of setbacks. After his wife died and he moved to California, he suffered from tuberculosis and believed the mountain air could heal him. He settled near Yosemite and publicized the Mariposa Grove of giant sequoias. He did not “discover” the site — Indigenous peoples had known the grove for millennia — but he was the first white man to widely describe it and draw public attention.
Clark set up a modest lodging, guided visitors, and eventually became the guardian of the valley and the sequoias when the land was turned over to California. With scant resources, he had to protect, administer, and promote the place. His life embodies Yosemite’s enduring tension: a sincere desire to protect the trees, coupled with actions that made the site accessible to ever-larger numbers of visitors.
How did that tension show up during the 20th century?
One revealing case is Badger Pass, a ski area inside the park. In the 1920s the concessionaire encountered alpine skiing in Chamonix and wanted to bring that sport to the Sierra Nevada; he even imagined Yosemite hosting the Winter Olympics.
The Olympic-level plan failed, but a ski area opened in the 1930s. After World War II, millions of Americans began travelling for leisure; the Park Service responded with more roads, lodges and infrastructure. But the more the park is improved, the more visitors it draws.
In the 1970s the Music Corporation of America (later part of Universal Studios) bought the concessions company and pushed an entertainment-park logic that alarmed conservationists, who feared Yosemite becoming a theme park. Commercialization shapes both how a place is imagined and how people come to use it.
Have climbers avoided commercialization?
Not entirely. Debates over pitons, permanent anchors, and “clean climbing” echo the same question as broader land-use disputes: how far should we intervene in a natural environment?
Climbing has, however, become a mass activity and a commercial pastime. Yosemite developed a climbing school. Figures like Royal Robbins and Yvon Chouinard built businesses around the sport — Royal Robbins Clothing, Black Diamond, Patagonia. Indoor climbing gyms later popularized the sport. Climbers retain ties to an alternative culture and to advocacy for access, but they are also participants in the outdoor recreation economy and contribute to the park’s commercialization.
Is Yosemite really the pristine wilderness shown in climbing films and photos?
If you zoom out, the valley already resembles a town. As early as 1977 some referred to it as “Yosemite City.” The valley is roughly 8 km long and 5 km across and can host between 5,000 and 20,000 people overnight. It contains lodges, campgrounds, restaurants, a grocery, ranger stations, a museum, a cemetery and even a school.
Half Dome at times drew up to 1,200 people a day along its cables. The presence of ill-prepared hikers who died prompted the Park Service to restrict access. Even the famous Nose route on El Capitan is extremely busy: in Free Solo you can see Alex Honnold pass people sitting on the wall. Yosemite remains extraordinary, but it is not untouched wild country — it is a highly developed natural space that receives massive visitation.
Where does Yosemite stand among U.S. national parks?
It’s not always the most visited — Great Smoky Mountains usually tops the list, helped by a highway running through it — but Yosemite ranks among the top four most-visited parks. Its power lies mainly in its iconic status. The valley concentrates visitors in a way Yellowstone, with its far greater area, does not. Yosemite’s name has become almost synonymous with the American national park; it carries special symbolic weight.
What are the main ecological consequences of heavy visitation?
Yosemite hit a peak of about 5 million visitors in 2016; over the past decade annual visitation has hovered nearer 4 million. That level of use brings car-related air pollution, noise, trampling of vegetation and increased stress on wildlife. Bears have become dependent on human food, and interactions with people have led to the deaths of many animals.
There’s also an effect on the experience of nature: viewing a landscape alone is not the same as being surrounded by hundreds of thousands of people. The solitary encounter with the natural world that many say we should protect is increasingly rare.
How can Yosemite be safeguarded while remaining accessible?
First, the park needs more personnel: rangers, education and interpretation staff, and people who can maintain infrastructure. Yosemite was already understaffed before the Trump administration; staffing cuts have only worsened the problem.
A reservation system should be reinstated at least during peak periods. The pandemic provided a natural experiment: when visitor numbers dropped, rangers observed quieter valleys, birds returning and vegetation regenerating. Reservations raise questions of equitable access, but they’re a necessary tool to protect the park.
We must also rethink our own behavior. For a century we’ve told people that the best way to protect Yosemite is to visit it. Perhaps we need to accept visiting it once and then exploring less famous places afterward.
Yosemite is one of America’s most emblematic parks: its fame is a strength and also a vulnerability. Finally, the role of Indigenous peoples must be acknowledged. For many visitors Yosemite is a destination; for Indigenous communities it is home and territory. Including them in park management is essential.
These measures are urgent. If we continue along the same path as the last twenty or thirty years, we cannot be sure we’ll be able to hand Yosemite intact to future generations.
Vertige Media is a publication that treats climbing as a social, cultural and political phenomenon. No competition results or athlete statistics — instead, in-depth analyses of what the sport means and investigative reporting into the world behind the climbs. Its mission in three words? Open the voice.
Similar Posts
- Chad Ends African Parks’ Management of National Reserves: A Shift in Conservation Strategy
- Rising Waters in Louisiana: Trump Fires Coastal Protectors Amid Climate Crisis
- Trump’s Push for Global Free Speech Rights: Ex-Adviser Reveals Administration’s Bold Move
- Government Plans to Cut Costs: National Parks on the Chopping Block
- Donald Trump Opens Huge Marine Sanctuary to Fishing: Environmental Impact Feared
Hi, I’m Ashley from the Decatur Metro team. I share essential information for a sustainable and responsible lifestyle.
