Camp 4 is now reservation only.

At this point I just don’t know what to say to you people.

Well aren't you wonderful. Thank you for your amazing service.

As a point of order, Camp 4 would no longer exist were it not for climbers saving it.

Gerald Adamswrote:

How about a climber's ranch in El Portal or Foresta  like the Grand Teton Climber's Ranch ? They are both  bike rides from the Valley . 

Be realistic. Almost no one is going to do that grind of a hill more than once, if at all, other than the masochistic animals among us. 

Pro tip (not sure about Yosemite, but this is the case in almost every campsite that requires reservations on Recreation.gov):

There is a very high rate of no-shows for campsite reservations. People will make site reservations months in advance and then change their minds without canceling, leaving sites vacant even though online it says everything is booked. If you show up and ask the campsite host if there are any open sites, chances are very good they will let you take one.

Alan Rubinwrote:

“Entitled” is one of the most overused concepts these days. However, I’ll bite. Whether you consider it to be ‘entitled’ or not, is it wrong to say that when there is a limited resource that has particular value to a specific user group, that said user group get some level of preference for access to that resource, even in a National Park?

Yes, it is.

 Not everything can, or should, be handled in a ‘blindly equal’ manner. So, in my opinion, climbers should have preferential access to Camp 4 and longer stay limits. Sure there will be no perfect way to administer such a system, but I still believe that it would be better than the current system. I realize that we will never be able to return to what some on here were fortunate enough to experience from the 50s-80s, but that doesn’t mean that it is ‘sinful’ to believe that climbers are in fact entitled to special consideration concerning access to Camp 4.

The thing is, Camp 4 was never exclusively for climbers. BITD, while some non-climbers stayed there, most didn't for a variety of reasons. Personally I've only stayed there two or three nights on different trips yet I've spent many months in Yosemite while living in CT. Why? Noise at all hours, crowded, worst bathrooms in the Valley, distance to the car for that forgotten dinner item, etc. Other than nostalgia and history, there's nothing else of value to Camp 4.

Bb Cc wrote:

It shouldn’t be a secret, in a busy park like Yosemite there should be a cutoff time (to show up or confirm with an additional fee for late arrival, say after 6 pm) and then first come first served.

For Camp 4 it is specified when you make a reservation that at 8:30 AM the next day if you haven't checked in they will cancel your reservation. This seems reasonable as it would be really unfortunate to lose your spot due to a one night travel delay.

Bb Cc wrote:

It shouldn’t be a secret, in a busy park like Yosemite there should be a cutoff time (to show up or confirm with an additional fee for late arrival, say after 6 pm) and then first come first served.

So replace the old 5am waiting line with one at 5 (or 4 or 3) pm instead?

Marc801 Cwrote:

Yes, it is.

The thing is, Camp 4 was never exclusively for climbers. BITD, while some non-climbers stayed there, most didn't for a variety of reasons. Personally I've only stayed there two or three nights on different trips yet I've spent many months in Yosemite while living in CT. Why? Noise at all hours, crowded, worst bathrooms in the Valley, distance to the car for that forgotten dinner item, etc. Other than nostalgia and history, there's nothing else of value to Camp 4.

Actually, if my memory is correct, at least in the '60s, Camp 4 was the designated campground for people with pets--so disreputable folks such as climbers were a logical fit. 

I personally feel that "nostalgia and history" themselves have considerable value (but, then, I am a history buff!!!). But in addition to that, Camp 4 does have other 'things of value' for climbers--starting with the boulders. It is also, if memory serves me (it has been many years since I was last there), the campground that offers the easyist walking access to the most climbs of any in the Valley--definitely something I took advantage of during my almost always carless stays there BITD. I don't know about the current 'layout', but in the past, it also had more options for a bit of privacy than the typical Yosemite campground. For anyone interested in some excellent vignettes of Camp 4 in the "Golden Age', as well as much else on Yosemite climbers during that period, I highly recommend a read of Going Higher by Joe Fitschen.

Man I have not been on the forums in a minute! Warms the cockles of my heart to see the grouchy old men are still alive and being grouchy about stuff! 

I have petitioned for years (read told my friends over and over) that we need to dynamite the road into Yos and make it a back country destination. One it'll keep out some of you grouchy old guys bc your knees are bad and two it will cut down on the mindless tourism. 

I will be submitting this proposal to the NPS now.

Marc801 Cwrote:

Yes, it is.

The thing is, Camp 4 was never exclusively for climbers. BITD, while some non-climbers stayed there, most didn't for a variety of reasons. Personally I've only stayed there two or three nights on different trips yet I've spent many months in Yosemite while living in CT. Why? Noise at all hours, crowded, worst bathrooms in the Valley, distance to the car for that forgotten dinner item, etc. Other than nostalgia and history, there's nothing else of value to Camp 4.

Where are these campgrounds you’re staying at inside Yosemite Valley where there aren’t noise and crowds? Compared to the Pines campgrounds (the closest comparison), I would much rather stay in Camp 4, where the no-cars rule makes it feel like there is more space at the sites, and you don’t have to listen to any generators. Plus, the new bathrooms/showers aren’t bad!

Alan Rubinwrote:

“Entitled” is one of the most overused concepts these days. However, I’ll bite. Whether you consider it to be ‘entitled’ or not, is it wrong to say that when there is a limited resource that has particular value to a specific user group, that said user group get some level of preference for access to that resource, even in a National Park? Not everything can, or should, be handled in a ‘blindly equal’ manner. So, in my opinion, climbers should have preferential access to Camp 4 and longer stay limits.

I strongly disagree with the idea of "particular value to a specific group" when it comes to recreation. Is Yosemite not a mecca for hikers as much as it is for climbers? Does the minivan family who has been dreaming of seeing the Valley for decades get less value out of the place than the SF tech bro who goes every weekend to top rope Grant's? Should a pro climber get preferential treatment in the big wall permit process over someone doing their first wall? Trying to create a tiered system of recreational value is an impossible task.

Kevin DeWeese wrote:

Ok Hayduke

I don't think you understand, I want NPS to do this service for us. I believe Hayduke would have done it himself. I am much too lazy to do it myself and I never go there anymore (seen it once amirite) so I do not really care.

Cherokee Nuneswrote:

Well aren't you wonderful. Thank you for your amazing service.

As a point of order, Camp 4 would no longer exist were it not for climbers saving it.

I’n not wonderful or terrible (probably somewhere in the middle, though). My point was pretty clear though - you don’t have any more rights than anyone else, and you certainly don’t get to lay claim to anything “because you’re a taxpayer.” Your tax money, as well as campground fees, etc. go to administration of our lands. That’s not encroaching on sheeeeeit.

History is great and all, and that C4 might exist now because of climbers saving it in the past doesn’t mean climbers should have any special treatment now. 

Big Redwrote:

I strongly disagree with the idea of "particular value to a specific group" when it comes to recreation. Is Yosemite not a mecca for hikers as much as it is for climbers? Does the minivan family who has been dreaming of seeing the Valley for decades get less value out of the place than the SF tech bro who goes every weekend to top rope Grant's? Should a pro climber get preferential treatment in the big wall permit process over someone doing their first wall? Trying to create a tiered system of recreational value is an impossible task.

I clearly see things differently, but I am not arguing for excluding others, just that some % of Camp 4 sites be primarily for climbers. Isn't the Park already making special concessions for some by having camping sites set up for RVs? What about the concession for the very well-to-do called the Ahwahnee? No, everyone isn't treated equally even in the National Parks. Sorry to disillusion you Big Red.

Alan Rubinwrote:

I clearly see things differently, but I am not arguing for excluding others, just that some % of Camp 4 sites be primarily for climbers. Isn't the Park already making special concessions for some by having camping sites set up for RVs? What about the concession for the very well-to-do called the Ahwahnee? No, everyone isn't treated equally even in the National Parks. Sorry to disillusion you Big Red.

Even if you think this is a good idea, it seems impossible to implement.  Gotta show your pink tricam to get a site?  

In the future when a special permit will be required for any and all rock climbing, it will make more sense: permitted climbers only in C4.  

Alan Rubinwrote:

I clearly see things differently, but I am not arguing for excluding others, just that some % of Camp 4 sites be primarily for climbers. Isn't the Park already making special concessions for some by having camping sites set up for RVs? What about the concession for the very well-to-do called the Ahwahnee? No, everyone isn't treated equally even in the National Parks. Sorry to disillusion you Big Red.

Please define who is a 'climber'? 

Alan Rubinwrote:

 No, everyone isn't treated equally even in the National Parks. Sorry to disillusion you Big Red.

I won't argue there - I definitely think the Ahwahnee should be leveled to make a walk-in campground.

Norman Pelakwrote:

Where are these campgrounds you’re staying at inside Yosemite Valley where there aren’t noise and crowds? Compared to the Pines campgrounds (the closest comparison), I would much rather stay in Camp 4, where the no-cars rule makes it feel like there is more space at the sites, and you don’t have to listen to any generators. Plus, the new bathrooms/showers aren’t bad!

Does that not also apply to other tourists?

Big Redwrote:

I won't argue there - I definitely think the Ahwahnee should be leveled to make a walk-in campground.

And this is precisely why you shouldn't be in charge of making any decisions for the Park.

Perhaps the refrain "The Land of the Free" has become eroded and is now better described as the land of the compliant reflected in crass comments regarding climbing history and lack of respect for first ascentionists.

Hear, hear! We are lucky to even have Camp4 to stay in. Did anyone mention this was Tom Frost's initiative to save the campground and list it as a historic place?

Here is an excellent article (<--link) detailing how much work went into preserving the awesome melting pot that is Camp4 !