History behind YMS


Original Post
Nate Doyle · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Feb 2016 · Points: 10

Anyone know the history behind there only be one guide service permitted in Yosemite? 

kevin deweese · · Oakland, Ca · Joined Jan 2007 · Points: 350

Capitalism.

King Tut · · Citrus Heights · Joined Aug 2012 · Points: 420
Nate Doyle wrote:

Anyone know the history behind there only be one guide service permitted in Yosemite? 

All of the park guest services are contracted out to one and only one concessionaire with a few historic exceptions (ie Ansel Adams Gallery).

Though the concessionaire employees are unionized in a way (there is some kind of goofy seniority system used to retain the lifers), and some stay for decades, the contract for the concession specifies only one provider so no open competition other than the bidding for the contract.

YMS falls under this, and even though the operation of it is done by the same guys for years, the concessionaire contract has changed hands a few times.

Nate Doyle · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Feb 2016 · Points: 10

Thanks. I was wondering about that. Sure seems odd there only being one in such a large and popular climbing destination.

Ryan Huetter · · Mammoth Lakes, CA · Joined Apr 2006 · Points: 255

It depends on the Park how they choose to operate. Rainier for example has 3 permitted guide services and a CUA permit program. Grand Teton has just 2. Yosemite has the one. DNC (Now Aramark) would rather not have the added liability in running a rock climbing guiding operation in the Valley (horseback riding neither) but it's mandated by the park to provide these services.

There is action happening currently to expand the Yosemite rock guiding to a CUA system in which certified guides can apply for limited use permits to guide in the Park. So stay tuned. 

Martin le Roux · · Superior, CO · Joined Jul 2003 · Points: 234
kevin deweese wrote:

Capitalism.

Strangely enough, in the socialist paradise north of 49 degrees (Canada) no-one has a monopoly on guiding in national parks. Anyone who's suitably qualified can apply for a license to provide guiding services.

Nate Doyle · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Feb 2016 · Points: 10
Martin le Roux wrote:

Strangely enough, in the socialist paradise north of 49 degrees (Canada) no-one has a monopoly on guiding in national parks. Anyone who's suitably qualified can apply for a license to provide guiding services.

I'm interpreting this as an invitation to climb in Canada ;-)

Andrew Krajnik · · Plainfield, IL · Joined Jul 2016 · Points: 253
kevin deweese wrote:

Capitalism.

OK, I'll bite. How exactly is "capitalism" to blame? In a competitive free market, the only true monopolies that tend to persist are those that are supported by the government. In the absence of regulations or artificial barriers to entry, competition tends to flock to any market where a single producer is making money hand over fist, and the monopoly ceases to exist.

If free market capitalism were at play in the Valley, there would be many guiding services active there, as one might expect for such a popular climbing area.

King Tut · · Citrus Heights · Joined Aug 2012 · Points: 420
Andrew Krajnik wrote:

OK, I'll bite. How exactly is "capitalism" to blame? In a competitive free market, the only true monopolies that tend to persist are those that are supported by the government. In the absence of regulations or artificial barriers to entry, competition tends to flock to any market where a single producer is making money hand over fist, and the monopoly ceases to exist.

If free market capitalism were at play in the Valley, there would be many guiding services active there, as one might expect for such a popular climbing area.

Capitalism is a lie. It is ALL crony capitalism where campaign bribes are paid to politicians to ensure the largest companies have monopolies.

Its a "level playing field" for the little guys. Meanwhile, connected companies get billions in welfare one way or the other.

Be that as it may, I have no insight as to how the concessionaire bidding process works and what (if any) price regulations there are for goods and services other than the one concessionaire runs the show.

Andrew Krajnik · · Plainfield, IL · Joined Jul 2016 · Points: 253
King Tut wrote:

Capitalism is a lie. It is ALL crony capitalism where campaign bribes are paid to politicians to ensure the largest companies have monopolies.

Its a "level playing field" for the little guys. Meanwhile, connected companies get billions in welfare one way or the other.

I agree that crony capitalism is just as damaging as crony socialism. As I said, the only monopolies that tend to persist are those that are supported by the government. How does paying a politician ensure that your company has a monopoly? Because that politician is in a position to place barriers to your competition. That's NOT free market capitalism.

kevin deweese · · Oakland, Ca · Joined Jan 2007 · Points: 350
Andrew Krajnik wrote:

the only true monopolies that tend to persist are those that are supported by the government.

Your answer is in your question. The public sector is the home of regulations and policies that purport to be market-based but are (as said above) actually crony capitalism. Capitalism is not the theory we learned about in textbooks, capitalism is the practice of maximizing profits by any means necessary. The only time there is a "free" market is when the government steps in to curtail the loopholes that capitalism seeks to maximize. When the sickness reaches into the government and thus the public sector, you get these monopolistic issues that will not be fixed by the government as the government was the one to set it up. 

Add to that the pressure placed upon departments that are not perceived as valuable by the government at large (natural resource protection in this case) and those departments have to ride the capitalism tiger simply to have the funding they need because congress is always going to be tightening those purse strings to siphon that funding to another source that they see as more valuable (read as"supporting their donors")

Yury · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Oct 2014 · Points: 0
Nate Doyle wrote:

Anyone know the history behind there only be one guide service permitted in Yosemite? 

Nate, how old are you?

Do you really need an explanation why government bureaucrats prefer dealing with a single vendor?

Hint: Nothing personal - strictly business.

Nate Doyle · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Feb 2016 · Points: 10
Yury wrote:

Nate, how old are you?

Do you really need an explanation why government bureaucrats prefer dealing with a single vendor?

Hint: Nothing personal - strictly business.

That's odd.

FrankPS · · Atascadero, CA · Joined Nov 2009 · Points: 275
Yury wrote:

Do you really need an explanation why government bureaucrats prefer dealing with a single vendor?

Keep in mind that the Forest Service allows multiple concessionaires (guide companies) in a given area (e.g.,Inyo National Forest), so why only one in YNP?  Both the National Park Service and the Forest Service are government agencies.

Brandon.Phillips · · Portola, CA · Joined May 2011 · Points: 55

1: Each park makes its own policy on guiding services and it usually seems both bizarre and arbitrary.  The US is lacking behind Europe in the sense of who guides and who is a qualified guide. 

2: Can capitalism exist without the state? Many convincing arguments say it cannot. So could free market capitalism ever exist in a tangible reality that has the limitations of natural resources? Free market advocates will say that we can innovate our way out of such constraints, but it doesn't hold up to scrutiny. I don't think the free market mentality can hold up to scrutiny or reality.

Marc801 C · · Sandy, Utah · Joined Feb 2014 · Points: 65
FrankPS wrote:

Keep in mind that the Forest Service allows multiple concessionaires (guide companies) in a given area (e.g.,Inyo National Forest), so why only one in YNP?  Both the National Park Service and the Forest Service are government agencies.

But two different agencies, able to set their own rules  for what they manage.

kevin deweese · · Oakland, Ca · Joined Jan 2007 · Points: 350

Keep in mind that the department and specific park making the decision about monopolies or not are not thinking about the effect upon the user groups. They're only thinking in terms of the positive effect upon the park itself, and by effect, the number one consideration is going to be funding. (Obviously they will care about the effect upon the user IF that effect causes greater revenue for the park) (and by "positive effect upon the park" often a choice between one decision that is positive and another that is positive AND helps the decision maker on some way, the decision will always fall to the latter)

Guideline #1: Don't be a jerk.

Post a Reply

Log In to Reply