Yosemite reservation required 2024

For exactly no reason they’ve bumped it up to a 5am start from formerly 7am. Who the hell is deciding this? It’s been annoying in the past but we just have made sure to enter before 7am. Now we’d have to drive in a 459am and then get yelled at by a ranger for being in your car at 5am. Extremely frustrating, this is just going to further incentivize people to not leave the park at night because they won’t be able to get back in. 

If they start staffing at 5am, I’ll be very surprised. 

I would also be absolutely floored to see a human at the gate anywhere even close to 5am but I’d have to imagine that’s part of the plan if they changed it to 5

Tanner James wrote:

Who the hell is deciding this? 

https://www.nps.gov/yose/getinvolved/visitoraccessmanagement.htm

John Clark wrote:

If they start staffing at 5am, I’ll be very surprised. 

I've rolled up to a national park gate at 5am and had a live human check my park pass. I was shocked because this wasn't even a wildly popular park. I don't quite remember which park, but I want to say Lassen, Rainier or Olympic.

I am 10000% sure if they say 5am...they will staff at 5am for Yosemite.

If people did not see this coming they were still asleep at 7am. One can easily stay outside the park and roll in by 7am while still getting a descent nights sleep. Rolling in 5am is going to be a dawn patrol. Which will take more effort. Fewer will make that effort.

I am actually surprised that the daily range is not all summer long. 

Do you need a reservation if you enter on foot ,skis, or on a bicycle only for a day ?

Fairly sure the reservation system is for motor vehicles only as all the language on the NPS site says "reservation required to drive".

In past years the reservations were easy to get, there wasn't any flexibility-limiting timed entry, and it really never limited my ability to access the park. As long as the situation remains similar, really not bothered by it.

Reservation system or not, Yosemite is still subject to the usual Yosemite hassles, which impact the experience way more than needing a reservation. If you want an uncrowded and minimally regulated experience, there are many other great places in the Sierra.

Do my CA taxes help maintain 120 thorugh the park? we know my fed taxes do..... I technically own part of that road and should be able to use it at will to get from one gate of the park to another without reservation.

Whacky if true.

Mr Rogers wrote:

Do my CA taxes help maintain 120 thorugh the park? we know my fed taxes do..... I technically own part of that road and should be able to use it at will to get from one gate of the park to another without reservation.

Whacky if true.

The portion of that road you own through taxes would probably fit in a ziplock bag.

John Clark wrote:

The portion of that road you own through taxes would probably fit in a ziplock bag.

Yes.
Its about access to use public infrastructure like a highway.

*I don't know enough about legal precedent to claim any validity of my super general knowledge on the rights around being on public infrastructure my taxes pay for™

Bb Cc wrote:

Yes, your ignorance shows.

Cool.
Care to enlighten or just be a dick that is as ignorant as me?

Mr Rogers wrote:

Do my CA taxes help maintain 120 thorugh the park? we know my fed taxes do..... I technically own part of that road and should be able to use it at will to get from one gate of the park to another without reservation.

Whacky if true.

Caltrans doesn’t manage 120 within the park.  The national park is in charge of road repairs, plowing, etc within the gates on 120.

 So don’t think your tax dollars (for CA taxes) cover that part of the road.

  This has been an ongoing issue for people who pay county taxes within Tuolumne county and Mariposa county,  as use of the road  can be imperative to travel between towns.  This was a rather big issue for us during COVID as the closest testing center was in Mariposa or Yosemite Valley and was a PiTA to get access to those areas other than the 49.

  They seemed to have fixed the issue during the last round of reservations, allowing local zip codes to pass through without a pass (though I did know a lot of ppl initially who were turned around as the information was not passed down reliably to the rangers manning by the stations).  Personally,  I just buy passes for my weekends when they go up for grabs - I never have an issue supporting national parks as god knows they need funding to keep up with the rising demand of use.  

This is where my critique stems.... Tell me again my ignorance, but this reads pretty clear.

II Am. Jur. (1st) Constitutional Law, Sec. 329, p. 1135 P. 3
“The right of a citizen to travel upon the public highways and to
transport his property thereon, by horsedrawn carriage, wagon, or
automobile, is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited
at will, but a common right which he has under his right to life, liberty
and the pursuit of happiness. Under this constitutional guarantee one
may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his inclination along
the public highways or in public places, and while conducting himself in
an orderly and decent manner, neither interfering with nor disturbing
IX
another’s rights, he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his
safe conduct.”

Yeah this is above my pay grade… my brain hurts thinking about things like this.  Maybe someone who studied law can explain federal fee use areas and public land rights.

  Or you can stick it to the park and never give them another dime, and climb north and south of the park boundaries (or hike into the park via east side access).

Patrick M wrote:

Personally,  I just buy passes for my weekends when they go up for grabs - I never have an issue supporting national parks as god knows they need funding to keep up with the rising demand of use.  

I believe those fees go to Booze Allen Hamilton? Thats how most of the online reservations for Rec.Gov seem to work

TaylorP wrote:

I believe those fees go to Booze Allen Hamilton? Thats how most of the online reservations for Rec.Gov seem to work

Yeah you are right

Mr Rogers wrote:

This is where my critique stems.... Tell me again my ignorance, but this reads pretty clear.

II Am. Jur. (1st) Constitutional Law, Sec. 329, p. 1135 P. 3
“

Oh no! It’s another person citing secondary authorities (in this case, American jurisprudence) as primary law, while conveniently ignoring settled case law and other secondary authorities. 

Spopepro O. wrote:

Oh no! It’s another person citing secondary authorities (in this case, American jurisprudence) as primary law, while conveniently ignoring settled case law and other secondary authorities. 

in case you missed this back a page there friend.

........

*I don't know enough about legal precedent to claim any validity of my super general knowledge on the rights around being on public infrastructure my taxes pay for™

Conveniently ignoring <  tried to find precedent and failed miserably.
Easy to cry foul when your offering no clarity around the subject.

Mr Rogers wrote:

in case you missed this back a page there friend.

Conveniently ignoring <  tried to find precedent and failed miserably.
Easy to cry foul when you’re offering no clarity around the subject.

My apologies, I didn’t think someone quoting a law library encyclopedia (and the first edition from the 1930s, not the current second edition from the 60s) was earnestly trying to find info. That particular passage is often dug up and passed around by the sovereign citizens crowd and I will not take any of those folks seriously. Watch out for anyone citing am. Jur. (1st) or an early edition of Black’s Law Dictionary(often the 1910 edition.)

The Wikipedia article on freedom of movement has a very good, concise summary of the case law over the years. Specifically you would want to refer to Hendrick v. Maryland (1915) which indicates that you while you might have a right to movement, you don’t get to pick your mode.