[calinet6]

This is absolutely disgusting.

I wonder if it had been a more prominent natural area, such as Yosemite Valley or Muir Woods or Yellowstone where he decided to build his castle. Surely he could afford whatever fines would be levied anywhere, but the public outcry would have been far more prominent, the beauty of the areas well-known and understood and agreed-upon.

These are places we have mutually determined to protest and hold sacred in our country. The National Parks and Forests, especially in the West, where there is some notion that the natural land—the wilderness—is above the petty desires of human folly. The green that grows trumps that which is printed, and no man can override it.

I grew up summers in Yosemite, in the high country, where in two days you can hike to places that perhaps no man has ever set foot. There is something sacred about that, not in a religious way but in a sense of truth and place and knowing the world which produced you by whatever means.

I know a grove of trees and a stream there. They is as nondescript and unremarkable as this one, except that they are absolutely remarkable for their beauty. If anyone built a castle there, I'd personally assist in bringing them to justice, and personally assist in restoring the land to its natural state. I'm thankful that the protection of the National Park and surrounding wilderness areas are present to prevent this sort of destruction in at least certain regions.

I'm not saying this is the ultimate slight against nature; far from it. It's a small thing. But it shows a lack of respect and carelessness that need not be rewarded, and in this case, I think the punishment and disrespect directed toward this event is entirely valid. We cannot prevent every use of the land, but we can encourage respect and understanding. In this case there was no respect and no understanding—especially not of riparian habitats and stream management—those regulations are there for good reasons and you can't pick and choose haphazardly whether you follow them.

If you've ever been to Big Sur, you know it's a special place, regardless of the imaginary borders we may or may not choose to lay down in symbolic protection. I'm happy that however small this infraction might have been, it will be met with fines and public humiliation. Silicon valley excess? That's up for debate, but who cares? It was dumb and disgusting.

[scarmig]

But Big Sur is hardly some little known park. It's well above Muir Woods in annual visitors (I'm seeing 3M vs 700k) and not too far behind Yosemite (3M vs 4M).

I'm pretty surprised that there hasn't been an uproar over it yet. This is the first I've heard of it. Good on Madrigal.

[calinet6]

Well, the problem is jurisdiction and ownership. Big Sur isn't a National Park, it's really just a region, including a State Park scattered around an area with privately owned land as well. In contrast, Muir Woods is just a very small national monument (AFAIK, hence its small visitation) and Yosemite has the protection of the NPS and federal government.

Looks like the hotel was on private land, so really the issue is the waterway modifications and general carelessness with regards to laws and regulations. Those laws and regulations are still extremely important: water is a complex subject especially in the west. In this case the river flows directly through the state park and has many ecological considerations, as well as fishing (salmon spawning) and other wildlife.

So, it's still private land, but anything that happens to a stream in California has gotta be done right or you're in trouble, and there's a damn good reason why even if you don't like fish.