This discussion presents an interesting opportunity. I read the initial article linked to above a couple of times, and compared the content of the article with the discussion that followed. I don't find much correlation.
There is no law suit involved, there is no consideration of increasing any risk of the river overflowing (in fact one consideration is reducing flooding of the bridle path arch in the Stoneman) there is no hint of changing the river's course or allowing it to change.
There is no domination of the discussion by any extreme position on either side, and in fact the proposals in the plans under consideration for removing Stoneman are in the minority.
The way I do the math on the information in the article, there are five draft plans under consideration. One of them calls for no bridge removal, and only two call for removal of Stoneman. So three out of five draft plans would not touch this bridge.
There is no mention of a single environmental group advocating removal of the bridge, only that it is under consideration in two of the five draft plans. There are plenty of quotes and identification of groups and individuals advocating for historic preservation.
Now look at the discussion that follows this, about destruction of campgrounds and other facilities,
"the real plan is to give the river a demolition permit to jump banks and wildly destroy scenic facilities in the valley."
"Some would love to see the mighty Merced River destroy all signs of human presence thereby restoring Yosemite Valley "
"There is a fringe element out there who would like the river to do their bulldozing for them like the flood of '97 destroying campgrounds"
"This section is considered recreational and the river should not be dictating how the Park is managed. The Park should be free to manage floods and provide safe public access to the river as best they can, in my opinion"
"It seems to me that the logical conclusion of the environmentalist world view is that humans return to their pre-historic way of life, and remove all signs of human progress and go back to the Stone Age."
How did these extreme statements come out of mere consideration of of a particular action in two plans out of 5? They bear virtually no factual or reasonable relation to the story. And the story, if you read it carefully, is mostly manufactured by the reporter. Contrary to the rhetoric, Nothing is "slated for removal".
And no, Bob, with all due respect, you can't hold me or anyone else accountable for what you choose to characterize as the "logical conclusion" of a particular proposition. That's the classical fallacy of reductio ad absurdum. It can be applied to any position, and it won't wash, even in the massive deluge apparently about to be unleashed by the radically irresponsible act of removal of a bridge abutment.
Where's the balance, folks? The process of considering these plans is inherently one of balancing natural and artificial values, a process that NPS is continuing here and has been pretty damn good at in the past, and to which the radical posturing in the preceding discussion contributes little.
