The Irony of Ansel's Conservationism

[Sirius Glass]

Alan - who do you mean by "elitist"? I don't care if someone is a billionaire or a pauper - after a few days in the backcountry, everybody looks and smells the same, and are friends. We ALL pay taxes. But"setting aside" 10 to 20 percent of wilderness for potential vehicle or helicopter entry, or a tramway to a revolving restaurant atop a peak like in the Alps for sake of those who can afford to uncork and expensive bottle of wine there? - now THAT is "elitist". Some things are like a priceless vase - if everyone thinks they deserve a piece of it, then they have to shatter it to the point it's no longer of any real value to anyone.

There are ALREADY innumerable potential car camping opportunities all over the West on Federal land as it is, lots of designated 4WD routes, boating reservoirs in abundance. The seriously protected areas and designated Wilderness Areas are just small portion by comparison. And a great many people not only resident to the West, but arriving from many other States and even other countries, deeply appreciate how we've left a small portion of BAwhat still remains relatively pristine.

You mentioned rock climbing. Well, there are places like Yosemite Valley where you can almost drive up to a climb. But most of those climber types cross over into mountain climbing too, and seek out remoter areas. Same with skiers. Many stick to the resort slopes, but there's a whole category of backcountry skiers too. It's more dangerous; but nobody is keeping them out. Off road vehicles are another story - they're banned from Wilderness Areas for a signifiant reason. If they were allowed, it's wouldn't be wilderness at all any more. But that still leaves them with vast areas they can use, and quite frequently terribly abuse, especially in the desert, where their damage can last for centuries. In some places, like my hometown area, 4WD routes are rated from 1 to 5. At the start of one of them is a sign posted on a tree, "Speed Limit : 2 miles PER DAY. Walk any section of the route prior to driving it. Failure to do so may result in injury or death". And that possibility has been proven more than once. No need for more Jeep roads and tracks; just fly over Nevada, they're nearly everywhere.

And I've never paid a fee for the right to photograph anywhere in my life. That kind of thing only applies to commercial shoots which might impede others, making movies, etc. Drones often require permits because they disturb wildlife, disturb the recreation of others, and are a potential risk to legitimate air usage, like fighting fires; they can even cause fires. They're banned even in every regional park and open spaces around here. The last time a Ranger approached me because I had a tripod set up, he asked me where he could still get real film.

I have run into elitists a number of times and flavors. Basically they believe the National Parks, BLMs, et al, can only be enjoyed exactly their way. Examples:

• Backpackers: one must backpack, hike some minimum number of miles, cook their own food. They hate people who drive to campsites, rock climbers, free rock climbers, day trippers, bird watchers [they walk in and out, without staying, skiers both alpine and cross country, mountain bike riders, off roaders.
• Backpackers: one must backpack, hike some minimum number of miles, do not cook their own food, must bring it, campfires are forbidden. They hate people who drive to campsites, rock climbers, free rock climbers, day trippers, bird watchers [they walk in and out, without staying, skiers both alpine and cross country,, mountain bike riders, off roaders.
• Those that drive to campsites. They hate ...
• Day trippers. They hate ...
• Bird watchers. They hate ...
• Skiers - alpine. They hate ...
• Skiers - cross country. They hate ...
• Mounain bike riders. They hate ...
• Off roaders. They hate ...

These are small numbers in each of these groups and do not represent their groups but will send emails, letters to hearings, show up at hearing and are basically pain in the ass.

Some of the worst are Sierra members, but they are not alone, there are many other groups that have similar jerks in their membership.

 

[runswithsizzers]

There is a problem that wild lands are being loved to death. But saying that all those who never want to venture far from roads in parks are insensitive Philistines is a bit unfair and an oversimplification of the problem. It is likely that an appreciation of nature is something that has to be cultivated. Many of the hard-core backpackers, Sierra club members, etc., likely benefitted from growing up in a cultural milieu, including supportive relatives, that valued the natural world. They likely tend to come from higher-income, more highly-educated social classes. Huge numbers of people from urban areas or lower-income communities lack those advantages. Those people subsidize parks and wilderness areas with their taxes. To say they should be happy to know that most of those areas will only be accessed by a few elite hikers does not seem very equitable.

While there was a movement to promote conservation after WWII that Adams participated in, there was also a backlash against that that came to the fore in the era of James Watt, Interior Secretary under Reagan. The conservation movement was accused of being elitist. Watt said if people want to engage with public lands by cars, by snowmobiles or off-road vehicles they should be able to do so. That elitist charge was pretty easy to make.

I suspect you are correct on most points. I have spent time in most of the National Parks in Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, and Utah. I don't have any hard data to back it up, but I think I have seen more wealthy foreigners in our National Parks than lower class Americans. I remember the James Watt era with no fondness. But in some ways I have to agree that our national parks are elitist, perhaps inherently so. The people who are best able to experience the back country are reasonably fit and they have the kinds of jobs that pay well and provide more than two weeks vacation (if they even need to work). Wilderness is like everything else, the rich can afford more of it. If the working class people resent our National Parks for being the playground of the rich, perhaps it is in part because of the perception that rich Americans do not pay their fair share of taxes?

The only way wild areas will be preserved in the long run is if many people value them. Visiting a park and never going far from a car may seem shallow, but it may at least be a first step. It shows that people have at least a glimmering of interest in natural areas. Remember that people that have only experienced urban areas have no context for what they are seeing, it is like going to an alien planet, they don't know what to make of it. The question is how to develop that interest into a deeper appreciation. As a part of primary education, Oregon has students participate in Outdoor School where they live for a time in natural areas and learn about the natural world. It may be a small step, but it is a step in the right direction.

I am not saying that unlimited car travel to parks is desirable. I am saying that solutions to the problems will require encouraging large numbers of people to value scenic areas. In valuing them they will support ways to experience them that are less destructive.

We don't have any large National Parks near my hometown in SW Missouri, but we do have several National Scenic Riverways that attract way too many canoeists. Certainly there must be some people who canoe our rivers with interest and appreciation. But the other kind of canoeists - the ones who travel in large groups, drink way too much beer, make way too much noise, and leave behind way too much trash - are obviously present in very large numbers. I do not see how encouraging more people to vist our scenic rivers helps.

It sounds great in theory to hope that more people who see our wild lands will appreciate them enough to help preserve them, but considering America does not have the will to make a serious effort to avoid the existential threat of climate change, I don't see much hope for preservation of the wilderness.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Gosh, a lot of stereotyping here which simply doesn't match any of my whole lifetime of wilderness experience, or hardly any of the people I knew involved in it, unless just some posers hanging around a NP parking lot with some kind of petition they didn't quite understand anyway. But I grew up surrounded by wilderness, so what would I know? Climbing cliffs and crossing deep uninhabited canyons was just called getting from Point A to B to us; and I'll always be grateful for it. Maybe perceptions are getting skewed nowadays because so many people are trying to turn the web into virtual tour service income, with the GPS coordinates of every Starbucks and McDonald's franchise on the Interstate Hwy system.

I couldn't even afford a camera growing up. Eventually, my older brother gave me an early Honeywell Pentax. Food in the backcountry was called either a .22 rifle or fishing pole, plus a little emergency beef jerky. Some of the cowboys didn't even have a sleeping bag, and would just roll up at night in their horse blanket, with an oilcloth poncho along in case it rained, which served as both rain gear and tent, with their rope strung tree to tree. But that formula doesn't work so well above timberline, or in the snow; that I certainly learned the hard way.

Alan - you might want to look at what the Nature Conservancy does. They are experts at working with different viewpoints and getting land set aside. Ranchers retain tenancy along with tax breaks if they agree to seasonally manage their cattle in a manner beneficial to the biota. The Regional Parks around here take the same approach. Everyone wins. But I did get miffed once when I hauled my 8x10 on a 7 mile round trip to a special point on the coast where I'd always experienced solitude before, but that time ran into about 20 young S.Club members debating how to control the African population issue. Fine. But why did they have to do it there, for heavens sake? I didn't say a word - just walked right through them and set up my 8X10 anyway. They got the point, looked embarrassed, and left. And I got a great shot of a sea arch which has since collapsed.

 

[VinceInMT]

When it comes to visiting the National Parks, IMO, most people are not interested in a true “wilderness experience“ and it has little to do with their income level. Camping has now become Glamping and they drag in a expensive recreational vehicle, open up the pop outs, deploy the satellite dish, then fire up a noisy generator so their don’t miss their favorite show or have to cook without a microwave.

On a recent trip I did some dispersed camping on BLM land in Wyoming along a nice lake. I thought I’d found a nice, peaceful spot but sure enough, folks in an RV showed up and start running a generator.

 

[takilmaboxer]

My wife and I have given up on car camping because of the generators. We're too old for back country camping. We look for cheap short term rentals and do long day hikes. This spring the runoff in northern New Mexico flooded the USFS campgrounds and they were closed. There was nobody there except for my wife, dogs and.....my Zeiss folder.
In the 60s and 70s I used to hitch hike from Berkeley to Yos to go rock climbing. There was a loose knit community of climbing bums that existed on bad food and cheap weed, living unseen in the Valley. No elitists there.
It seems odd to read a discussion of elitism on this forum. We all know there are no elitists in the world of film photography. Love of the natural world is not elitist. Believing that the natural world has an intrinsic right to exist is not elitist. Not from my perspective. It was here for 4.5 billion years before we showed up. It will be here for a few billion more after the final discontinuance of film. There just won't be anybody to photograph it.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

If generators bother hikers, just hike further into the wilderness where RV's can't follow. Most Americans are not capable of hiking and camping in the back country. They don't have the equipment, time or experience. Maybe they're older or have young children that limit being able to rough it. So they stick to the tourist spots and take along some conveniences of the modern world. Should they be denied experiencing the outdoors on their terms or can they also be accommodated?

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Gosh, a lot of stereotyping here which simply doesn't match any of my whole lifetime of wilderness experience, or hardly any of the people I knew involved in it, unless just some posers hanging around a NP parking lot with some kind of petition they didn't quite understand anyway. But I grew up surrounded by wilderness, so what would I know? Climbing cliffs and crossing deep uninhabited canyons was just called getting from Point A to B to us; and I'll always be grateful for it. Maybe perceptions are getting skewed nowadays because so many people are trying to turn the web into virtual tour service income, with the GPS coordinates of every Starbucks and McDonald's franchise on the Interstate Hwy system.

I couldn't even afford a camera growing up. Eventually, my older brother gave me an early Honeywell Pentax. Food in the backcountry was called either a .22 rifle or fishing pole, plus a little emergency beef jerky. Some of the cowboys didn't even have a sleeping bag, and would just roll up at night in their horse blanket, with an oilcloth poncho along in case it rained, which served as both rain gear and tent, with their rope strung tree to tree. But that formula doesn't work so well above timberline, or in the snow; that I certainly learned the hard way.

Alan - you might want to look at what the Nature Conservancy does. They are experts at working with different viewpoints and getting land set aside. Ranchers retain tenancy along with tax breaks if they agree to seasonally manage their cattle in a manner beneficial to the biota. The Regional Parks around here take the same approach. Everyone wins. But I did get miffed once when I hauled my 8x10 on a 7 mile round trip to a special point on the coast where I'd always experienced solitude before, but that time ran into about 20 young S.Club members debating how to control the African population issue. Fine. But why did they have to do it there, for heavens sake? I didn't say a word - just walked right through them and set up my 8X10 anyway. They got the point, looked embarrassed, and left. And I got a great shot of a sea arch which has since collapsed.

I'm all in favor of reasonable management of public lands as long as everyone and their favorite activities are accomodated.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

Should they be denied experiencing the outdoors on their terms or can they also be accommodated?

As long as the definition of "experiencing the outdoors" doesn't include "getting away from people", all will be fine.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

As long as the definition of "experiencing the outdoors" doesn't include "getting away from people", all will be fine.

Here're my pictures of that arch called Delicate Arch. It;s the symbol of Utah State and on all their auto licenses. I decided not to walk the distance just to be with a lot of people like in your picture so shot it from the parking area a mile away where this cute girl was coloring it in her Arch's coloring book. No one else got my shot.

 

[runswithsizzers]

If generators bother hikers, just hike further into the wilderness where RV's can't follow. Most Americans are not capable of hiking and camping in the back country. They don't have the equipment, time or experience. Maybe they're older or have young children that limit being able to rough it. So they stick to the tourist spots and take along some conveniences of the modern world. Should they be denied experiencing the outdoors on their terms or can they also be accommodated?

You answered your own question. If you believe 'Most Americans are not capable of hiking and camping in the back country,' does it make sense to suggest that everyone who does not want to listen to the noise of your generator should 'just hike further into the wilderness'?

 

[Truzi]

I've not visited many National or State parks. However, when I was turning 15 my grandparents and aunt took my brother and myself on a camping trip across the country. We hit the usual tourist traps: Painted Desert, Petrified Forest, Great Sand Dunes, Grand Canyon, Mesa Verde, some desert camp ground - things like that.

I'm glad we are able to experience these sorts of things. However, even at 15, I didn't see that as the primary purpose. I never felt these were intended to be like an urban "park" where people go to picnic, play sports, and walk around.
To me, the designation seemed more a manner to preserve the natural state.

Certainly it's nice to allow people to enjoy these lands, but I always considered that a secondary consideration. I feel we should take the role of caretakers, not consumers.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

You answered your own question. If you believe 'Most Americans are not capable of hiking and camping in the back country,' does it make sense to suggest that everyone who does not want to listen to the noise of your generator should 'just hike further into the wilderness'?

If you don't want to hear generators, why set up camp next to a road? Park your car there and hike further into the woods where vehicles can't follow. There are plenty of trails where no vehicles can go.

 

[snusmumriken]

I shall probably be slammed for saying this, but I've always felt that if you find a nice place, you should enjoy it while you can, never tell anyone about it, anonymise all photographs, and never take more than one companion. Almost certainly someone else knows the secret, but if the place is still nice it isn't well known.

Of course magnificent scenery is difficult to keep secret, and social media spoils secrets voraciously.

 

[VinceInMT]

…So they stick to the tourist spots and take along some conveniences of the modern world. Should they be denied experiencing the outdoors on their terms or can they also be accommodated?

So when those “modern conveniences” includes the generator and cranking out their preferred choice of music which drowns out the sounds of birds, a breeze through the trees, a babbling brook, or just plain silence, we should just pack up and move elsewhere?

 

[VinceInMT]

I shall probably be slammed for saying this, but I've always felt that if you find a nice place, you should enjoy it while you can, never tell anyone about it, anonymise all photographs, and never take more than one companion. Almost certainly someone else knows the secret, but if the place is still nice it isn't well known.

Of course magnificent scenery is difficult to keep secret, and social media spoils secrets voraciously.

Exactly. Like I said earlier, I live near Yellowstone Park and the Beartooth Mountains but rarely camp there. Instead, I’m also nearby the Bighorn Mountains of Wyoming which are way less traveled and there is a BLM campsite there that is essentially “tents only” due to the fact that the campsites are a bit of a walk from the parking area. No pull-through or back in spots.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

So when those “modern conveniences” includes the generator and cranking out their preferred choice of music which drowns out the sounds of birds, a breeze through the trees, a babbling brook, or just plain silence, we should just pack up and move elsewhere?

I wouldn't like the noise either but I don't have any real life experience with these kind of parks. Don't different Parks have different rules regarding boomboxes and running generators? So pre-screen the park rules and only go to the ones that are quieter and prohibit the noise makers.

 

[runswithsizzers]

If you don't want to hear generators, why set up camp next to a road? Park your car there and hike further into the woods where vehicles can't follow. There are plenty of trails where no vehicles can go.

In National Parks what you suggest is illegal, impractical, or both. I believe backcountry camping in the National Parks is usually allowed in designated sites, only, and one must get a permit for those far in advance. You cannot just walk down a trail and camp wherever you like.

All of your suggestions require that someone else must do something and be inconvenienced so you can do nothing and enjoy your conveniences. No willingness to compromise? Have you looked into switching from a gas powered generator to storage batteries for your RV? Candle light is very nice, too.

 

[takilmaboxer]

If you don't want to hear generators, why set up camp next to a road? Park your car there and hike further into the woods where vehicles can't follow. There are plenty of trails where no vehicles can go.

This is the "lowest common denominator" theory. That egregious violations of the natural environment must be allowed so that everyone can be part of the show. I utterly reject that point of view. I don't go camping to breathe your exhaust or listen to Snoop Dog at 120 dB. I can do that at home, with the added all American music of gunshots and domestic violence. I want to hear the river run, and the aspen leaves twittering. So I guess we'll never agree.
It might be different if campers obeyed the hours restrictions-generators and music off after sunset. But they don't.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

The grand illusion is thinking that only the tourist areas are affected by overcrowding and that in more remote areas the wilderness is left pristine, in its natural state. Doesn't work that way. For one thing, pollution from the ever-increasing amount of cars doesn't stick to the highway and the parking areas. All is related, and anything negative you do to one area has an impact on the fauna and flora of another. It might not be as immediately detectable or felt, but it's there.

That's just one example, there are many more. Nature works in chain reactions, and it's not always easy, even for scientist, to figure out which impact each element of our collective behavioral chain will have and how strong an impact it will have.

Personal experiences of those who still manage to access some type wilderness in which to lose (or find) themselves are great—I envy them, and do not dismiss their relevance and importance for the persons who live them. But in the larger scheme of things, they mean squat when it comes to measuring the impact of the parks popularity, not to mention our general imprint on them.

I feel we should take the role of caretakers, not consumers.

+1

 

[faberryman]

RV camping is permitted in Yosemite in designated campgrounds. More information can be found here:

Visiting Yosemite With an RV - Yosemite National Park (U.S. National Park Service)

www.nps.gov

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

In National Parks what you suggest is illegal, impractical, or both. I believe backcountry camping in the National Parks is usually allowed in designated sites, only, and one must get a permit for those far in advance. You cannot just walk down a trail and camp wherever you like.

All of your suggestions require that someone else must do something and be inconvenienced so you can do nothing and enjoy your conveniences. No willingness to compromise? Have you looked into switching from a gas powered generator to storage batteries for your RV? Candle light is very nice, too.

This is the "lowest common denominator" theory. That egregious violations of the natural environment must be allowed so that everyone can be part of the show. I utterly reject that point of view. I don't go camping to breathe your exhaust or listen to Snoop Dog at 120 dB. I can do that at home, with the added all American music of gunshots and domestic violence. I want to hear the river run, and the aspen leaves twittering. So I guess we'll never agree.
It might be different if campers obeyed the hours restrictions-generators and music off after sunset. But they don't.

I'll defer to those with experience with camping like Drew. What does he do when he's in the back country of Yosemite overnight? Also, aren't there forest preserves beside national parks that have different rules? As far as people violating rules, I agree that's rude on their part and they should be reported to the rangers.

Compromise is a two way street. I;m not sure what you want to do about your complaints? You seem to feel it;s OK that a gasoline breathing RV emitting fumes into the woods is OK. But boomboxes and generators to recharge batteries adds too much civilization. The next guy may feel your RV itself is too much. It seems everyone will draw the lines differently to where civilization is too much. The best the government can do is try to satisfy everyone. Of course that won't happen. What do you suggest they do?

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

The grand illusion is thinking that only the tourist areas are affected by overcrowding and that in more remote areas the wilderness is left pristine, in its natural state. Doesn't work that way. For one thing, pollution from the ever-increasing amount of cars doesn't stick to the highway and the parking areas. All is related, and anything negative you do to one area has an impact on the fauna and flora of another. It might not be as immediately detectable or felt, but it's there.

That's just one example, there are many more. Nature works in chain reactions, and it's not always easy, even for scientist, to figure out which impact each element of our collective behavioral chain will have and how strong an impact it will have.

Personal experiences of those who still manage to access some type wilderness in which to lose (or find) themselves are great—I envy them, and do not dismiss their relevance and importance for the persons who live them. But in the larger scheme of things, they mean squat when it comes to measuring the impact of the parks popularity, not to mention our general imprint on them.



+1

What do you suggest we do with 1/4 of the US land mass that's under government control in forests and parks? If you only want caretaking, and no consuming, then no one would be allowed in these areas. What value then would they be to us? What we're all trying to do is make them accessible for enjoyment while protecting them for the future. Nothing's perfect. But I think we're doing a pretty good job even though there has to be inconvenience at times due to the large number of Americans and foreigners who wish to visit these areas.

 

[Don_ih]

Frankly, be happy it's been preserved and not turned into a bunch of strip mines or quarries. Maybe a huge lithium deposit will be found under Yosemite and the place will be redesignated. See how nice it looks after that.
Camping and hiking are luxuries.

 

[runswithsizzers]

What do you suggest we do with 1/4 of the US land mass that's under government control in forests and parks? If you only want caretaking, and no consuming, then no one would be allowed in these areas. What value then would they be to us? What we're all trying to do is make them accessible for enjoyment while protecting them for the future. Nothing's perfect. But I think we're doing a pretty good job even though there has to be inconvenience at times due to the large number of Americans and foreigners who wish to visit these areas.

Federally owned public lands in the US may be administered by the National Park Service, the National Forest Service, or the Bureau of Land Management, among others. Each agency has it's own mission, administration, and regulations.

And within each agency, some areas may get special designations like "wilderness" with higher levels of protection. For example, no motorized vehicles are allowed in wilderness areas. There are areas on BLM land and in our National Forests where activities like ATVs and off-road motorcycles are tolerated, but other trails where off-road vehicles are prohibited. Hunting is often allowed in National Forest, but not usually, in National Parks. So yes, the lands under federal control do allow many different kinds of activities, but not all activities are allowed in all areas.

But as an American (assumption) you already know all this, right? You say, "I'm all in favor of reasonable management of public lands as long as everyone and their favorite activities are accomodated." But surely you would not be in favor of allowing dirtbikes on the hiking trails of Yosemite, or elk hunters roaming the campgrounds in Yellowstone with rifles in hand? So in fact, "reasonable management" means restricting some activities in some areas, right? Now about those generators... ;-)

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Federally owned public lands in the US may be administered by the National Park Service, the National Forest Service, or the Bureau of Land Management, among others. Each agency has it's own mission, administration, and regulations.

And within each agency, some areas may get special designations like "wilderness" with higher levels of protection. For example, no motorized vehicles are allowed in wilderness areas. There are areas on BLM land and in our National Forests where activities like ATVs and off-road motorcycles are tolerated, but other trails where off-road vehicles are prohibited. Hunting is often allowed in National Forest, but not usually, in National Parks. So yes, the lands under federal control do allow many different kinds of activities, but not all activities are allowed in all areas.

But as an American (assumption) you already know all this, right? You say, "I'm all in favor of reasonable management of public lands as long as everyone and their favorite activities are accomodated." But surely you would not be in favor of allowing dirtbikes on the hiking trails of Yosemite, or elk hunters roaming the campgrounds in Yellowstone with rifles in hand? So in fact, "reasonable management" means restricting some activities in some areas, right? Now about those generators... ;-)

I agree with you that different rules should apply depending on the facility, location, purpose, etc. I think the issue comes down to annoyances that always happen when divergent groups of people share the same location. It's impossible to satisfy everyone at the same time.