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?
It's a question of philosophy and perspective. I don't see nature as having "value" to us, in the sense you describe. It's not there for our pleasure, leisure or enjoyment. We are not the master of it. It doesn't belong to us. It's not goods and services you consume—although, ironically (here we go again), it is being consumed by our exploitation and negligence.
You yourself said it earlier in this thread: we are also part of nature. That means we have no right putting it to our service.
The only value it has to us is it keeps us alive if well treated.
My question would be reversed: what value have we to nature?
Alan - no need to hike "further into wilderness" to get away from generators. RV's can't even get through most backroads, and when they do it's generally on a paved road to a fully developed formal campground - if that's their definition of "camping". And there are many many many of even those kind of campgrounds. But if they could get into "wilderness", it simply wouldn't be wilderness at all anymore. Mutually exclusive definitions, with different needs.
All care-taking, no consuming? Does everything need to have a cash valuation or be exploited to be considered worthy of appreciation and protection in its own right? If that were the case, nothing would be left by now. The nation was already down that route when people started waking up. The tallest trees ever discovered on earth were atop a hill right behind me. Now there just a marker hard to find out out on a ridge of weeds. Only 2% of the world's old growth redwood forest still remains, and 0% would be the case if hard boundaries weren't imposed to save the little still left. Those old growth forest were key to entire ecosystems. Being water collection devices capturing coastal fog and turning into dripping water, they filled streams and rivers with incredible abundance, including vast salmon and steelhead runs, now almost entirely gone. Now much of that once lush forest is dry flammable brush.
The world's largest tree - a giant Sequoia across the State, was cut down to make fruit boxes out of the lumber, and dances were held on the stump. A slice of it was sent to the 1880 world's fair, where it was accused of being a hoax. Yosemite Valley itself was slated to be dammed, and the water piped to LA. Even two dams were proposed within the Grand Canyon. A nibble here, a nibble there, and by now probably not a single National Park or Wilderness Area would even exist except as some Disney-esque theme park.
Forest Service and BLM land is multi-use. There's all kinds of logging, mining, grazing, lots of hydroelectric development, outdoor recreation and hunting, ski resorts, and even residential use. I grew up on a FS land inholding. Nearly everyone did in that area. The notion it's all "locked up" is nonsense. Cattle and sheep ranches, lots of logging (some well-managed, some terribly), gold and tungsten mines.
Wilderness Areas and Wilderness Study Areas are just a select portion of all that, and are required to be free of lasting human impact all along, to even gain that status. There might be some abandoned old pioneer mines which operated by mule train, or old trapper log cabins, which are now basically part of the scenery, but nothing active. Rules necessarily differ somewhat region to region. You can't expect Appalachian and East Coast land sequestration to be exactly the same as in the West, where we have more remote areas better capable or protecting themselves.
But if we have to level this to a discussion of sheer selfish human need - the effects of mass global deforestation, overfishing, desertification, etc etc etc (best discussed on other kinds of forums) is already beginning to drastically turn against us. It's getting all too apparent that the most deleterious "invasive species" on the planet is Homo sapiens.
For what purpose would you put it off limits?
Hey, you've done it the hard way, now it's time to sit back and enjoy some pampered adventuring.Well, it was downright heartbreaking for me to be showing topo maps of the high country to my younger sidekicks during lunch today, of high remote places where I can now longer safely go at almost 74. Last time I hiked within Yosemite NP, Yosemite Valley itself was so far down the River, that Half Dome looked like a tiny pimple in the far distance. But's that the kind of location that refreshes me - not a single footprint anywhere, not a campfire fire ring, not a trail in sight for days on end, not even a little pile of rocks indicating an off-trail route (what are called trail "ducks"). Sure a handful of climbers get in there each season; but we didn't see any. And the only evidence of human presence was obsidian flakes here and there, left by ancient bighorn sheep hunters. I deeply need that kind of experience at least once a year. But now, more and more, I guess I'll have to re-live that in my memories and prints. I still seeks out little weekly slices of solitude, however, and perhaps can keep doing less demanding backpacking trips in the mountains.
What does your arguments have to do with complaints about noisy generators and boomboxes at camping sites? In any case, how much of the 600 million acres of national lands are "destroyed" as you mention? It's pretty small. How much has been rehabilitated? What do you suggest we do differently? Maybe rangers should pass out condoms.
Some people are just jerks, Sirius. I once pulled into the 200-space Grandview campground just below the Bristlecone Pine forest right at dark in a light snowfall. Not a single other camper was there, late in the season. I went to sleep in the back of my truck. Yet out of all that acreage and all those potential camp spaces, where did a RV simply have to pull up about an hour later? Right next to me. The husband and wife loudly argued for about a half an hour whether the thing was level yet or not. The when she finally agreed, he set up gas generator and started it up so that he could watch baseball on his loud TV. Of all the nerve! I got my pants on and simply drove to the other side of the campground. No sense arguing with those kinds of people; they're hard-wired stupid.
bluechromis - the kind of hikers one often finds in very well known parks areas like Yosemite Valley or Yellowstone or even the Muir Trail (the "Freeway") in the high Sierra, are often quite different from more experienced and dedicated hikers. They're often far more naive, unprepared, and unrealistically obsessed with getting to a certain sight at a certain time, regardless of the weather or risk. They'll want a picture of themselves at the brink of Nevada Fall, for example, when there's a big sign right there, Stay out of the creek; if you slip, YOU WILL DIE. Likewise, there are road signs all along portions of the road through Yellowstone clearly warning against approaching bison or grizzlies, yet people keep doing it, and bad things happen. Might as well carry a red cape and walk up to an angry barnyard bull pawing the dirt. Naive yes, but also just plain disobedient to official signs with clear diagrams on them. But people seem to assume National Parks are theme parks, and ignore common sense implications of lightning, flooding, avalanches, wildfires, rattlesnakes and so forth, as if Park status somehow magically eliminates those. They see someone else doing something stupid, and follow suit.
That is the most sensible thing you have said in this entire thread![...] Maybe rangers should pass out condoms.
Why should the rest of the people in the camp area be forced to areas that they physically can not hike to get away from unnecessary noises? Generators can be muffled or replaced with solar units.
I would give the people what they want. After all, they are our parks; our tax dollars paid for them.Which brings up the question, if you and others don't like the current rules, management and operations, how would you regulate public lands?
Which camera you taking?
Which brings up the question, if you and others don't like the current rules, management and operations, how would you regulate public lands?
Alan - If too much area is made accessible to the general public and all the amenities it expects, you essential destroy it. That's why the second great wave of conservation occurred, the Wilderness Act movement. But many places are de facto protected by the sheer ruggedness of the terrain. People who needed to get in have done it for thousands of years. Yosemite Valley is somewhat different because it's only one of the only two deep glacial valleys in the Sierra Nevada realistically accessible by road or prior wagon path. My babysitter as an infant, who was 95 at the time, was allegedly the first white woman (actually, little girl) to ever enter Yosemite Valley. But not long thereafter it was a mauled mess with a big hotel, lumber mill (where John Muir once worked, cattle herds in the meadows to feed all the tourists, etc). Today it's basically a city of 30,000 on many summer days. Even in my youth we called it "Curry National Park" due to all the commercialism from the Curry Company. That's been dialed back somewhat, thank goodness.
But deeper back in there are areas you can walk for a week with high odds of not seeing anyone else. I've done it. And to say it's all been photographed - utter hogwash. I've accidentally stumbled onto the exact spots in both Yos backcountry as Sequoia NP as certain famous AA images, yet aimed my camera at something entirely different that I found much more compellling to my own manner of looking at things. And even in Yos Valley itself, where I rarely take pictures, every single one of them I've printed doesn't duplicate anyone else's pictures, no matter how many millions of times some kind of camera has been aimed at the same nominal feature. If fact, I've even got shots right from the road higher up of splendid rock formations and actual peaks that I've never seen another rendition of, unless for sake of a climbing diagram with dotted lines all over it.
Then you get down into King Canyon NP, which AA was quite involved with getting set aside, and you've got major areas not only roadless, but trail-less. Some really rugged country, which I've personally spent far more time in than in Yosemite NP. And despite having taken literally hundreds of backpacking trips in the Sierra, I'd probably need another 8 lifetimes to see a token amount of all of it.
People need the ability to actually discover things for themselves. But 99 % percent of them just want to check off their list of postcard "must see" stereotypes. Just a few weeks ago, in fact, briefly passing through Yos Valley during perhaps its last of the classic snowstorm of the season, and with especially abundant waterfalls, I saw people going to the Bridalveil Falls viewpoint turnout, taking Selfies of themselves in front of the sign, and not even bothering to look at the Fall itself ! - that's their perfect right, but leaves me scratching my head why even bothering taking the trip.
Otherwise, like I already tried to explain, much of that country remains defacto wilderness by its very nature. At my former property, before I retired, I could simply cross the road and start walking, and enter a hundred square miles so rugged that the only people who have ever been deep within it, besides myself, were three of my early climbing companions and one ancient Indian. But that doesn't necessarily protect it. Another damn dam was proposed which would have ruined most of it, and actually have diminished overall water supply and hydro power. But the sheer insane cost of another mega-project like that is what really stopped the idea. And now, finally, a third category of protection is entering the equation, with the Nature Conservancy involved in the protection of rare or special biota ecosystems in the area; and in some cases (not all) with a provision for limited supervised public access. But one still has to be in serious shape.
And back to Yosemite Valley - it was already made famous by great photographers well before Ansel Adams, especially Carleton Watkins, Edward Muybridge, and Fiske. But an Army Corps had to be brought in to protect the high meadow from sheep overgrazing. Sometimes sheepherders got to such remote places, by such difficult routes, that nobody today even thinks about trying it themselves with all their modern mountain gear.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?