The Irony of Ansel's Conservationism

Alex Benjamin

Subscriber
Joined
Aug 8, 2018
Messages
2,712
Location
Montreal
Format
Multi Format
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?
 

DREW WILEY

Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2011
Messages
14,219
Format
8x10 Format
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.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Aug 29, 2017
Messages
9,695
Location
New Jersey formerly NYC
Format
Multi Format

But the whole point everyone is arguing here is that going into nature is awesome, raises our spirits, allows us to reach higher levels of consciousness. Anyone who has stood at Inspiration Point in Yosemite looking into it valley knows how it lifts your spirit. That's why people want to visit the parks. How is that exploitive? No one is suggesting we go in there and tear down all the trees. Why would you want to shut down access? For what purpose would you put it off limits? Enjoying nature and being good stewards is not contradictory.
 
Joined
Aug 29, 2017
Messages
9,695
Location
New Jersey formerly NYC
Format
Multi Format

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.
 

DREW WILEY

Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2011
Messages
14,219
Format
8x10 Format
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.
 

Alex Benjamin

Subscriber
Joined
Aug 8, 2018
Messages
2,712
Location
Montreal
Format
Multi Format
For what purpose would you put it off limits?

Because we're at a point where if we don't things will go bad, and, unfortunately, maybe faster than we expect. Putting limits—the severity of which vary from one context to another—is where we're at, we brought this upon ourselves.

Our natural state of affairs is overexploitation, and the only way to prevent its damages is to put limits. Just look at those put on water consumption from the Colorado river in the agreement reached between California, Arizona and Nevada. No choice. You'll see more and more of this in the future.
 

jvo

Subscriber
Joined
Dec 6, 2008
Messages
1,761
Location
left coast of east coast
Format
Digital
Isn't ones view of the world directly related to the perspective? Someplace in the World everything you can imagine - good and bad, in the extremes, is true.

I think the bottom line is we are not leaving a better, brighter, cleaner, more improved world for the coming generations!
 

MurrayMinchin

Membership Council
Subscriber
Joined
Jan 9, 2005
Messages
5,481
Location
North Coast BC Canada
Format
Hybrid
Hey, you've done it the hard way, now it's time to sit back and enjoy some pampered adventuring.

The company linked below has three boats which base themselves out of my hometown during Salmon spawning season, when Grizzly & Black Bears are on the estuaries and Humpback Whales are fattening themselves up.

One boat is an old 88' converted ocean going tug, there's a big two masted sailing schooner, and a massive 100' or so aluminum catamaran. The last one looks like an island on our boats radar.

They bounce back & forth between Kitimat and Bella Bella, but I'd recommend the Kitlope trip which starts and finishes here in Kitimat. The Gardner Canal is our favourite place to boat...hardly anyone goes up there and it's very much like Norwegian fjords. In the summer, if it hasn't rained for a while, the ocean becomes as green as a Rocky Mountain lake with all the glacial runoff.

As a bonus: there are natural hot springs just above the high tide line in 3 locations.


 

MurrayMinchin

Membership Council
Subscriber
Joined
Jan 9, 2005
Messages
5,481
Location
North Coast BC Canada
Format
Hybrid
Here's our boat in Owyacumish Bay, Gardner Canal:



This is the other side of the bay:



Many, many cliffs, waterfalls, waaaaay off the Inside Passage, no roads, very few (if any) boats.
 
Last edited:

Truzi

Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2012
Messages
2,660
Format
Multi Format
The problem with visiting areas is how we impact them, even if unintentionally. Pollution, litter, even using an area conscientiously can cause changes.

We don't even have to go to National Parks or preserves to see this sort of thing.

I live in the Greater Cleveland Area. Lake Erie has had all sorts of problems because it accommodates many "favorite" pastimes, including industry. Even more problems because of agricultural run-off, invasive species (zebra mollusk, for example), etc. We're not trying to keep the lake in some pristine natural state either, yet the problems are still affecting us negatively.
 

Sirius Glass

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 18, 2007
Messages
50,480
Location
Southern California
Format
Multi Format

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.
 

DREW WILEY

Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2011
Messages
14,219
Format
8x10 Format
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.
 

Sirius Glass

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 18, 2007
Messages
50,480
Location
Southern California
Format
Multi Format

But you should not have had to move.
 

DREW WILEY

Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2011
Messages
14,219
Format
8x10 Format
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.
 

Sirius Glass

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 18, 2007
Messages
50,480
Location
Southern California
Format
Multi Format

There are reasons for the Darwin Principle, and some people are dedicated to prove it.
 

VinceInMT

Subscriber
Joined
Nov 14, 2017
Messages
1,898
Location
Montana, USA
Format
Multi Format
IMO, what has changed in regards to camping is that back in the day one of the attractive features was “roughing it.” Stay in a tent, have a sleeping bag, cook over an open fire, and do some hikes over rough terrain. Now roughing it is an anathema and ”glamping” has overtaken any “roughing it” unless getting a fuzzy signal on the satellite dish qualifies. Glampers want all the comforts of home with a change of scenery out the window.

As for hiking, not so much for them. Last week I motorcycled up to the Medicine Wheel in Wyoming’s Bighorn Mountains. From the parking lot it’s about a mile and a half hike up a dirt and somewhat rocky road to the wheel and it’s mostly uphill getting there. I passed other people who were struggling and on the way back I stopped to walk with a couple because she was really struggling. Overweight, out of shape, and elevation was hindering them. I had no problem and I’m in my 70s.
 

Sirius Glass

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 18, 2007
Messages
50,480
Location
Southern California
Format
Multi Format
I stopped camping after getting a good nights sleep moved my camping to motels and hotels.
 
Joined
Aug 29, 2017
Messages
9,695
Location
New Jersey formerly NYC
Format
Multi Format
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.

Someone posted that the campsites have rules against making noise at night and running these things only during the day. If people violate the rules, then report it to the rangers. Where ever we go you have to put up with rude and inconsiderate people. Civilization is like that. In any case rules get changed. If solar makes sense, the rules can be updated. Write to the Department of the Interior and the Superintendent of the Park who controls these things.

Which brings up the question, if you and others don't like the current rules, management and operations, how would you regulate public lands?
 

runswithsizzers

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 19, 2019
Messages
1,829
Location
SW Missouri, USA
Format
Multi Format
Which brings up the question, if you and others don't like the current rules, management and operations, how would you regulate public lands?
I would give the people what they want. After all, they are our parks; our tax dollars paid for them.

First of all, no one likes rules and regulations, so let's get rid of them. Admission should be free. And everyone should be able to camp wherever they want, in any kind of rig they want, no matter how absurdly large it may be. We sure didn't buy all this stuff just so we can leave it at home.

We need to get a lot more concession vendors into the parks, especially those selling beer, ice cream, and film!! Every park needs an IMAX theater so visitors can see all the park attractions from within an air-conditioned environment. And people like to feed the animals, right? So plenty of white bread and hot dog buns should be made available, because that's what animals like to eat.

And speaking of animals, under current park management, whether you get to see a bear, bison or moose up close is purely by chance. Some of us drive a long way, and go home without ever getting a good, close up photo of a bear or moose. So why not train some of the animals to make regular appearances in convenient places with scenic backgrounds? These animals have been mooching off of the American taxpayer for decades, so maybe it's time for them to earn their keep.

Lets's face it, nature is kind of boring, so we need more zip lines, laser light shows, cute little steam trains -- and rides, lots of rides! The National Park Service should try to hire some Disney employees to help make this work, because unlike the Park Service, those Disney people know how to build a proper park!
 
Last edited:

VinceInMT

Subscriber
Joined
Nov 14, 2017
Messages
1,898
Location
Montana, USA
Format
Multi Format
When is comes to irony, I suspect that some of those who say that if you don’t like hearing the generators on their RVs you should go camp somewhere else, then they go back home to neighborhoods covered by HOAs to make sure only PLUs (People Like Us) are around them.
 

Alex Benjamin

Subscriber
Joined
Aug 8, 2018
Messages
2,712
Location
Montreal
Format
Multi Format
Which brings up the question, if you and others don't like the current rules, management and operations, how would you regulate public lands?

Not having a solution doesn't mean there isn't a problem.

This Guardian article consists of interviews with visitors and with people who rely on the parks for their livelihood (tour guides, inn and restaurant owners, etc.). They all agree that the current state is not sustainable—and this was 2021, it's gotten worse since. They don't have a solution, but they are fully aware of the complexity of the problem, which comes from the inherent contradiction between two of the objectives in the parks' creation, preserving nature in its "original" state and providing access to it to all Americans—essentially, btw, what Szarkowski was getting at.

In other words, open access to all without regulation and you risk altering, or even destroying huge chunks of the environment you are meant to preserve, aim for preservation by cutting off admittance, totally or partially, and your democratic ideal of access to all is in danger. It's a tough balancing act, and people are aware of it, as these excerpts show:

I’m not sure if implementing reservations is exactly what I want, but something needs to be done. We can’t keep growing the visitor population. It’s just not sustainable.

It’s tricky to keep the balancing act of access versus overcrowding and abuse. If the park were to do a reduced entry, capacity-informed entrance rate, it might impact our business a little bit, but taking care of the park as they see fit is the most important thing. If we get a reputation for not being the experience people came here for, everybody loses at that point
.



The National Park Services essentially states the same thing, and admits that it's tough to find balance, and difficult to find solutions and build strategies that can accommodate both mandates:

The National Park Service is employing a range of strategies that are park-specific to provide a welcoming and inclusive environment while ensuring the protection of nationally significant resources. In addition to using pilot projects and flexible planning tools to test ideas, we are conducting robust public and stakeholder engagement before committing to long-term implementation.

There will be changes.
 

CMoore

Subscriber
Joined
Aug 23, 2015
Messages
6,226
Location
USA CA
Format
35mm

Oh Man-
I hiked Kings Canyon 45 years ago.
When we checked in the ranger told us how steep it was. It took us two days to get in.
We did stop a little early the first day because we were so tired. It was STEEP.
All switch-backs for several hours.
The second day was easier.
We camped in a beautiful high meadow. Kind of in a bowl of shale, above timberline.
We saw one guy in 4 or 5 days. And we were only 10 miles from the parking area i guess
 
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…