The Irony of Ansel's Conservationism

Sonatas XII-50 (Life)

A
Sonatas XII-50 (Life)

  • 1
  • 1
  • 1K
Tower and Moon

A
Tower and Moon

  • 3
  • 0
  • 1K
Light at Paul's House

A
Light at Paul's House

  • 3
  • 2
  • 2K
Slowly Shifting

Slowly Shifting

  • 0
  • 0
  • 1K
Waiting

Waiting

  • 1
  • 0
  • 1K

Recent Classifieds

Forum statistics

Threads
199,729
Messages
2,795,730
Members
100,011
Latest member
Reynolds
Recent bookmarks
0
Joined
Aug 29, 2017
Messages
9,695
Location
New Jersey formerly NYC
Format
Multi Format
But is it a mistake to place the "blame" on the likes of Ansel Adams, considering that as far back as 1872, Yellowstone, the first USA National Park, was conceived as "a public park or pleasuring-ground for the benefit and enjoyment of the people." (see "The First National Park Emerges" here: https://www.nps.gov/articles/npshistory-origins.htm).

Contrast this with the Russian concept of the Zapovednik, which at least in theory, were not conceived as leisure areas, and in fact, access by the public is restricted.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zapovednik

But in any event, Yosemite Valley is but a small part of Yosemite National Park, with much of the high country remaining inaccessible to the public for much of the year due to heavy snow.

What's the point of having a beautiful park and letting no one in to commune with nature at all? The trick is to have a balance of interests in these things.

One of the things done is to open areas to only those people who have connections. Of course, it's under the guise of protecting the area. I wouldn't be surprised if that's what happened in the Soviet Union, Sort of like great supermarkets there but only for those members in the Communist Party. The rest of the people have to stand on lines begging for stuff. It's like hikers who have no interest in photography restricting parks from those who want to cross country ski or from us photographers who want to take pictures but have to pay extra for that right.
 

DREW WILEY

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

Alex Benjamin

Subscriber
Joined
Aug 8, 2018
Messages
2,713
Location
Montreal
Format
Multi Format
That would be somewhere I'd love to go if I had a time machine- pop back to the Yucatan in 1000 AD at the height of the Maya civilization to see what it actually looked like.

Which camera you taking?
 

DREW WILEY

Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2011
Messages
14,219
Format
8x10 Format
... more likely become a prize sacrifice to one of their Mayan deities.
 

Don_ih

Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2021
Messages
7,979
Location
Ontario
Format
35mm RF
That would be somewhere I'd love to go if I had a time machine- pop back to the Yucatan in 1000 AD at the height of the Maya civilization to see what it actually looked like.

Well, Cahokia was smack in the middle of the US at the same time, and was a city of thousands. Just looks like a very lumpy lawn, now.
 
Joined
Aug 29, 2017
Messages
9,695
Location
New Jersey formerly NYC
Format
Multi Format
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.

There seems to be a little contradiction in what you're saying. Yosemite is one of the prime National Parks with huge crowds during the warmer months. But admittedly you say that 99% of the park is pretty much barren of people even in prime tourist season. These areas are open to anyone who would just set aside some time to explore it mainly on their own. So let the people who either don't have the time or just don't want to explore back country put up with the valley crowds. The rest like yourself can move on to the less disturbed sites. Everyone can find something there and appreciate it.

Also, you have the good fortune to live in the west and have access all through the year to most of the great parks that are located there. Easterners like myself don't have the time to explore all these parks when we visit especially in the back country. So we hit the highlights; the usual tourists spots. When my wife and I finally got around to doing the once in a lifetime road trip to national parks in the southwest a few years ago, we drove over 2500 miles and hit about 8 or 9 major parks in 16 days. No time to explore the back country. Plus I'm at an age where frankly I don't have youthful stamina any longer. There are a lot of older people exploring as well as families with children who just can't do back country exploration.
 

runswithsizzers

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 19, 2019
Messages
1,829
Location
SW Missouri, USA
Format
Multi Format
What's the point of having a beautiful park and letting no one in to commune with nature at all? The trick is to have a balance of interests in these things.
What is the point of having a beautiful National Park and turning it into a parking lot?
---
Yes, one can easily escape the crowds by walking a few miles from the main attractions, but first one must find a place to park ones car. Last time I visited Yellowstone, there were literally no parking spaces available in any of the 4 or 5 parking lots we visited. We left the park without getting out of our car. More parking lots is not the answer, because more tourists will fill them up as fast as they can be built.

I think Henry Ford and Dwight Eisenhower are more to blame for overcrowding in America's national parks than Ansel Adams. If the Eisenhower administration had devoted the same resources to building a national rail transportation system as was spent building the interstate highway system, America would need far fewer parking lots.

More recently, many national parks are starting to limit the number of cars into some of the most crowded parks, bringing visitors in by shuttle instead. This system still requires a giant parking lot be built somewhere near the park, but at least it can be located farther away from the wilderness. It would be better if I could leave my car in my driveway back home and take a train to the park, but except for a few areas, most of America is not accessible by passenger train.

Don't get me wrong, I like to drive. We just got back from a 10-day road trip to Santa Fe NM, and we had a great time. But if we would have had the option to take a passenger train from my home town to Santa Fe, we would have done that instead.
 
Joined
Aug 29, 2017
Messages
9,695
Location
New Jersey formerly NYC
Format
Multi Format
What is the point of having a beautiful National Park and turning it into a parking lot?
---
Yes, one can easily escape the crowds by walking a few miles from the main attractions, but first one must find a place to park ones car. Last time I visited Yellowstone, there were literally no parking spaces available in any of the 4 or 5 parking lots we visited. We left the park without getting out of our car. More parking lots is not the answer, because more tourists will fill them up as fast as they can be built.

I think Henry Ford and Dwight Eisenhower are more to blame for overcrowding in America's national parks than Ansel Adams. If the Eisenhower administration had devoted the same resources to building a national rail transportation system as was spent building the interstate highway system, America would need far fewer parking lots.

More recently, many national parks are starting to limit the number of cars into some of the most crowded parks, bringing visitors in by shuttle instead. This system still requires a giant parking lot be built somewhere near the park, but at least it can be located farther away from the wilderness. It would be better if I could leave my car in my driveway back home and take a train to the park, but except for a few areas, most of America is not accessible by passenger train.

Don't get me wrong, I like to drive. We just got back from a 10-day road trip to Santa Fe NM, and we had a great time. But if we would have had the option to take a passenger train from my home town to Santa Fe, we would have done that instead.

Maybe we should blame Ken Burns who did the national parks documentary on public tv. :wink: He helped popularize them. The parks have become too successful. Parking is a problem. In Zion, they have shuttle buses running into the main valley area. Pretty convenient. You have to park south of the valley in the town of Springdale to catch the shuttle although other areas of Zion are open to public traffic.

Speaking of parking lots, here's the prettiest I've ever been too. It's located 10,000 feet above Maui in the Hawaiian Islands in the Haleakala National Park. And yes, we took a bus to the top.
 

Attachments

  • PA263439-1.jpg
    PA263439-1.jpg
    634.9 KB · Views: 64

MurrayMinchin

Membership Council
Subscriber
Joined
Jan 9, 2005
Messages
5,481
Location
North Coast BC Canada
Format
Hybrid
Ever hear of North Sentinel Island, part of the Andaman Islands, in the Bay of Bengal? There is a people there who have not wanted any contact at all with modern humans, and have killed people who dared to try and step ashore. There is an international agreement for boats not to come within 5 Km of the island, so the people there can live their lives as they want.

A Homo Sapien specific example of why we set areas aside for the protection and preservation of species, or in this case a society, at risk.
 
Last edited:

VinceInMT

Subscriber
Joined
Nov 14, 2017
Messages
1,898
Location
Montana, USA
Format
Multi Format
Another strategy for avoiding the crowds in the National Parks is to go during the shoulder season after the crowds have gone home so their kids can go back to school. I’m an hour from the Beartooth Highway (said to be the most beautiful drive in the country) and it goes right into Yellowstone Park. While I’ll do the highway between Memorial Day and the first part of October, going to Yellowstone Park is much better in September. Oh, and as for parking, 90% of my recreational traveling is by motorcycle and finding a place to park is never an issue. Should you be interested, here’s a blog entry for a ride through the north part of Yellowstone:

https://fjradventures.blogspot.com/2021/10/beartooth-pass-and-yellowstone-park.html
 

takilmaboxer

Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2007
Messages
397
Location
East Mountains, NM
Format
Med. Format RF
I had a photography teacher once (named Steve Fitch) who told me, with respect to photographing famous landscapes or landmarks, to approach every subject as if it had never been photographed before. Use your own unique vision.
And times change; remember that AA went into the Yosemite wilderness with pack mules loaded down with equipment. I'll bet he didn't pack out the poop. Today many of us use the "leave no trace" philosophy, even if we're carrying a view camera. Or we use the Weston philosophy: anything more than 100 feet from the car is "unphotographable", at least with an 8X10.
 

DREW WILEY

Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2011
Messages
14,219
Format
8x10 Format
Don - Yosemite Valley isn't all that big compared to the overall Park area. But most of that is roadless, and should be. They can barely keep open what they do have paved higher than the Valley.
Tioga Pass and Glacier Point aren't even open yet this year. But the Valley is where most of the visitors and nearly all the tour buses go. So yeah, it has a number of big parking lots, and they get even more crowded at times than shopping mall lots.

Go there off peak season. Same with Zion, Yellowstone. But in ALL these areas there are PLENTY of uncrowded alternatives to the stereotypical NP destinations. What I tell folks is to collect all the postcards they can, look at all the must-see RV videos on the web, and all the "scenic turnout" locations, clearly identify those - and then when you get near to any of them, head exactly the opposite direction! It always works for me.

Timing is everything. Even the summit of Haleakala turns into a tour bus zone by late morning. Last time we were there, we were just about to leave when the first two buses arrived. A lot of Japanese twenty-somethings piled out. Most of them just stood outside the bus flirting. Some went to the restroom. Some took selfies in front of a sign. Only two walked to the nearby guard rail and actually looked at the scene, which really is remarkable and highly photogenic (but terribly windy at times too).

And anything less than a few miles from the road is unphotographable with an 8X10 if you want peace of mind free from traffic noise.

As far as AA's mule train days, that custom was still in effect in my younger years, and we locals, especially the real cowboys who appreciated the quiet of the mountains, cursed those long S.C. stock convoys, and all the people and portable facilities they hauled into the backcountry, as if a military expedition. Litter everywhere, horse races in the meadows, skits and theater with seating, snack dispensaries, my gosh. The new version of "hoofed locusts". But eventually the double standard was erased, and now the Wilderness Areas limit the impact of horses and forbid any large groups. A sad exception was these past few years during the covid crisis, when big illegal outdoor "raves" occurred at a certain well-known high altitude lake, since Rangers were so thinned-out at the time. But it backfired, because lots of those rule-breakers got caught in terrible forest fire smoke while still back in there, right when they were darn few people to help rescue them.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Aug 29, 2017
Messages
9,695
Location
New Jersey formerly NYC
Format
Multi Format
Don - Yosemite Valley isn't all that big compared to the overall Park area. But most of that is roadless, and should be. They can barely keep open what they do have paved higher than the Valley.
Tioga Pass and Glacier Point aren't even open yet this year. But the Valley is where most of the visitors and nearly all the tour buses go. So yeah, it has a number of big parking lots, and they get even more crowded at times than shopping mall lots.

Go there off peak season. Same with Zion, Yellowstone. But in ALL these areas there are PLENTY of uncrowded alternatives to the stereotypical NP destinations. What I tell folks is to collect all the postcards they can, look at all the must-see RV videos on the web, and all the "scenic turnout" locations, clearly identify those - and then when you get near to any of them, head exactly the opposite direction! It always works for me.

Timing is everything. Even the summit of Haleakala turns into a tour bus zone by late morning. Last time we were there, we were just about to leave when the first two buses arrived. A lot of Japanese twenty-somethings piled out. Most of them just stood outside the bus flirting. Some went to the restroom. Some took selfies in front of a sign. Only two walked to the nearby guard rail and actually looked at the scene, which really is remarkable and highly photogenic (but terribly windy at times too).

And anything less than a few miles from the road is unphotographable with an 8X10 if you want peace of mind free from traffic noise.

As far as AA's mule train days, that custom was still in effect in my younger years, and we locals, especially the real cowboys who appreciated the quiet of the mountains, cursed those long S.C. stock convoys, and all the people and portable facilities they hauled into the backcountry, as if a military expedition. Litter everywhere, horse races in the meadows, skits and theater with seating, snack dispensaries, my gosh. The new version of "hoofed locusts". But eventually the double standard was erased, and now the Wilderness Areas limit the impact of horses and forbid any large groups. A sad exception was these past few years during the covid crisis, when big illegal outdoor "raves" occurred at a certain well-known high altitude lake, since Rangers were so thinned-out at the time. But it backfired, because lots of those rule-breakers got caught in terrible forest fire smoke while still back in there, right when they were darn few people to help rescue them.

Visitors add scale. That's the Pacific Ocean 10,000 feet down on Haleakala and the father and his girl add important context.
 

Attachments

  • 501-PA263430-1-2.jpg
    501-PA263430-1-2.jpg
    644 KB · Views: 60

bluechromis

Subscriber
Joined
Sep 11, 2015
Messages
685
Format
35mm
What is the point of having a beautiful National Park and turning it into a parking lot?
---
Yes, one can easily escape the crowds by walking a few miles from the main attractions, but first one must find a place to park ones car. Last time I visited Yellowstone, there were literally no parking spaces available in any of the 4 or 5 parking lots we visited. We left the park without getting out of our car. More parking lots is not the answer, because more tourists will fill them up as fast as they can be built.

I think Henry Ford and Dwight Eisenhower are more to blame for overcrowding in America's national parks than Ansel Adams. If the Eisenhower administration had devoted the same resources to building a national rail transportation system as was spent building the interstate highway system, America would need far fewer parking lots.

More recently, many national parks are starting to limit the number of cars into some of the most crowded parks, bringing visitors in by shuttle instead. This system still requires a giant parking lot be built somewhere near the park, but at least it can be located farther away from the wilderness. It would be better if I could leave my car in my driveway back home and take a train to the park, but except for a few areas, most of America is not accessible by passenger train.

Don't get me wrong, I like to drive. We just got back from a 10-day road trip to Santa Fe NM, and we had a great time. But if we would have had the option to take a passenger train from my home town to Santa Fe, we would have done that instead.

You are correct that use of cars was more important than anything Adams did in popularizing parks. There had been photos and paintings of the scenic West all along. In the early days, the most convenient and popular way to visit National Parks in the West was by rail. Some of the most popular parks had rail spurs made specifically to go to the park. In the post-war era, the building of interstate highways and the economic boon that increased auto ownership made accessing parks by car more viable.

The railroads would engage artists and photographers to promote tourist destinations on their lines. For example, the Santa Fe line hired painters of the Taos School to make paintings of scenic areas for calendars, posters, and magazine features.

The auto industry also encouraged car vacation travel in various ways. I remember TV commercials where Diana Shore sang, "See the USA in your Chevrolet."
 

takilmaboxer

Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2007
Messages
397
Location
East Mountains, NM
Format
Med. Format RF
Anybody who can carry a full 8X10 outfit miles into the back country gets full respect from me. I had a buddy who did that, and I could barely lift his pack.
But It is always disconcerting to see parking lots full of cars and trash on the trails; I don't blame AA but simply the superficiality of modern urban culture. Completely disconnected from the natural world and confused by the idea that it has its own rules; consider the guy who tried to help a bison calf, up in Yellowstone.
 
Joined
Aug 29, 2017
Messages
9,695
Location
New Jersey formerly NYC
Format
Multi Format
You are correct that use of cars was more important than anything Adams did in popularizing parks. There had been photos and paintings of the scenic West all along. In the early days, the most convenient and popular way to visit National Parks in the West was by rail. Some of the most popular parks had rail spurs made specifically to go to the park. In the post-war era, the building of interstate highways and the economic boon that increased auto ownership made accessing parks by car more viable.

The railroads would engage artists and photographers to promote tourist destinations on their lines. For example, the Santa Fe line hired painters of the Taos School to make paintings of scenic areas for calendars, posters, and magazine features.

The auto industry also encouraged car vacation travel in various ways. I remember TV commercials where Diana Shore sang, "See the USA in your Chevrolet."

There are still bus and train tours today to national parks for people who prefer not to drive. But let's face it. Autos give people independence to go where they want, when they want. That's very attractive to most people. Plus, if you'e shooting a camera, you can spend your time setting up a shot and not be rushed by the bus driver to get back on the bus to go to the next spot.
 

bluechromis

Subscriber
Joined
Sep 11, 2015
Messages
685
Format
35mm
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.

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.
 

VinceInMT

Subscriber
Joined
Nov 14, 2017
Messages
1,898
Location
Montana, USA
Format
Multi Format
….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….

Quite true. Once tourist season opens in Yellowstone, the local media here, along with social media, revels in the encounters between tourists and the wilderness. Clueless tourist try to pet the “fluffy cows” (bison), get a selfie with a bear, or dip a toe in a geyser pool.
 

DREW WILEY

Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2011
Messages
14,219
Format
8x10 Format
It was exactly that "encourage large numbers of people" mentality that was prolonged too long. Ansel and the Sierra Club deduced it was important to take large parties of people a long distance on horseback so they could get a personal appreciation of just how much territory was at stake, especially along the spine of the high Sierra. The Muir Trail was already in place. That concept worked, but it held over as a counterproductive anachronism well after most of those areas were formally protected. Taking six or even ten people back in on horses is one thing, fifty or a hundred people at a time, something else entirely. I briefly worked for a pack station myself, but in relation to small parties. Winter neighbors did it as a summer career. But I still encountered some of those bif SC convoys and their messes less than 40 yrs ago. It's taken the high meadows a long time to heal.

What's happened to some canyon country places is far worse, in terms of being "loved to death". A poster child for that would be the outskirts of Moab Utah, or in the Wasatch up above Provo;
way worse than anything in the Sierra. Since I'm now seemingly getting too old for my former deep backcountry lifestyle, I've been map-plotting potential routes in the southern Sierra for a sidekick who want to do a six-weeker solo. Finding solitude will be easy 90% of the route, especially in a deep snow year like this one. But before I finally got slowed down by all the severe wildfire smoke these past few years, nine of the last ten long trips involved an entire week at a time encountering nobody else - and that's in prominent NP's here in the most populous State in the country! Go in on foot over the high passes, especially where horses can't go, and you get an awful lot of pristine space to yourself !
 
Joined
Aug 29, 2017
Messages
9,695
Location
New Jersey formerly NYC
Format
Multi Format
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.

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.

I agree with your comments on elitists who feel the outdoors belongs to them alone to be alone in it. The whole elitist movement is one of the reasons there are prohibitions against and fees to engage in photography in many of these parks. There are 330 million Americans who pay taxes to support these government lands which are owned by them as well. Considering the sizes of the lands controlled by the government, there are certainly areas that are and should be set aside for other activities beside hiking and camping. There's skiing, off road vehicles, trail biking, mountain climbing, boating, etc. that people enjoy doing. There's enough room to share these activities. If 99% of back country areas are basically empty of visitors, then it seems reasonable to set aside 10-20% of these underused areas for other activities beside hiking and camping.
 

DREW WILEY

Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2011
Messages
14,219
Format
8x10 Format
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 what 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.
 
Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links.
To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here.

PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Ilford ADOX Freestyle Photographic Stearman Press Weldon Color Lab Blue Moon Camera & Machine
Top Bottom