Previous :: Next Topic |
Author |
Message |
mb Member
Joined: 11 Aug 2002 Posts: 507 | TRs | Pics
|
|
mb
Member
|
Mon Apr 20, 2015 9:49 am
|
|
|
Maybe this is a California thing, but I figured I'd ask here because folks might know.
When did the Sierra Club flip from pro-recreation (e.g. "The mountains are calling and I must go.") to anti-recreation (e.g. "The whole concept of opening up wild places for recreation sort of cuts across our grain,” from the conservation chairman of the Loma Prieta chapter of the Sierra Club)?
I was staying at the Sierra Club lodge on Donner Pass, built in the 30's, and it was built so people could ski--they built lifts and lodges. But they also had articles on the resort in the southern sierra (Mineral King) which the Sierra Club was instrumental in blocking in the 1960's. So was it in that time frame, or more recent?
http://vault.sierraclub.org/history/timeline.aspx lists the word 'trail' for the last time in 1958.
|
Back to top |
|
|
DIYSteve seeking hygge
Joined: 06 Mar 2007 Posts: 12655 | TRs | Pics Location: here now |
|
DIYSteve
seeking hygge
|
Mon Apr 20, 2015 10:00 am
|
|
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Backpacker Joe Blind Hiker
Joined: 16 Dec 2001 Posts: 23956 | TRs | Pics Location: Cle Elum |
I don't think that you can fully investigate this topic without getting deep into politics, and that's a no no.
"If destruction be our lot we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen we must live through all time or die by suicide."
— Abraham Lincoln
"If destruction be our lot we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen we must live through all time or die by suicide."
— Abraham Lincoln
|
Back to top |
|
|
NacMacFeegle Member
Joined: 16 Jan 2014 Posts: 2653 | TRs | Pics Location: United States |
I'd hardly call the Sierra Club anti-recreation, as BigSteve pointed out they sponsor hundreds of trips every year. High-impact recreation is an entirely different matter. I don't know anything about the Donner Pass Ski Area (my question would be if both the lodge and the ski lifts were built by the club, or just the lodge), but I do know that the attitudes of the 30's were far removed from those of the 60's. For one thing there were fewer ski areas, and more intact wilderness lands. As America and the world become more populated and developed the need for careful management of our natural resources and wild heritage becomes increasingly apparent.
About the only area in which the Sierra Club and I do not see eye-to-eye is in the case of nuclear power vs. wind/solar power. They are so enamored with the concept of powering the world with renewables that they are careful to overlook the numerous issues with them. In particular the extreme amount of land required to generate power from wind and solar on a large scale. At the same time they ignore the potential of modern advances in nuclear power, despite its obvious advantages over other power sources.
I didn't mean to make this into a pro-nuclear rant, but I do think the Sierra Club's stance on power generation is its most flawed aspect.
|
Back to top |
|
|
RodF Member
Joined: 01 Sep 2007 Posts: 2593 | TRs | Pics Location: Sequim WA |
|
RodF
Member
|
Mon Apr 20, 2015 10:25 pm
|
|
|
When they strongly opposed reopening the Suiattle Road, the Mountain Loop Highway, Upper Stehekin Valley Road, the Dosewallips Road, the Graves Creek Road, the...
And thereby all the campgrounds and trailheads on them.
"of all the paths you take in life, make sure a few of them are dirt" - John Muir
"the wild is not the opposite of cultivated. It is the opposite of the captivated” - Vandana Shiva
"of all the paths you take in life, make sure a few of them are dirt" - John Muir
"the wild is not the opposite of cultivated. It is the opposite of the captivated” - Vandana Shiva
|
Back to top |
|
|
NacMacFeegle Member
Joined: 16 Jan 2014 Posts: 2653 | TRs | Pics Location: United States |
RodF wrote: | When they strongly opposed reopening the Suiattle Road, the Mountain Loop Highway, Upper Stehekin Valley Road, the Dosewallips Road, the Graves Creek Road, the...
And thereby all the campgrounds and trailheads on them. |
But that is not "ani-recreation", more an alteration of recreation. Closing a road changes trailheads to trail junctions, campgrounds to campsites. It deepens the wilderness and expands trail systems.
Don't get me wrong, it is important to have a variety of trail lengths and difficulties to provide for users of varying abilities. If people cannot easily experience the wilderness, how then can we convince them to want to protect it? However, I do think that the current balance in the US is weighted too much in favor of vehicular access to remote areas, as was so fervently argued by Harvey Manning. A reduction in roads would benefit many backcountry areas, as well as freeing up funds for other uses, including better maintenance of other roads.
I find myself in the middle of that argument, both anti-road and pro-road, advocating for the improvement of some and the demolition of others.
|
Back to top |
|
|
Ski ><((((°>
Joined: 28 May 2005 Posts: 12835 | TRs | Pics Location: tacoma |
|
Ski
><((((°>
|
Tue Apr 21, 2015 12:27 am
|
|
|
Rod wrote: | "...the Dosewallips Road, the Graves Creek Road... And thereby all the campgrounds and trailheads on them...." |
90% of visitation to Olympic National Park is "windshield tourism".
...and Manning had his head in his ass when he railed against roads.
"I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach.
I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each."
"I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach.
I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each."
|
Back to top |
|
|
gb Member
Joined: 01 Jul 2010 Posts: 6315 | TRs | Pics
|
|
gb
Member
|
Tue Apr 21, 2015 5:25 am
|
|
|
Ski wrote: | Rod wrote: | "...the Dosewallips Road, the Graves Creek Road... And thereby all the campgrounds and trailheads on them...." |
90% of visitation to Olympic National Park is "windshield tourism".
...and Manning had his head in his ass when he railed against roads. |
I wasn't aware he railed against the Hurricane Ridge Road, The Hoh, and 101 where all of that "windshield tourism" takes place.
You mean of course he had his own interests and that of wilderness in mind.
That said I'm not against the re-opening of the Suiattle and the Dose and maintenance of most of the major access points.
|
Back to top |
|
|
moonspots Happy Curmudgeon
Joined: 03 Feb 2007 Posts: 2456 | TRs | Pics Location: North Dakota |
|
moonspots
Happy Curmudgeon
|
Tue Apr 21, 2015 6:22 am
|
|
|
Ski wrote: | 90% of visitation to Olympic National Park is "windshield tourism". |
I've done that, once. Drove up to the Hurricane Ridge visitor's center when I had a free weekend a few years ago when attending a training session on Bainbridge Island. I decided then that I had to return.
So, now that I'm retired (mostly), I'm working up a plan to do it by "foot tourism" this summer. I want to see Mt Olympus up close, the idea being that I want to summit it. I want to summit as many of the Washington/Oregon peaks as I can, while I am still able.
So, any advice, any helpful suggestions to this end?
...now back to the regular "on-topic" discussion...
"Out, OUT you demons of Stupidity"! - St Dogbert, patron Saint of Technology
"Out, OUT you demons of Stupidity"! - St Dogbert, patron Saint of Technology
|
Back to top |
|
|
DIYSteve seeking hygge
Joined: 06 Mar 2007 Posts: 12655 | TRs | Pics Location: here now |
|
DIYSteve
seeking hygge
|
Tue Apr 21, 2015 8:17 am
|
|
|
RodF wrote: | When they strongly opposed reopening the Suiattle Road |
I do not recall the Sierra Club taking those positions. Can you provide a link confirming that?
ETA: The suit to stop the road was filed by NCCC and Pilchuck Audubon Society. AFAIK, the Sierra Club had no association with that effort.
ETA2: My recollection is that the Sierra Club took no position re the reopening of the Mt. Loop Highway.
|
Back to top |
|
|
drm Member
Joined: 24 Feb 2007 Posts: 1376 | TRs | Pics Location: The Dalles, OR |
|
drm
Member
|
Tue Apr 21, 2015 8:38 am
|
|
|
I'm assuming that the "The mountains are calling and I must go." quote is Muir. Very few of us are in his class when it comes to roughing it. I can only imagine what he would think of our easy access, lightweight gear, maintained trails, etc. Nor could he imagine the number of people in the high mountains these days.
|
Back to top |
|
|
kiliki Member
Joined: 07 Apr 2003 Posts: 2327 | TRs | Pics Location: Seattle |
|
kiliki
Member
|
Tue Apr 21, 2015 10:30 am
|
|
|
Quote: | I'm assuming that the "The mountains are calling and I must go." quote is Muir. Very few of us are in his class when it comes to roughing it. I can only imagine what he would think of our easy access, lightweight gear, maintained trails, etc. Nor could he imagine the number of people in the high mountains these days. |
Yeah, he was a loaf of bread and a backpack kind of guy. I imagine he'd be horrified at the trips that the Sierra Club sponsors now.
You can read histories of the club, and of ideas about wilderness and recreation, the evolution of conservation and environmentalism, etc etc, if you are truly interested. It's interesting to see how ideas about appropriate use, recreation, etc, have changed. There is quite a bit written about this as it pertains to the National Park Service.
|
Back to top |
|
|
mb Member
Joined: 11 Aug 2002 Posts: 507 | TRs | Pics
|
|
mb
Member
|
Tue Apr 21, 2015 10:43 am
|
|
|
Yes, this is certainly created by internal Sierra Club politics. But I'm asking about history/current stance here and seeing if my take on the situation is shared by others.
In fact I suspect there's intra-group schisms--group A wants recreation and leads trips. These trips even do things like cross-country hiking.
Group B thinks people are the scourge of the earth and works to block access-e.g. 'don't reopen that road'.
Both might agree that building a fancy ski resort shopping mall thing is a bad thing.
The things built in the Sierra in the past include huts, which are the only public hut system there now since building anything new is forbidden. They are typically booked every winter weekend, since they're the easiest way to access the backcountry. The ski lifts (rope tows) are long gone.
Anyway the case which I have the quote for below is (a portion of?) the local sierra club supporting lack of public (non-motorized) access to existing (decades old and still in regular use) service roads in the watershed just south of San Francisco. With the reasoning that it's against the Sierra Club's general principles.
|
Back to top |
|
|
RodF Member
Joined: 01 Sep 2007 Posts: 2593 | TRs | Pics Location: Sequim WA |
|
RodF
Member
|
Wed Apr 22, 2015 10:56 am
|
|
|
BigSteve wrote: | RodF wrote: | When they strongly opposed reopening the Suiattle Road |
I do not recall the Sierra Club taking those positions. Can you provide a link confirming that? |
Of course I can.
But I'm not your secretary. I have better things to do with my time.
All the comment letters for all the Suiattle EAs are part of the permanent public record. Obfuscate them and construct your own tortuous rewriting of history.
The big picture here is simply this: “Compromise is often necessary, but it ought not to originate with environmental leaders. Our role is to hold fast to what we believe is right, to fight for it, to find allies, and to adduce all possible arguments for our cause. If we cannot find enough vigor in us or our friends to win, then let someone else propose the compromise.” — David Brower, first Executive Director of the Sierra Club
As a lawyer, you may even admire that! Sierra Club is very consistent. Let not mere facts get in the way, because the ends justify the means. This is the rationalization of all self-righteous fundamentalist zealots, be their cause religion, environment, vaccination, immigration, guns, money... or war.
Does their tactic serves the broader public interest in achieving factual, reality-based public policy decisions built on consensus? This is an ethical question on which you, Big Steve, and I may never agree. It is the reason I am a member of The Nature Conservancy and of The Wilderness Society, and not of Sierra Club nor of Wilderness Watch.
An adversarial process, in which inconvenient truths are deliberately obfuscated, does not serve the public interest in setting public land use policy. It is unethical. And we see it playing out here today for the "Wild Olympics" campaign and against Navy "electronic warfare" training: facts be damned.
Personal ethics is a question for each reader here to each decide for themselves. This is the real question posed in mb's original posting.
"of all the paths you take in life, make sure a few of them are dirt" - John Muir
"the wild is not the opposite of cultivated. It is the opposite of the captivated” - Vandana Shiva
"of all the paths you take in life, make sure a few of them are dirt" - John Muir
"the wild is not the opposite of cultivated. It is the opposite of the captivated” - Vandana Shiva
|
Back to top |
|
|
NacMacFeegle Member
Joined: 16 Jan 2014 Posts: 2653 | TRs | Pics Location: United States |
Very elegantly put Rod, I find myself agreeing with most of that. I too am a member of the Nature Conservancy and the Wilderness Society and not of more extreme groups. For one thing, the less radical groups are the ones who seem to get the most done!
That said, I think that extremist environmental groups play an important role, even if that may only be to counter the influence of extremists at the other end of the table.
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Disclosure: As an Amazon Associate NWHikers.net earns from qualifying purchases when you use our link(s).
|