Forum Index > Stewardship > Trampled locales
Previous :: Next Topic  
Author Message
#19
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 2206 | TRs

#19
  Top

Member
PostThu Aug 26, 2004 11:07 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
marylou wrote:
I'm afraid I can't see any useful parallel between the work of Nature and poor stewardship by humankind. 

Like James Watt.  No reason to conserve natural resourses, because THE END IS NEAR.

Quote:
When I look at the Rampart Lakes and see a spectacularly beutiful place that looks "threadbare" and "shopworn" it does not inspire awe in me, only disappointment.


agree.gif  Disappointed, let down, sad, ...I have no problem with a trail and a few camp spots, but seeing the hammering that some of these places get, almost ruins the trip for me.  I will never go back to the Robins again, even though it is the fav or a lot of people.  maybe if I had seen it before the degradation I'd have a better opinion of the place.

Quote:
Comparisons like this merely make the point that we need to find ways to raise the consciousness of our fellow backcountry users.

If we could keep just one place from the "threadbare" look it would be worth it.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
#19
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 2206 | TRs

#19
  Top

Member
PostThu Aug 26, 2004 12:41 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
mike wrote:
Quote:
realize, that every year, what you once sherished will change. For better or worse

 
I haven't followed this thread in it's entirety but the theme seems to be "places that have been trashed" So I submit a place that has been trashed in the past but is now looking much better...Cascade Pass.  It is possible to turn things around but it does take much time.

Very true.  I saw it for the first time in the mid '70s, but now it looks way better.  Massive replantings and sound management has helped that place a great deal.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
Slugman
Slower than ever



Joined: 27 Mar 2003
Posts: 16096 | TRs

Slugman
  Top

Slower than ever
PostFri Aug 27, 2004 12:53 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Stefan, no, I wouldn't say that I'm for the gating of the Mid for rd. #1, it's already been clearcut in the past, so gating the road isn't the same as never having built it or cut the trees in the first place. #2, lots of other people don't want it gated, and since I have no strong feeling either way, I would defer to them. But it wouldn't break my heart if they did, especially if it meant an eventual increase in the wilderness area over time. I don't mind the forest hiking that's needed to reach the high country, as long as it's good forest, and the mid fork is pretty good second growth.

A better example would be if you asked if I would like to see the Hoh rainforest clearcut much deeper into the woods than it already has been, just so I could have a road closer to Blue Glacier on Mt Olympus. The answer is an emphatic NO! I would much rather have the forest, even though it makes the glacier hike 18 miles each way. I do not consider the forest to be an impediment I must hurry through, but rather one of the main attractions worth savoring, a prime reason to go in the first place.

--------------
"There is a pleasure in the pathless woods, There is a rapture on the lonely shore. There is society where none intrudes, By the deep sea, and music in its roar: I love not man the less, but nature more..."  Childe Harold
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
Slugman
Slower than ever



Joined: 27 Mar 2003
Posts: 16096 | TRs

Slugman
  Top

Slower than ever
PostFri Aug 27, 2004 12:58 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
borank wrote:
SM, FWIW, I did not say outdated, I said merely dated. 

Sorry, but my confusion was understandable for this reason:

Random House Webster's collegiate dictionary says:

Dated = Out-of-date.

Outdated = Out-of-date.

Sorry, but the distinction is too subtle for me! lol.gif  lol.gif  wink.gif

--------------
"There is a pleasure in the pathless woods, There is a rapture on the lonely shore. There is society where none intrudes, By the deep sea, and music in its roar: I love not man the less, but nature more..."  Childe Harold
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
borank
Lake dork



Joined: 16 Dec 2001
Posts: 494 | TRs
Location: Lynnwoot
borank
  Top

Lake dork
PostFri Aug 27, 2004 8:29 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Slugman wrote:
Dated = Out-of-date. Outdated = Out-of-date.

Okay, I'll file that one away for next time. I seem to make a distinction that the dictionaries don't.  What I had in mind was analogous to this:

Dated - buying a carton of milk just before it's expiration date
Out-dated - buying a carton of milk just after it's expiration date

And this is relating back to your comment on the previous thread:

Quote:
Secrecy fails to protect, people loving a place does protect. Boot paths are better than clearcuts and strip mines. Trip reports are good. More hikers=more wilderness protection. Secrecy would have cost us hundreds of thousands of acres in the eastern Pasayten alone. Visitors saved that area from clearcutting.

How do TRs and increased usage and love protect a place that already has wilderness designation (for say, the last 3 decades)?
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
Slugman
Slower than ever



Joined: 27 Mar 2003
Posts: 16096 | TRs

Slugman
  Top

Slower than ever
PostFri Aug 27, 2004 8:42 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Your "already has protection" tells the answer. That assumes my "plan" has already worked for that area. I was refering to a general policy for general results. Obviously, if no one goes to a specific place, then there is no impact on that place, but also no one gets to enjoy it, and no "green-bonding" occurs there, either. And i also stated that camp hosts or rangers are needed at some of the high-traffic areas to promote smart usage as opposed to wasteful usage. And don't fool yourself into thinking that wilderness protection is forever. What one congress passes, another can "un-pass". All wilderness areas could be "cancelled" tomorrow. Only votes save wilderness. If there was no outcry expected at a wildernesses' "de-commisioning", then the push for "de-commisioning" would begin immediately.

Don't feel badly about the dated/outdated thing. I had to look it up myself to be sure.

--------------
"There is a pleasure in the pathless woods, There is a rapture on the lonely shore. There is society where none intrudes, By the deep sea, and music in its roar: I love not man the less, but nature more..."  Childe Harold
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
aestivate
Member
Member


Joined: 19 Mar 2004
Posts: 199 | TRs

aestivate
  Top

Member
PostFri Aug 27, 2004 10:33 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
borank wrote:

But I am convinced more than ever that the best way to save fragile areas for as long as possible is to just shut up about them.

Well said, Borank.  There's a natural human tendency to want to share what you know, a pleasure in instructing and seeming knowledgeable and helping each other out. Particularly some really glorious spot that nobody seems to know about. Most of us start out wanting to share knowledge, but gradually when we see the effects of knowledge dissemination on nice places we know, we end up blabbing less and less. But it takes a while for that process (ten years, say?) to work.  And there's always more new folks coming along who haven't figured that out the hard way, and always some people who never figure it out. And there's another class of people, viz, guidebook writers, who have a professional interest in not figuring it out.

The internet has greatly speeded up this whole process, unfortunately.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
Stefan
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 4492 | TRs

Stefan
  Top

Member
PostFri Aug 27, 2004 10:49 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
aestivate wrote:
borank wrote:

But I am convinced more than ever that the best way to save fragile areas for as long as possible is to just shut up about them.

Well said, Borank.

Actually, there is a better way.  Implement a required trailhead park pass.  People will stay away.

--------------
Art is an adventure.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
Lead Dog
Member
Member


Joined: 27 Jan 2003
Posts: 790 | TRs
Location: Kent Wa
Lead Dog
  Top

Member
PostFri Aug 27, 2004 11:16 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
ditto.gif And make it cost $100.00 a year. Then impose a $500.00 fine if you don't have one. Think of all those empty trailheads!! up.gif  hockeygrin.gif
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
Slugman
Slower than ever



Joined: 27 Mar 2003
Posts: 16096 | TRs

Slugman
  Top

Slower than ever
PostFri Aug 27, 2004 10:50 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
It is completely wrong to assume that wilderness areas are safe. Read up on the "wise use" movement, supported by numerous politicians and captains of industry. Here is a partial list of their agenda, not exaggerated in any way. This agenda will be initiated as soon as the opposition cannot stop it anymore.

Clearcut ALL old growth, even if it costs more to do it than the wood is worth. That means, for example, clearcutting the Grove of the Patriarchs and turning it into lawn furniture or sawdust for pulp. They really do say and mean ALL oldgrowth. Really.

Build roads into the heart of ALL wildernesses.

Allow all strip mines, coal mines, oil drilling, etc, that industry wants, anywhere they like, even, say, in the heart of Yosemite or Yellowstone, if the resources are there to be taken.

Eliminate all environmental laws, and outlaw all lawsuits, so industry can pollute and destroy without hindrance.


Check it out for yourself if you don't believe me.

Aestivate, you are all wet when you ascribe those motives to trip report writers. We believe in protecting our wild places as much or more than you do, we just disagree on how best to accomplish that goal. For you to imply that it's simply a case of self-agrandissment is a disservice to those who have helped save what there is left of wild Washington. This is in reponse to your "seeming knowledgeable" comment. I could say that "secret keepers" are short-sighted and selfish, but i won't, because i believe that they are well-intentioned but misguided. Look at the big picture, realize that millions of acres are at stake and at risk here, not just a few trampled places that have been loved to death, mostly unnecesarily due to no ranger presence during the heavy use times. One ranger volunteer can save entire meadows by simply letting people know where they should camp and where they shouldn't.

--------------
"There is a pleasure in the pathless woods, There is a rapture on the lonely shore. There is society where none intrudes, By the deep sea, and music in its roar: I love not man the less, but nature more..."  Childe Harold
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
Brian Curtis
Trail Blazer/HiLaker



Joined: 16 Dec 2001
Posts: 1509 | TRs
Location: Silverdale, WA
Brian Curtis
  Top

Trail Blazer/HiLaker
PostFri Aug 27, 2004 11:28 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Nobody is suggesting that all wilderness be a secret place that nobody talks about. There are tons of beautiful places to send people for lots of green bonding that can handle the usage. There are other places that are best left for people to discover on their own. Guidebooks have their place, internet reports have their place, and silence has its place. Knowing when to talk, and when not to is important.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
Newt
Short Timer



Joined: 21 Dec 2001
Posts: 3189 | TRs
Location: Down the road and around the corner
Newt
  Top

Short Timer
PostSat Aug 28, 2004 6:31 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Slugman wrote:
It is completely wrong to assume that wilderness areas are safe. Read up on the "wise use" movement, supported by numerous politicians and captains of industry. Here is a partial list of their agenda, not exaggerated in any way. This agenda will be initiated as soon as the opposition cannot stop it anymore.

Clearcut ALL old growth, even if it costs more to do it than the wood is worth. That means, for example, clearcutting the Grove of the Patriarchs and turning it into lawn furniture or sawdust for pulp. They really do say and mean ALL oldgrowth. Really.

Build roads into the heart of ALL wildernesses.

Allow all strip mines, coal mines, oil drilling, etc, that industry wants, anywhere they like, even, say, in the heart of Yosemite or Yellowstone, if the resources are there to be taken.

Eliminate all environmental laws, and outlaw all lawsuits, so industry can pollute and destroy without hindrance.


Check it out for yourself if you don't believe me.

You have a link to the original?

Thanks, Newt

--------------
It's pretty safe to say that if we take all of man kinds accumulated knowledge, we still don't know everything. So, I hope you understand why I don't believe you know everything. But then again, maybe you do.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
gj
Member
Member


Joined: 01 Nov 2003
Posts: 78 | TRs

gj
  Top

Member
PostSat Aug 28, 2004 8:17 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
It's a personal choice of whether to talk about a place, shut up about it or whatever. But the fact is this is an age of information and virtually every place has already been written about. Look at Beckey's climbing guides. He provides specific routes to all kinds of wonderful places. No one here is going to stop the flow of information on he internet; on the contrary, it is going to flow harder, wider and longer.

It's instructional to note that this country was founded on the notion of a free flow of information. Knowledge is almost never a bad thing. Yes it can be used destructively; we don't want terrorists to get an a-bomb manuel, for example. But in this case, educating people about the need and methods to protect places is a better approach than limiting information, in my opinion.

You can write a trip report or not. I don't talk about certain small rivers I fish. But if somebody asks me about them, I'll tell them after a heavy dose of proselytizing. In that regard, to delete godlygirl's trip report about Bathtub Lakes (I'm assuming that's why it's blank), which have never been a secret within the hiking community, is lame and smacks of eco-nazism.

Also sluggy is right; no protection is necessarily permanent. Chainsaws and bulldozers do more damage than boots and with the bushmaster in there, they could be coming. I think there's nothing more he like to do than eliminate wilderness.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
Slugman
Slower than ever



Joined: 27 Mar 2003
Posts: 16096 | TRs

Slugman
  Top

Slower than ever
PostSat Aug 28, 2004 8:27 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Here's one, newt, but a google search can get you much more. Search on "wise use agenda".

Wise use agenda

--------------
"There is a pleasure in the pathless woods, There is a rapture on the lonely shore. There is society where none intrudes, By the deep sea, and music in its roar: I love not man the less, but nature more..."  Childe Harold
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
Allison
Feckless Swooner



Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 12304 | TRs
Location: putting on my Nikes before the comet comes
Allison
  Top

Feckless Swooner
PostSat Aug 28, 2004 9:12 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
I believe Godlygirl removed her report after I asked her to do so.

--------------
www.allisonoutside.com

follow me on Twitter! @AllisonLWoods
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
  Display:     All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Forum Index > Stewardship > Trampled locales
  Happy Birthday outdoorgirl, wildernessed!
Jump to:   
Search this topic:

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
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
   Use Disclaimer Powered by phpBB Privacy Policy