Forum Index > Trail Talk > Leave No Trace and Social Media
 Reply to topic
Previous :: Next Topic
Author Message
joker
seeker



Joined: 12 Aug 2006
Posts: 7953 | TRs | Pics
Location: state of confusion
joker
seeker
PostSun Sep 24, 2017 9:22 am 
cartman wrote:
I'd tune out too if someone told me what color choices to wear, not to ever leave the trail, or tried to tell me what not to post.
The "not ever to leave the trail" bit is interesting. I've seen some claims on WH&C that the "LNT purists" are telling people they should never leave the trail. Which is in fact not what LNT asks of us. It does ask that we avoid leaving the trail in places like the trail up to Alta Vista at Paradise - very crowded places where if off-trail travel were allowed it would trash the place due to the sheer numbers traveling there. But it suggests sticking to "durable surfaces" whenever possible off trail and spreading out where there's no existing trail to follow. Likely more or less the practices you use. So if there are indeed "purists" trying to draw the "no off trail" line they don't really understand LNT. As for the social media point, I don't think that any sort of "suggested norms" for social media use that demand that people don't post are likely to evoke the sort of response you suggest by a good many people. Thus I think that any effort to get people to think about the impact their posts may be having can't take a dictatorial approach. But I don't think that's a reason to entirely dodge discussing the impacts and attempting to hash out widely acceptable norms (which also can't be about "limiting access" as you've claimed the efforts are about)...

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
joker
seeker



Joined: 12 Aug 2006
Posts: 7953 | TRs | Pics
Location: state of confusion
joker
seeker
PostSun Sep 24, 2017 9:35 am 
cartman wrote:
A far better and more effective tactic would have been to come up with a new way to reach the younger generation about responsible stewardship of wild places--using social media!
I think any effort at hashing out social media norms for discussing hiking should likely start here. That said, I do think that said "responsible stewardship" can fairly including questions such as whether it's better to use a Beckey-like level of description of one's off trail route when sharing a trip report or answering a query than to post a GPS track which is likely to ensure multiple subsequent travelers will pass through all the same bottlenecks (similarly I think it's good that there's been some discussion among photographers about the ethics of stripping GPS tags from photos of scenes, particularly scenes that involved some off-trail travel). I'm more wary of very generalized pleas of "don't post about a trip to that sekret place" as I think a previous poster is correct that such pleas would seem to run counter to a goal of dispersing use rather than concentrating it on a relatively few "it' spots. I think that how to protect the next unhammered but precious and relatively easily accessed swimming or fishing hole is just a very vexing problem - encouraging folks to go to lots of other places as well is about the best I can come up with as I think it's inevitable that the news will get out for most such as-yet untrashed gems.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Malachai Constant
Member
Member


Joined: 13 Jan 2002
Posts: 16088 | TRs | Pics
Location: Back Again Like A Bad Penny
Malachai Constant
Member
PostSun Sep 24, 2017 9:37 am 
Just as a test I did some research on the internet regarding some pictures recently posted here without instructions or beta. I had been there before so I knew what keywords to use although they were not posted here. There was detailed instructions on The Mountaineers website and more general routes on WTA and Issaquah Alps. On WH&C there was nothing other that a picture without description Summitpost was similar. There were a number of privat pages with pictures but no beta.

"You do not laugh when you look at the mountains, or when you look at the sea." Lafcadio Hearn
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
joker
seeker



Joined: 12 Aug 2006
Posts: 7953 | TRs | Pics
Location: state of confusion
joker
seeker
PostSun Sep 24, 2017 10:06 am 
cartman wrote:
Finally, telling others what they should or should not post is a vast overreach, and ultimately treads on freedom of speech, which is anathema to most Americans.
I think it's worth unpacking that a little. Yes, our country is founded with a document whose first amendment legally protects "freedom of speech." Which protects most speech quite specifically against action by our government. On the other hand, restricting speech through social pressure is, well, as American as apple pie. I used to work at a small company in MA where swearing was common and if anything was a very nice pressure valve for us. When I moved to a large company in WA, I quickly learned that this wasn't going to fly there and I eliminated the cuss words from my work talk. The social pressure was quite effective. There are many jobs that can be lost (fully legally lost) over acts of speech that are protected from legal punishment by the first amendment. Many people won't even talk to siblings about how much $ they make or have - this is rather common in fact. Many people feel that they just can't discuss political or religious views that run counter to the mainstream of their local communities. If you report on this forum about certain lakes, you'd better spell them sdrawkcab. I could go on, but I think the point is clear - that restricting speech via social pressure is hardly anathema to most Americans.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Kim Brown
Member
Member


Joined: 13 Jul 2009
Posts: 6900 | TRs | Pics
Kim Brown
Member
PostSun Sep 24, 2017 10:26 am 
How did the First Amendment get into a bullet point on a list created by an organization that no one, anywhere, is bound to even read let alone adhere to?

"..living on the east side of the Sierra world be ideal - except for harsher winters and the chance of apocalyptic fires burning the whole area." Bosterson, NWHiker's marketing expert
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
joker
seeker



Joined: 12 Aug 2006
Posts: 7953 | TRs | Pics
Location: state of confusion
joker
seeker
PostSun Sep 24, 2017 10:55 am 
I can't speak for Cartman's full train of thought there but I brought it up in response to what I see as his faulty claim about "freedom of speech" (which was obviously made in response to a discussion about whether to attempt to codify new community norms about speech via social media).

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
RumiDude
Marmota olympus



Joined: 26 Jul 2009
Posts: 3579 | TRs | Pics
Location: Port Angeles
RumiDude
Marmota olympus
PostSun Sep 24, 2017 1:02 pm 
joker wrote:
I think that how to protect the next unhammered but precious and relatively easily accessed swimming or fishing hole is just a very vexing problem - encouraging folks to go to lots of other places as well is about the best I can come up with as I think it's inevitable that the news will get out for most such as-yet untrashed gems.
Here is the crux to this issue. It is also why I think the most effective solution involves land management rather that the futile attempt at convincing others to "think before posting" to social media. Some problems don't have a completely satisfying solution. It is a sad fact. Trying to manipulate individuals' behavior on social media is probably one which is beyond any meaningful control. Rumi

"This is my Indian summer ... I'm far more dangerous now, because I don't care at all."
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
joker
seeker



Joined: 12 Aug 2006
Posts: 7953 | TRs | Pics
Location: state of confusion
joker
seeker
PostSun Sep 24, 2017 3:38 pm 
I think more of "influence" than "control" here. I do believe that over time norms of behavior develop and have influence. Sometimes discussion about the norms has meaningful influence on the process. But it's typically not rapid and it's never magic. I do still think that "think before posting" is next to meaningless (some thought of course must occur to post in the first place so by definition that always happens except perhaps for "butt posts" which I have seen once or twice!). And getting more concrete is not so easy.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
pimaCanyon
Member
Member


Joined: 13 Jul 2007
Posts: 1304 | TRs | Pics
Location: at the bottom of the map
pimaCanyon
Member
PostSun Sep 24, 2017 3:43 pm 
Elephant in the Room: Lots and lots of humans, their numbers are growing rapidly versus little pockets of wilderness whose numbers and sizes are not growing at all. How much has the population of Washington State grown in the last 30 years? How about the American West in general? 1) The only solutions I see are reducing populations (not gonna happen any time soon, in my opinion), or 2) significantly expanding wilderness areas (also not gonna happen any time soon, in my opinion). There is a 3rd way and that's limiting access to the popular and crowded areas by instituting a permit system. Until solutions #1 or #2 come into play, limiting access makes sense to me. But of course the land management agencies have to get behind it and actually do it.

It's never too late to have a happy childhood
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Randito
Snarky Member



Joined: 27 Jul 2008
Posts: 9495 | TRs | Pics
Location: Bellevue at the moment.
Randito
Snarky Member
PostSun Sep 24, 2017 4:25 pm 
pimaCanyon wrote:
There is a 3rd way and that's limiting access to the popular and crowded areas by instituting a permit system. Until solutions #1 or #2 come into play, limiting access makes sense to me. But of course the land management agencies have to get behind it and actually do it.
The practical aspects of administering such a system make it about as likely as pipedreams #1 and #2 Besides look at the effect off the Enchantments quota system has had on the Tuck and Robin area -- it has seen a huge increase in traffic, massive trail expansion and erosion and blossoming of campsites right on the shoreline on the Robins. A comprehensive system covering the entire region similar in scope to what is used for backcountry camping in Mt Rainier would be needed -- but that system has been a total screw up in the last two seasons. Personally I would prefer to dispense with quota systems , welcome this next generation of hikers, educate them of low impact methods and upgrade trail infrastructure in highly popular areas to deal with erosion from the passage of many feet. Solitude is still quite easily found even quite close to I-90 even on weekends with just a little thought.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Bernardo
Member
Member


Joined: 08 Feb 2010
Posts: 2174 | TRs | Pics
Location: out and about in the world
Bernardo
Member
PostSun Sep 24, 2017 4:38 pm 
What about expanding access to privately held forests? That would eliminate some pressure. Very low cost. Many countries already have this. This is just one of many ways we could adapt.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
pimaCanyon
Member
Member


Joined: 13 Jul 2007
Posts: 1304 | TRs | Pics
Location: at the bottom of the map
pimaCanyon
Member
PostSun Sep 24, 2017 4:39 pm 
RandyHiker wrote:
The practical aspects of administering such a system make it about as likely as pipedreams #1 and #2
It would take personnel time and money, so you're probably right that it's about as likely as population reduction or wilderness expansion. I agree, an area wide permit system would be the way to go. Don't they have something like that in the High Sierra? If they can do it there, then why not here? Yes, Tuck and Robin are overused, but has that been caused solely by the Enchantment permit system? Overuse may be just due to its scenic beauty and relative proximity to Puget Sound. I think education (re LNT principles) is a good thing but there will always be 10 or 20 percent who don't get the word. And as population continues to grow, the negative impacts to wilderness will also continue to grow.

It's never too late to have a happy childhood
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Randito
Snarky Member



Joined: 27 Jul 2008
Posts: 9495 | TRs | Pics
Location: Bellevue at the moment.
Randito
Snarky Member
PostSun Sep 24, 2017 5:05 pm 
pimaCanyon wrote:
Yes, Tuck and Robin are overused, but has that been caused solely by the Enchantment permit system? Overuse may be just due to its scenic beauty and relative proximity to Puget Sound.
It is absolutely a factor, the area is viewed as "mini Enchantments without permits"

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
mb
Member
Member


Joined: 11 Aug 2002
Posts: 507 | TRs | Pics
mb
Member
PostSun Sep 24, 2017 6:05 pm 
Which is why 'just open more areas' isn't the answer. The problem is often the concentration of people in a few spots. Often because they truly are special. (Someone was posting 'hey we need more national parks to take pressure off the famous big ones' somewhere else. I was like... uh i've been to mostly empty national parks, and i mean at the main attraction of those parks. But they're in the middle of nowhere and not as amazing as the famous ones.)

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Randito
Snarky Member



Joined: 27 Jul 2008
Posts: 9495 | TRs | Pics
Location: Bellevue at the moment.
Randito
Snarky Member
PostSun Sep 24, 2017 7:17 pm 
Yeah, it's not like another Yellowstone can be opened in Nebraska. I don't think that is a serious solution. I also don't accept that "over population" is the problem. The population density/pressure in Washington is laughable small compared to areas like the Adirondacks or the Alps. However in those areas a lot more effort is made into constructing trails and other facilities to support the amount of traffic in a durable manner. There have been changes and there will be more changes as time goes on. I will never again be able to cook over a campfire at Spectacle Lake, nor fly in a float plane to Waptus Lake. Should I have the right to exclude people that moved to the region since 1970 from visiting these places so that I anbd other old timers may continue to experience those places in the way we once did? Of course not. To my ear many of the complains about overcrowding and overuse sound a similar theme. I think we must reach out to the newcomers and the next generation and embrace them and seek to instill in them a love of our natural areas -- so that they will also seek to protect them and figure out ways to do so in ways that us old timers might not think of

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
   All times are GMT - 8 Hours
 Reply to topic
Forum Index > Trail Talk > Leave No Trace and Social Media
  Happy Birthday speyguy, Bandanabraids!
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