[joker]

https://lnt.org/blog/new-social-media-guidance

[markweth]

I think these guidelines are supremely reasonable and am rather pleased that they seem to reflect some of the themes of the proposed 8th Leave No Trace principle.

[Ski]

I'm all for it, but.... The question is how does that message get conveyed to the innumerable online sources of information about destination sites, like this recent blurb from Bartell Drugs?

[joker]

I think we need to challenge any group that is ramping more folks onto the trails to match that with educational activity to ensure that the newbies know what good stewardship entails. I've just today challenged the admins of WH&C to strive for such a balance, given their group's relative impact (and offered to help if they want that).

[joker]

It took a while to shift the norms from pine bow beds, campfires, and bash burn and bury. I think it will also take a while for social media behavior to mature in a way that makes the net impact clearly positive.

[huron]

You must be Joking. Yeah, burn the maps so nobody else can be a seeker of our secret places. The topic comes up here often and it is disgusting.

[Kim Brown]

[huron]

The primary suggestion and first bullet point the article made was to avoid tagging a location and to refer to it at the level of "state or region, if any at all". For members of a hiking oriented web site with a trip report section to suggest this is at the very least hypocritical and if put to practice yields a TR that serves only to brag rather than contribute to the enjoyment and benefit of others.

[Kim Brown]

Trip reports here aren't the same as Instagram yoga poses. The examples are region or state. You can use any tags you want. Narrow it down to the township and range, watershed, nearest trail, nearest larger lake, or a point on your GPS. The choices are endless and they are yours. Their use of the words and phrases, "there isn't wrong or right," "framework," "guidance," "stop and think," "consider" "urge to think about" "be mindful" don't sound to me as if they are dictating to anyone; indeed, they can't. Leave No Trace is an organization putting out guidelines they hope people will consider before hopping onto social media and posting details. If, after a person considers potential, and then does it anyway, well, the message was successful. The person considered potential impact. One good result of thoughtful consideration was WTA's decision to stop their popular Hike of the Week posts on their blog. It was creating too much visitation on the featured trail for weeks afterward. The first change was featuring only hikes with a large parking area, and an hour or so outside of Seattle. Then they eliminated the Hike of the Week altogether. They considered impact, and made a decision. They didn't eliminate Trip Reports, however. You can find reports, including photos, on any trail a volunteer chooses to submit a report on. Another example is on this site; we misspell places on purpose like Buthtab Lakes or, reverse the spellling to thwart search engines - at one time there was a feature in the edit buttons to reverse words. Yet another consideration and resulting change is Washington HIkers and Climbers' policy against posting photos from inside of ice caves. So considering impact is not new, not at all. And Leave No Trace is an organization, not the law. Do what you want, no one will stop you. Enjoy your summer.

[joker]

Well put Kim.

[huron]

[Ski]

[Kim Brown]

Good points, joker and Ski; commercial enterprise is contributing, and like all of us, at first unwittingly. But like all of us, once someone plants a seed in our brains about possible impact, we may change what we do (as in examples given above). Some may feel it is "shaming," (an overused word if there ever was one [but nowhere near the word 'amazing.']), it seems more about suggesting we reconsider they way we think about the impact of our actions; which we do every day, or should. OFten, a communications person in a corporation or not for profit, tosses up a picture of a pretty lake (Blanca is a true example) with a pinpoint on a google map in order to sell something or get donations. From there, every follower of the page tags two or three friends, saying "Let's go!" but they may completely ignore the actual message about the product or the donation. On the other hand, perhaps the Corporation sold 500 jackets, or the organization got $500 in donations. What's the cost, and was it worth it? The Leave No Trace messaging is asking people to think about that. Sharing with friends on your own page, or posting trip reports is one thing; Instagram hiking is a whole 'nother ball of plastic jackets. I may share photos and details on my own Facebook page that I wouldn't share here. Perhaps a Trip Report here may leave off certain details I included on my own page. That's what Leave No Trace's message is about. Back in the day, hikers buried garbage. There's a short blurb in an old Signpost magazine from the 1960's that discusses that practice and that because more people are getting out into the mountains, it's no longer the best way to handle garbage - they were running out of empty pits in the back country. It was suggested then that we pack it out. This was before any organized Leave No Trace ethics were developed. So the concept of changing from the old ways, if they are no longer appropriate isn't new.

[Ski]

<edited for brevity> The hurdle to overcome is getting the message out to a broader audience. It’s not enough to target the “usual suspects” like Facebook, Instagram, and Pinterest. That message also needs to be part of the package being sold by those whose business reaps the monetary benefits of the outdoor industry – the REI’s, the Dicks Sporting Goods, the Patagonias, and all the other players who tap into the “outdoor” demographic looking for their little piece of the pie. As the whole “outdoor” thing becomes more trendy, and as the population increases, the number of businesses seeking to gain market share increases proportionately. As an interesting coincidence just yesterday I stumbled across this little blurb from a local (Washington State based) retailer that I never previously would have imagined being part of this game: Bartell Drugs. (see here: https://www.bartelldrugs.com/hello-summer/bartrails/ ) The larger question, then, is how to get the message across to those looking to make a buck from the “outdoor” demographic that their sharing in the responsibility of conveying good stewardship ethics is in their own best long-term interests.

[joker]

I think the "tag thoughtfully" bullet point could be more precisely written, and clearly make a wider degree of discretion apparent. Certainly not having lat/long tags on photos is a good idea in a great many cases, given the hammering that specific photo vantage points tend to get. But there are many cases where getting quite a bit more precise than "state or region" is just fine. But, then, the more general admonition to "tag thoughtfully" would yield that same conclusion, wouldn't it? So while I could join in an editors' quibble about the exact wording, I still buy quite fully into the spirit and am a bit disappointed to see (both here and on WH&C discussion) some riveting in on that single point to trash this new guidance apparently in its entirety. I don't see this guidance as suggesting that those of us in the know start keeping the outdoors a secret, or that we cease and desist from encouraging more folks to get out. Just last weekend I posted both here and on WH&C a few pics of Mt St Helens flower fields with the mountain in the background. These got LOTS of views and likes on WH&C and I am fairly sure from all the shouts out to friends in the comments that I'll have generated some more traffic to the trails out of Johnston Ridge in coming weekends. But I'm OK with that. On one of those posts I made a comment that it was so tempting to wander out into the broad fields of flowers to shoot from a better vantage point, but I stuck to the trails as is required in that area (thus following one of the bullets of the new guidance to include some LNT-ish comments in posts, even though I hadn't seen this new guidance :-) ). There's a huge paved parking lot with painted lines and clear trails with many signs tellilng folks to stay on trails and plenty of ranger staff etc so I feel fine about having posted these photos with info letting folks know where I was. If anything, it will get some folks to venture beyond I90 to a place that can certainly handle an increment of added traffic. But there are other spots from which I wouldn't even post photos w/o location info given what I believe a spike in usage would do there. I'm more fine sharing pointers to resources that include some info about these spots along with many other spots (Beckey's guides for instance, which include useful "approach" info that even non-climbers like me can benefit from) because these info sources will help spread increased usage out much more so than will a pretty "insta-worthy" photo. Thoughtful posting. It's what I think this new guidance is imploring. Certainly a good step in the evolution of the still-young use of social media by outdoor enthusiasts in a still growing world of humans. As a repeat from above, here's the LNT.ORG preamble to the specific bullets: