Forum Index > Trail Talk > Impact of Social Media
Previous :: Next Topic  
Author Message
Joseph
Joseph



Joined: 13 Jun 2018
Posts: 82 | TRs
Location: Seattle
Joseph
  Top

Joseph
PostSat Oct 12, 2019 10:44 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
We have to remember that there are flat out more people than ever in the puget sound area, esp around Seattle and east side.  They are young-ish, 20's and 30's, often with no kids, have tons of disposable income, and a penchant for going on hikes and taking selfies and posting them on social media.  They are often likely to bring their dog on the trail too.

When anyone new to the area asks me where to go hiking, I mention Rattlesnake ridge and Mt. Si.  Sigh.  I think where we're headed is a permit system for places like Alpine Lakes wilderness.  Solitude is no more.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
RumiDude
Marmota olympus



Joined: 26 Jul 2009
Posts: 2732 | TRs
Location: Port Angeles
RumiDude
  Top

Marmota olympus
PostSat Oct 12, 2019 11:13 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
MtnGoat wrote:
InboxSearch  RumiDude Logout Members FAQ Shop
Quote Options
Posted: Sat Oct 12, 2019 8:49 am     MtnGoat wrote:
RumiDude wrote:
For someone that regularly employs snark, you are always asking others not to employ it.

RumiDude wrote:
Just asserting something doesn't make it so. Even moreso when it comes to stuff like this which is both complex and not well understood. If you think you can make the case, get to it.

Rumi

Oh please, not liking arguments does not make them snark.

You claimed I skipped steps, but you cannot even make the argument how I did so. You went for the snark, got called, and now evade rather than retracting or explaining your argument.

I can't help you if you are not self-aware so that you do not recognize your own snark. Those that live by the sword, die by the sword applies.
MtnGoat wrote:
Now, please explain where I skipped steps

#1 You have not even established a cause/effect relationship.
#2 You have not explained the moral element of any of this.
Again you have simply asserted that the person who posts a TR is morally culpable (to some unspecified degree) for the actions of a group of other people. That assertion is unwarranted and unsupported.

But this is complex whether you acknowledge it or not. Many questions arise when trying to establish both the cause/effect and any supposed quilt.

If I make a hammer and offer it free to whoever wants it, I am not morally implicated if you get it and you injure yourself and/or others with. I have no moral fingerprint if you hit a pedestrian with your auto on your way to my house to get it. I don't need an excuse if after hearing about me making the hammer you decide to forge your own hammer and burn your garage and your neighbor's house down in the process. There just is no moral element to this despite your assertion.

Rumi

--------------
"This is my Indian summer ... I'm far more dangerous now, because I don't care at all."
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
borank
Lake dork



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

Lake dork
PostSat Oct 12, 2019 12:06 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
RumiDude wrote:
#1 You have not even established a cause/effect relationship.

This is pretty much the argument of the cigarette industry last century.  It took another 35-40 yrs of research for science to definitively say smoking significantly increases risk of cancer.  Sometimes things are exactly what they look like.

Managers are tasked (by law) with preservation of "resource values" in wilderness areas, so technically, any use whatsoever will have a negative impact.  I think the moral aspect comes from each person recognizing the need to create the least impact, for the sake of the wilderness, and with respect to the law. ANYTHING that creates additional impact has a negative effect on the "resource values," on the directive of the wilderness managers and thus, a person's "moral values."
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
RandyHiker
Snarky Member



Joined: 27 Jul 2008
Posts: 6605 | TRs
Location: Bellevue at the moment.
RandyHiker
  Top

Snarky Member
PostSat Oct 12, 2019 2:16 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
I recall similar complaints about the 100 hikes books and the Cascade Alpine Guide.  Prior to the publication of these books,  one could only find out about places to hike and climb by being shown the way by others who deamed you worthy or by forging your own path.

With the publication of these guides anybody willing to plunk down a few bucks now had the "keys to the kingdom"
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
neek
Member
Member


Joined: 12 Sep 2011
Posts: 798 | TRs
Location: Seattle, WA
neek
  Top

Member
PostSat Oct 12, 2019 2:34 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
RandyHiker wrote:
I recall similar complaints about the 100 hikes books and the Cascade Alpine Guide.

However, there's a difference between "Head up obvious gully.  Some stemming required"  and a high resolution HDR-enhanced sunset photo with a GPS track and a description that reads like an advertisement out of Backpacker magazine.  At some point you cross the threshold of what will pique the interest of the average person--who also now has access to space-age gear, more leisure time than in the past, and an industry that profits from making them feel like they're fat, lazy, outdated, and missing out on life's greatest pleasures.  I'm not saying this is overall bad, it's just reality.  Some on this forum may recall the horror over the advent of the printing press...
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
RandyHiker
Snarky Member



Joined: 27 Jul 2008
Posts: 6605 | TRs
Location: Bellevue at the moment.
RandyHiker
  Top

Snarky Member
PostSat Oct 12, 2019 3:01 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
neek wrote:
quote="RandyHiker"]I recall similar complaints about the 100 hikes books and the Cascade Alpine Guide.

However, there's a difference between "Head up obvious gully.  Some stemming required"  and a high resolution HDR-enhanced sunset photo with a GPS track and a description that reads like an advertisement out of Backpacker magazine.[/quote]

Only in degree, not in nature.

And as much as there is grousing about the impact of the many more feet of today,  note that in the '60s the far fewer number of visitors had a much greater individual impact, using axes and saws to clear campsites, cut firewood and fashion bough beds and practice "bash, burn and bury" for garbage disposal.
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
Gwen
LO Girl-of-the-Month



Joined: 14 Feb 2010
Posts: 1467 | TRs

Gwen
  Top

LO Girl-of-the-Month
PostSat Oct 12, 2019 6:24 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
RandyHiker wrote:
note that in the '60s the far fewer number of visitors had a much greater individual impact,

It was so much worse 60 years ago is always such a great argument  for do nothing. Of course back then there was no Wilderness Act or LNT. Values and approaches were different. What was 60 years ago really no longer applies.

--------------
Tomorrow's not promised to anyone, so be bold, scare yourself, attempt something with no guarantee of success. You'll be amazed at what you can achieve. -Olive McGloin
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
RandyHiker
Snarky Member



Joined: 27 Jul 2008
Posts: 6605 | TRs
Location: Bellevue at the moment.
RandyHiker
  Top

Snarky Member
PostSun Oct 13, 2019 5:32 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Gwen wrote:
RandyHiker wrote:
note that in the '60s the far fewer number of visitors had a much greater individual impact,

It was so much worse 60 years ago is always such a great argument  for do nothing. Of course back then there was no Wilderness Act or LNT. Values and approaches were different. What was 60 years ago really no longer applies.


The important principle that applies is that people can be educated to adopt lower impact practices.

From my own experience, many places today are in significantly better condition than they were in the '70s  due improved practices and management.  In the mid '70s for example the area immediately around Paradise was a dust bowl of mirade social trails crisscrossing everywhere. 

Melakwa lake had many large dust bowls, denuded trees, fire rings and garbage piles.    A busy weekend today might see 10x as many people,  but these folks are in fact "taking only pictures,  leaving only foot prints" 

The goal posts for today have moved,  "take pictures,  but don't share them, only step in existing foot prints"

Compared to 1970 the population of the state is ~4x larger, so independent of the influence social media it is inevitable that we will be sharing our mountains with more people.   

I've found it's still possible to experience solitude within a relatively short drive from Puget Sound City , there are numerous trails that are considered "2nd tier" that are lightly traveled.

Personally I enjoy seeing a new generation of people get out and enjoy our mountains.  Isn't this why prior generations preserved these places through the Wilderness Act?  For their grandchildren and great grandchildren?.   I find the attitude that 20 something's taking selfies somehow ruins a location to be curmudgeonly.
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
joker
seeker



Joined: 12 Aug 2006
Posts: 7701 | TRs
Location: state of confusion
joker
  Top

seeker
PostSun Oct 13, 2019 9:03 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
RandyHiker wrote:
The important principle that applies is that people can be educated to adopt lower impact practices.

Bingo. To me this is the  crux of the biscuit. Guidebook authors and outings clubs (including groups like the Boy Scouts as well as the  Mounties, the AMC, the  Sierra Club,  etc.) learned over time to provide some education on things like safety and lowering of impacts, and also to be thoughtfully selective about which places to include and not include in guidebook entries and outing lists. Now that "the crowd" is replacing these on-ramps for  a rather large contingent of people just getting into hiking, it's going  to take a little while for the next wave of education, which seems likely to have to largely come from the same medium that's doing the replacing - and yes, I think this includes "the crowd" learning some of the same lessons of self-restraint that at least some guidebook authors learned so long ago (because we are all now wildly more connected to others than ever before, with ability to reach these people with visually rich reports of our travels).
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11165 | TRs
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
  Top

Member
PostSun Oct 13, 2019 7:30 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
RumiDude wrote:
I can't help you if you are not self-aware so that you do not recognize your own snark. Those that live by the sword, die by the sword applies.

So you can't actually show any.

RumiDude wrote:
#1 You have not even established a cause/effect relationship.

There's no cause and effect relationship between writing a post and responsibility for doing so?

RumiDude wrote:
#2 You have not explained the moral element of any of this.

You're morally responsible for your actions and their impacts.

Is this argument false?

RumiDude wrote:
Again you have simply asserted that the person who posts a TR is morally culpable (to some unspecified degree) for the actions of a group of other people. That assertion is unwarranted and unsupported.

Since you are responsible for writing a post, and responsible for it's impacts, anyone who goes to a place because of your writing is also your impact. This isn't complicated.

RumiDude wrote:
But this is complex whether you acknowledge it or not. Many questions arise when trying to establish both the cause/effect and any supposed quilt.

The fundamentals are quite the opposite of complex, as I show. The rest is quibbling about how much impact, etc...which I have not made an argument about..because that is where the complexity lies.

RumiDude wrote:
If I make a hammer and offer it free to whoever wants it, I am not morally implicated if you get it and you injure yourself and/or others with.

It depends upon the conditions at time of transfer. If you tell someone to go harm another party with it, you are certainly morally implicated.

RumiDude wrote:
I have no moral fingerprint if you hit a pedestrian with your auto on your way to my house to get it.

I agree.

RumiDude wrote:
I don't need an excuse if after hearing about me making the hammer you decide to forge your own hammer and burn your garage and your neighbor's house down in the process. There just is no moral element to this despite your assertion.

I made no assertion about hammers until you brought them up.

As for trip reports, there is a direct moral element, as I have argued. You purposefully post them for public viewing, after all. With purpose comes responsibility.

Remember, these are not arguments against trip reports per se. They are arguments to focus folks on their responsibilities when posting them.

--------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
Gwen
LO Girl-of-the-Month



Joined: 14 Feb 2010
Posts: 1467 | TRs

Gwen
  Top

LO Girl-of-the-Month
PostSun Oct 13, 2019 8:03 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
RandyHiker wrote:
Isn't this why prior generations preserved these places through the Wilderness Act?  For their grandchildren and great grandchildren?.

Actually, no, that was not the purpose of the Wilderness Act at all. National ParKS have been set aside for the enjoyment of the people and the coming generations, but Wilderness was created for the sake of wilderness. That we are able to partake of it is our benefit, but in doing so we must also protect it; that's the bargain.  In Wldeness, we are the transient ones who do not remain; it is not our home.

--------------
Tomorrow's not promised to anyone, so be bold, scare yourself, attempt something with no guarantee of success. You'll be amazed at what you can achieve. -Olive McGloin
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
RumiDude
Marmota olympus



Joined: 26 Jul 2009
Posts: 2732 | TRs
Location: Port Angeles
RumiDude
  Top

Marmota olympus
PostSun Oct 13, 2019 9:41 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
MtnGoat wrote:
RumiDude wrote:
I can't help you if you are not self-aware so that you do not recognize your own snark. Those that live by the sword, die by the sword applies.

So you can't actually show any.

I could show plenty. But you would simply deny it. If you don't like it you shouldn't do it yourself. I'd say the same thing to someone 6, 26, or 56.


If I post a TR I do so to tell my story. That is the purpose. In telling that story I provide truthful information. What another person does with that information is their responsibility, not mine. Everyone tells their own story the way they want. The longstanding descriptor beneath the Trip Reports rubric on NWHikers reads: Best served with prose, line breaks & eye candy.

As long as the story I tell is truthful, then my "moral fingerprint" ends there. That's old fashioned ethics, plain and simple.

Rumi

--------------
"This is my Indian summer ... I'm far more dangerous now, because I don't care at all."
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
RumiDude
Marmota olympus



Joined: 26 Jul 2009
Posts: 2732 | TRs
Location: Port Angeles
RumiDude
  Top

Marmota olympus
PostSun Oct 13, 2019 9:51 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Gwen wrote:
RandyHiker wrote:
Isn't this why prior generations preserved these places through the Wilderness Act?  For their grandchildren and great grandchildren?.

Actually, no, that was not the purpose of the Wilderness Act at all. National ParKS have been set aside for the enjoyment of the people and the coming generations, but Wilderness was created for the sake of wilderness. That we are able to partake of it is our benefit, but in doing so we must also protect it; that's the bargain.  In Wldeness, we are the transient ones who do not remain; it is not our home.

Actually the Wilderness Act was created "to secure for the American people of present and future generations the benefits of an enduring resource of wilderness."

It's impossible to separate the Wilderness and the people from one another.
1964 Wilderness Act

Rumi

--------------
"This is my Indian summer ... I'm far more dangerous now, because I don't care at all."
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
Gwen
LO Girl-of-the-Month



Joined: 14 Feb 2010
Posts: 1467 | TRs

Gwen
  Top

LO Girl-of-the-Month
PostSun Oct 13, 2019 9:52 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Would you two grow up? Your bickering is adding nothing of value.

--------------
Tomorrow's not promised to anyone, so be bold, scare yourself, attempt something with no guarantee of success. You'll be amazed at what you can achieve. -Olive McGloin
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
Gwen
LO Girl-of-the-Month



Joined: 14 Feb 2010
Posts: 1467 | TRs

Gwen
  Top

LO Girl-of-the-Month
PostSun Oct 13, 2019 10:05 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
DEFINITION OF WILDERNESS
(c) A wilderness, in contrast with those areas where man and his works dominate the landscape, is hereby recognized as an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain. An area of wilderness is further defined to mean in this Act an area of undeveloped Federal land retaining its primeval character and influence, without permanent improvements or human habitation, which is protected and managed so as to preserve its natural conditions and which (1) generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint of man's work substantially unnoticeable; (2) has outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation; (3) has at least five thousand acres of land or is of sufficient size as to make practicable its preservation and use in an unimpaired condition; and (4) may also contain ecological, geological, or other features of scientific, educational, scenic, or historical value.

--------------
Tomorrow's not promised to anyone, so be bold, scare yourself, attempt something with no guarantee of success. You'll be amazed at what you can achieve. -Olive McGloin
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 > Trail Talk > Impact of Social Media
  Happy Birthday Damian, chefothefuture, Dogman, ridgescrambler, Bryan K, Eaglecadd!
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