[Backpacker Joe]

[blue_tuberosa]

Disclaimer... I've scanned this thread so this MIGHT have been mentioned, but.... Are you folks familiar with the 'Mountain Stewards' program that they've got going up in Skagit County? http://www.ncascades.org/programs/detail.ldmx?workshop_id=1085 I've been thinking of trying to get a program like this going for the Alpine Lakes Area. Probably paralleled with a reveg plan. I've been seriously talking with some FS friends about it and also with the folks up at the North Cascades Institute. Basic premise... start a volunteer training program... provide free education, skills training, 10 essentials, basic trail maintenance, map/compass stuff, plant ID, yadda yadda. In return for the free program - volunteers give back X hours on the most popular trails - doing things like trail maintenance, telling folks to be nice to the Alpine Lakes, monitoring reveg sites, etc. It's still in the brain-candy stage, but I think it could work.

[jenjen]

Quark and I ran into one of the mountain stewards on our way to Coleman Glacier. She was handing blue-bags out to climbers and making sure they knew where the privys were, and just generally teaching folks how to camp lightly. I guess I hadn't really thought about it before now. Fantastic idea, blue!

[hopalong]

What about having a newbies or Q & A section.

[hopalong]

I guess that's already been said. So I second (or third or fourth) the motion.

[Slugman]

An absolutely critical part of the wilderness ethic teachings is explaining just why the item is so important. Simply telling someone to hang their food a certain height, etc, will not convince many of them to actually do it. People need to believe that the rules or advice make sense and is important for reasons they understand. Most folks don't blindly follow orders or advice. In the woods, people make their own choices, and must believe in what they are doing or they won't do it. At least some won't, I mean. So each item should be in say two columns, one stating the rule or ethic, the other stating the reasons for, and importance of, the rule or ethic. Like that it takes 100 years for meadows to recover from trampling, to use an example already posted. This really hits home, 100 years. Trample a meadow, and it will stay trampled until your grandchildren have grandchildren.

[Allison]

Excellent point, Sluggo. I'm really not sure where we should take the discussion, but the knowing "why" makes the whole thing make a lot of sense. Sometimes it's far too easy to say "do it because it's right," but if you know the "why" well, then, it's all to easy to do good by the land, the critters, the rocks, and the flowers. Oh, and the people.

[LittleHikerMom]

I learn these things by hiking with ye more experienced types. That's why I keep hiking with you guys. I do need to learn more.

[Chief Paulina]

Gotta ask.. Who did that 100 year study?? And where??? I would think that a thread titled by a name most newbies can relate to is a good idea. We 'vets' could offer up advice and reasons and have discussions about our individual views on the subjects. The newbies would likely join in with questions. It would be similar to 'Thread Length' in the end, like someone said.

[solohiker]

[Quark]

The media doesn't help, either. While there was a burn ban in effect, and the 30 Mile fire was still raging, and after it killed 4 forest fighters, one of the local newspapers printed an article about how to grill your food over a campfire, and included receipes for martini's and other booze drinks. I fired off an email to the reporter about the ill timing of the article about the booze and campfire combination during a burn ban and after the fire deaths. I got a reponse saying the article had been previously planned, and the newpaper gives the public credit for having sense (or something to that effect). Today, an ill-informed reporter included this old tip for camping in the rain - the ole "digging a moat around the tent" trick (middle of the article): Digging a moat

[jimmymac]

Not exactly. The parents were said to be "passing the custom on" to their kids.

[Lagerman]

[Quark]

The point is this: You have the media promoting nifty-keeno ideas about campfires to people who may not even know to consider burn bans. Joe Schmoe could read the article, think it's a great way to spend the weekend, run out to Bartell's and buy a tent and other camping gear and head out to camp for the first time in his life, along the side of a FS road, utilizing the ideas in the newspaper. He and his wife, who don't normally drink, get schnokered on martini's and the fire rages unchecked. Afterall, if it's in the paper, it must be O.K. Yeah, the paper doesn't make people do things they wouldn't normally do - but folks are looking for new things to do. The paper gives them ideas. The "moat" was a quote, sure, and moat-digging was not expressly promoted. I know that. But it's sorta like when a lawyer yells "objection!" and the judge says "sustained," - well, the idea is planted nonetheless - regardless of whether it's right. The first article did not mention the burn ban, and the second article indicated what a great idea digging a moat was - so good that it's being passed off to children. Newcomers reading the article camping at Bathtub Lakes will say, "Hey, it's raining! I read about this really great idea once...." If it's mentioned, new folks to the sport will think it's ok. That's the point. The Pacific NW writers of media who know little about the Pacific NW aren't helping with stewardship matters.

[Lagerman]

Well, I agree with you that maybe alittle warning about checking your local burn bans would have been a good thing to do, just not to the extent you do I guess.