Remote area route descriptions

[rightstar76]

.

[rightstar76]

AlmostThere, this one is complex. For example, when a news website posts a picture, story, and detailed directions to a place along with a flashy headline, it's irresponsible. But should everyone who puts a picture and a description of their backpacking trip online be told not to because their post might go viral? I think there needs to be a responsible social media ethic when it comes to posting content related to wilderness, but what that should be is a work in progress. I don't think knee-jerk discreetness and overcaution are solutions. In the long view, it's probably going to require a cultural change in how we express our experiences of nature through social media. This will take time.

[balzaccom]

Rightstar, I understand what you are saying. But I also would point out that those larger media outlets run a story on a route or destination, they frequently research their stories by checking out trip reports on the internet. I am pretty darn sure that one trail we loved years ago was "discovered' on our website by a major magazine. And then they ran the story complete with photos as a feature. OUr trip report didn't go viral--but the magazine took it to a whole 'nother level.

[rightstar76]

Paul, media outlets publish stuff like this if they think they're going to make money. For example, this article which got big press last summer:

Magazines like this one and writers like me are also part of the problem.

https://www.outsideonline.com/2330916/m ... -accidents

I'm speculating it generated income for the outdoor industry and local economy since more people wanted to go to Mt. Whitney after reading it. However, I doubt there's going to be an article like that about Kettle Ridge or Blue Canyon Creek since there's not a famous mountain nearby people can put on their bucket list. It's not profitable. In my opinion, places like these will continue to offer solitude with or without posts on forums like this one.

[longri]

You missed my point. You can preserve the land and still lose the wilderness.

[rightstar76]

.

[balzaccom]

I think you missed my point, rightstar. An article in Outside about an "ultimate epic loop hike in Yosemite called the …" can generate a huge amount of interest and traffic. Of course magazines write articles to generate interest among their readers so that they can sell things to them. That's the definition of commercial media. My point was that those same magazines sometimes source their ideas from us common folk who are just posting our trip reports on forums such as this one. It's easier to research a story on a great trail by spending an hour on the internet than it is by hiking the trail for six days...and our trip reports sometimes find their way into major magazines, sometimes without our knowledge or support.

[rlown]

I forget who said it first, but it is obvious that GPS tracks are way over the limit. I can tell people a destination, but I won't tell them how to get there. If I'm comfortable on directing them to a stunted brookie lake, I will tell them the lake only. They need to plan.

[rightstar76]

.

[Wandering Daisy]

I get what Longri means. The Wilderness Act is, I believe, just a framework for wilderness management. It does not set quotas. It does not teach LNT ethics. For example, It does not specifically address the PCT and what to do about the explosion of use on that trail, due to social media. I can see just as much possibility that all the "constituents" using the wilderness will demand more access, higher trail quotas (or in the age of Trump, no trail quotas) and the wilderness will be a name only with the land trashed. It does not address if using the wilderness as the venue for partying, or extreme sports is consistent with the idea of wilderness. It is actually "loosy-goosy". I do not think anyone who put together the wilderness act envisioned today's social media. What about a tent with LED lights that make it a glowing monster all night? What about the push to open the wilderness to bicycles? We kid ourselves if we think the general public hold the same wilderness values we do. Most prefer a playground/amusement park tone over peace and quiet. Now I am not saying there should not be non-wilderness forests, lakes and streams where people these people can go. We have maybe gone to far in designating wilderness areas in some areas that really should not be designated wilderness.

balzaccom- you should copyright your website. Not that it stops other media outlets from stealing stuff, but at least you could threaten them with a law suit.