High Sierra Topix

kpeter wrote:I still suspect he chose the wrong handle for his own political philosophy (Locke seems like a better fit!)

LOL, yes, it is a bit of a contradiction for a self-declared secular humanist to wear the mantle of a state advocate who defended royal prerogative. Touche. Three points:

One, the original post examined the role of gender, orientation & the culture of competition on an ever increasing popular trail. The issue of population growth, access to public lands, and the context and meaning of certain extant environmental laws are all related subjects, because the original claims of discrimination will surely further manifest & express themselves as more people seek the outdoors. By examining the dynamics driving increased demand, this thread has also provided a gateway towards highlighting many different user characteristics.

Two: There aren't really any toxic subjects per se, but rather personal reaction, behavior and self-restraint. If people who disagree can choose and manage to do so in a civil and dignified manner, then what better forum that allows for a diverse range of opinions? Summarily dismissing a set of valid points is typically considered as being merely argumentative, as it doesn't provide any kind of ladder effect from which tangential issues can be subsequently examined and/or discussed.

Three: To recap the chief topic of the resulting discussion, the core issue is that if society doesn't adapt, then it invites civil disobedience. In prior eras (in which the key drivers of population pressure and carrying capacity seem to be re-emerging) royal parks, forests and preserves owned by aristocratic landholders instituted wide ranging controls, including the employ of armed wardens & gamekeepers to patrol the grounds & protect their fiefs:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_forest

Perhaps out of ignorance, or maybe due to malice, but the articulation of certain sentiments about utilizing the force of law to ensure personal, limited access to the detriment & exclusion of others is, IMO, highly repugnant. It's also very dangerous, because it ignores the next, emerging looming civil rights cause of action, which is going to be the disenfranchised young vs the comfortable, landed gentry. The developing youth army, which never had a choice in what era they were born, nor the set of constrained circumstance which they will face, will refuse to abide by laws/rules IF perceived to be established by the privileged to the benefit of solely themselves. QED

In addition, it is highly cynical to encourage agencies, which have literally taken decades to establish favorable images and open public dialogue, to abandon their hard won reputations by becoming some kind of para-military operation enforcing exclusive use for their masters. On one hand, we have real infringement of access, use & enjoyment of public lands by AK-47 toting drug growers & smugglers, but yet, advocates for control wish to direct enforcement actions towards the weakest & unarmed. Seriously, the potential here for a public relations fiasco is already being prepared as all the necessary ingredients are brought to bear. The chief alarm by those who are aware is observing behavior of some who refuse to acknowledge, or do not care, as exhibiting classic strains of power statism that seem to bedevil every society.

Hobbes argued in Leviathan that if civil society was to exist in peace, government should act in the capacity of serving the entire public good in exchange for submission of certain individual liberties. He never advocated that once government had power, that it should be used as a cludgel to bludgeon the disenfranchised and weakest members of society at the behest of a favored class.

longri wrote:Hobbes has advocated for both of those in this thread. Designated camping with toilets would likely include quotas as well.

Yes and yes. Both Yosemite and SEKI should treat the JMT/PCT corridor in a similar fashion as Grand Canyon manages the Kaibab trail. Prohibit dispersed camping within 1/2 mile on either side of the trail between June & September. Provide (seasonal) toilet facilities at designated campgrounds, the most obvious being Crabtree, Charlotte (Kearsarge) and the Lyell bridge.

Corresponding with recognizing and adapting to high demand, seasonal traffic characteristics, the parks & forests should stop maintaining all peripheral trails that provide access to remote, sensitive regions. Over time, I would also suggest eliminating personal public transportation beyond park borders, similar to policies currently in place @ Minaret Vista. (Other than Tioga, Sonora, et al which are critical arterial highways.) This would also serve to erect a sufficiently high hurdle to many/most that would further facilitate the protection of vulnerable regions.

Lastly, I would recommend netting all remaining lakes, streams and waterways to remove non-native invasive species. Not only would this provide some balance to the natural eco-system, but it would also eliminate a draw for recreational fisherman who wish to have the wilderness provide unnatural "wildlife entertainment".

My proposals above are nothing more than traditional triage management. Cordon off areas already under heavy impact in an effort to protect the marginal, adjoining territories. The truly wild high elevations and remote regions already have low visitation - eliminating certain trails & access points would help provide additional assistance.

Now, what is so revolutionary about the suggestions listed above? How would it destroy/impair the "wilderness experience?" If you draw a hard-line, expect to get push-back. Adapt and concede certain issues - which are already essentially fait accompli - and what is the great loss?

Yep, this thread is toxic now. Thanks, Hobbes. Tell it to your representatives.

Hobbes wrote:Lastly, I would recommend netting all remaining lakes, streams and waterways to remove non-native invasive species. Not only would this provide some balance to the natural eco-system, but it would also eliminate a draw for recreational fisherman who wish to have the wilderness provide unnatural "wildlife entertainment".

Well now you've just gone too far...

Cross Country-

I wasn't trying to imply that you were doing anything wrong or degrading the wilderness. My entire point was in trying to figure out what made you tick in your willingness as an individual to go the way you wanted, regardless of the opinions of others. This discussion, toxic or not, way off-topic or not, has, for me, been about trying to help establish a starting point and gain the perspective of others in how we best address the issues. I happen to think that it's an appeal to emotion that will have the greatest impact for the majority of people, not necessarily an appeal to logic in the form of stating a scientific basis for any decisions that are made.

But, in spite of that, I think that Apeman's reference to carrying capacity has been one of the best points made. Science-y, sure. The wilderness can only take so much before we exceed that capacity and destroy what most of us think of as "wilderness" by overloading it with our increasing presence. But, I also think that people need to interpret everything it means to them, and in how they can be part of any solutions, as individuals, putting a face on it that they can easily and immediately relate to on a personal level.

....barring the solution part, not unlike Vanessa's (yeah, that name does sound vaguely familiar ) perspective on her experience. In spite of what might be the facts, she brought what she brought and took away what she took away because of it.

.

As stated before you can't look into people's eyes in online discussions. So it's hard to know how people feel exactly. To me, this thread hasn't reached that line where it needs to be locked or deleted or whatever. It's a contentious issue by nature. Does that mean can't discuss it here?

Hobbes, for someone who decries exclusion your ideas seem exclusive in their own way. Radically exclusive.

I agree that Hobbs ideas are radically exclusive. I would adress the issue but I won't because the responses I would anticipate would be retorical and ideological

Just a quick question for anybody: for whom do you think the wilderness exists?