longri wrote:I wasn't attacking your proposed solution. I didn't mean to pass judgement on its merits. Rather, I was pointing out that your objection to exclusivity is hypocritical. It appears to me that you simply want to define the boundaries of exclusion differently.
Point taken - I even admit (upthread) that I've merely redefined the exclusionary criteria. However, I don't think it's necessarily hypocritical - my objection is against the use of state force, rather than individual desire, skill and/or ability.
longri wrote:As near as I can tell the status quo does not favor "a select few". Of course it is biased in certain ways. But your suggestions bias it as well. So I don't understand your attack on these unnamed advocates of a special class. It seems to me to be a straw man.
The system as it currently exists, and which some proponents wish to extend in size & scope, favors the retired, un & marginally employed. This acts to the detriment to those with more restricted time & availability, who also just so happen to be paying the very taxes that fund enforcement action - against them. Surely, anyone with even a cursory understanding of civil rights and equal protection will recognize this as a glaring weakness.
longri wrote:One thing seems clear. We all agree there have to be limits. And limits = exclusion, in the general sense of the word. I think it's also the case that there is agreement that the limits should be applied fairly. But that's the tricky part.
Again, I'm not sure anyone is taking a position against limits. My objection is to those advocating utilizing a set of laws, rules & regulations, many of which were initiated decades ago for (almost) entirely different purposes, as a means of achieving their favored outcome.
I also raise the core question as to what is the consensus agreement as to priority? A subjective human-centric measure of "quality of experience", or objectively neutral science focused on a holistic, integrated eco-system approach? Human-centric is driving on roads to remote THs, hiking/using stock on conveniently graded pathways, and engaging in unnatural 'wildlife entertainment'. Holistic is protecting wilderness utilizing full spectrum techniques, including recognizing human demands should be satisfied via careful management under controlled circumstances.
Here's an easy thought experiment that allows us to examine the effect increased user demand and/or population growth will have on back-country access & use: halve the permit quotas today. That's right, whether permit volume stays the same while demand grows, or permit availability is reduced under extant circumstances, the net result is the same. Now, I can just imagine the heads exploding across our fruited plains, but this is what we are actually facing.
To really still up potential social tension, increase law enforcement activity to prevent/punish these imposed control violations. Don't like this picture? Starting to look a little bit ugly? Well, welcome to the future, because the class struggle, which this is merely one facet, is going to manifest itself across all strata of society. Competition over scarce resources was never eliminated, it was just conveniently ignored for 500 years while Euros went hog-wild on a new continent. But the age old natural constraints are once again raising the specter of limits to growth. Some recognize and seek to adapt, others advocate taking a hard line to preserve what they once (luckily) enjoyed.
---
PS Longri, I must extend my thanks as you are one of the few who are actually approaching this contentious issue in a logical and thoughtful manner. It's taken many pages, posts & page views to get to this point, but perhaps the discussion can finally start zeroing in on the core challenges of growth, demand, use & access. Notwithstanding the desire of some to suppress speech due to the controversial nature of the topix (pun intended), but IMO HST is a good place to hash these issues out. By no means are the problems simply 'going away', so ignoring them isn't a viable solution. These social stressors need to be addressed at some point at some venue; if not here, then where?
PSA to potential contributors: please follow standard debate procedures or parliamentary processes. That means, move the dialogue forward by bringing up new/variations facts/points/counter-points, don't engage in circular argumentation, and refrain from ad-hominem and/or calls for censorship.