High Sierra Topix

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

Cross Country wrote:I agree that Hobbs ideas are radically exclusive. I would address the issue but I won't because the responses I would anticipate would be rhetorical and ideological

x3

Cross Country wrote:

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

First, and foremost-- FOR THE NATIVE WILDLIFE!!!

Second come humans, those with the humility to tread lightly, and better yet-the willingness to help undo damage.

After that, my descriptions of other humans just get nasty, and nastier. I hope people recognize me for the passionate misanthrope that I am, rather than term me "elitest." Harlen.

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

So far, it appears we've had two types of suggestions included in a grand total of 3 posts:

1. OR & WD (one each) - Maintain status quo, extend permitting/quotas outside of parks, use WA as tool to achieve desired ends, perpetuate traditional system of uses & practices, prioritize personal human centric "wilderness experience" as primary goal, relegate wilderness aspects of eco-system balance to secondary status.

2. Hobbes (one) - Examine status quo at the risk of upsetting comfortable assumptions, caution against the use of increased law enforcement, consider WA as a core element, but not impediment to different lines of inquiry, question traditional systems of uses & practices (roads, trails, stock, fishing, etc), reduce personal "wilderness experience" as secondary goal, elevate wilderness aspects of eco-system balance to priority status.

If every object has a subject, then I guess we can therefore conceivably argue that every subject has an object? So yes, under this definition any proposal can be construed as exclusive. The question then becomes, what is the limiting (exclusionary) factor? Is it influence, ability, relationships, financial wealth, time, interest? Is it based on the use of (implied) force? Is it based on traditional uses & practices which are assumed to exist in perpetuity simply because experience sheds no alternative perspective?

I think the crux of this issue is to encourage people to at least attempt to be philosophically consistent. I completely understand the Abby/Jensen deep green resistance (Earth first, ALF, etc) perspective - even if I don't fully agree. However, I'm not going to insult anyone holding that type of viewpoint. Rather, I want adherents to present their case & convince me why they are right.

Longri, you are free to propose - or demur - what you think may be an appropriate response to managing Sierra access/use in response to perhaps the single most significant challenges facing future generations: population overshoot, environmental degradation and resource exhaustion. Alternatively, you are completely free to attack my suggestions; I don't care, what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

However, I'll give you a heads up that I will vigorously challenge anyone advocating the use of state power to achieve some kind of exclusive use for their own personal enjoyment. I don't have an intrinsic opposition to exclusive use - in fact, I'm a huge proponent of private property. But don't try and advocate that public lands should be limited to a select few that meet certain criteria which, surprise, they just so happen to meet. (Odd that, no?) As far as I'm concerned, that position lacks any kind of moral stature, and can't be realistically defended in an honest & reputable manner. Hence, the uni-lateral call by a self-appointed arbitrator to stifle debate that dares to raise uncomfortable truths.

So, come one, come all, what are the suggestions?

What good are suggestions on this board? What will you do with them through legal channels? It's state and fed reps that'll make change.
Mental push-ups aren't worth it unless there is an endgame.

First off, as one of us has pointed out- there is a large uncertainty factor in a written dialogue such as this, and that discussing this over a few beers would be better.
For instance, I believe that while reading between the lines above written by Old ranger, Wandering Daisy, and others, I sense a strong environmental ethic. Some of their words may be construed to be exclusionary, (i.e., when they spoke about the value of solitude) but I don't think they value it for themselves and others like them only. I get the sense that solitude and space for most of us is intrinsically tied in with the space, peace and quiet that are essential for the Sierra wildlife.

And when Hobbes began to write about the need to be open to change with regard to public access, initially I was concerned that he was advocating opening the floodgates. I criticized the trivializing of the ecosystem damage, and the supposed ease with which it could be mitigated. However now, Hobbes has basically stated that he thinks "wilderness aspects of eco-system balance" should be the primary concern, and the driver of any new policy- a view which I heartily applaud. He has even made a very bold statement about netting all the lakes that contain non-native fish stocks- such a provocateur! (Karl, I reckon you were on your 4th brew when you wrote that. ) So I am not sure where his final position stands, or if he has one? Nor do I care for anyone's final position- it smacks of fundamentalism, or worse- final solutions. I don't think our Hobbes is any sort of ideologue- he has a stated openness to change, and dialectical process.
What I think we should all value about this evolving post of Hobbes' is that it pushes us into the messy business of political involvement; and secondly, thanks to Hobbes and others, we are now focused on an issue of real importance- the human / nature interface.

Russ says "write your Congressman." Wise words if we ever hope for a real Representative government. I think this is one of the better outcomes that we are being pointed toward, but we each need to decide what to advocate. This post can be seen as a step in that direction.

Okay then Hobbes, you ask for our best shot at it- here's mine at present (still open to change):

I think humans have been lording it over nature for far too long. We need to watch our steps- to back off entirely from places like the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, and to tread ever more lightly in places like the Sierra Wilderness Areas. No new roads, trails, Concessions or Developments of any kind, unless the new technologies are part of a ecological restoration effort. Continue to limit human access based on what the natural ecosystems can sustain*, without further loss of wildlife populations. Follow the best available science to base future actions and policy decisions on. Develop and teach the honorable humility to place the health of the Planet above our own self-interest.

*Population overshoot be damned- send them all to those friendly Huntington Beaches.

Hobbes wrote:Longri, you are free to propose - or demur - what you think may be an appropriate response to managing Sierra access/use in response to perhaps the single most significant challenges facing future generations: population overshoot, environmental degradation and resource exhaustion. Alternatively, you are completely free to attack my suggestions; I don't care, what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

However, I'll give you a heads up that I will vigorously challenge anyone advocating the use of state power to achieve some kind of exclusive use for their own personal enjoyment. I don't have an intrinsic opposition to exclusive use - in fact, I'm a huge proponent of private property. But don't try and advocate that public lands should be limited to a select few that meet certain criteria which, surprise, they just so happen to meet. (Odd that, no?) As far as I'm concerned, that position lacks any kind of moral stature, and can't be realistically defended in an honest & reputable manner. Hence, the uni-lateral call by a self-appointed arbitrator to stifle debate that dares to raise uncomfortable truths.

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.

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.

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.

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.

It's not a contentious issue. I can get a permit anytime I like; may not be the date I like but I'll take it. Size of the party matters.

Same thing with waterfowl hunting. We used to show up in the 90's and get on instantly. Now, it's a lottery and after $250 dollars later with a 1:80 chance of getting on to my favorite refuges, I get maybe 2 draws a year.

Bottom line: Most don't show up. I had number 10 at one refuge and we got the 4th pick. Still really not sure what you're going to do with this if you ever reach consensus. Address that, Hobbes.

Harlen- I have to admit that my question was retorical. I was just trying to bait someone to write what you wrote. I don't need to criticize you very much for what you wrote. What you wrote does a good enough job.

Also I wouldn't care to engage you in a discussion (argument). There is no point in discussing someone's ideology (yours)