Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Landscape & Nature Photography => Topic started by: howard smith on October 07, 2004, 12:17:26 pm
-
[font color=\'#000000\']Seems easy enough. Just follow the rules. The rules are not intended to punish you or keep you from enjoying yourself or getting a good image.
There is a place in Death Valley near the Dunes where you can still see wagon tracks that are 100 to 150 years old. The place heals slowly. Perhaps you think one person cannot do a lot of damage, but multiply that by, say, a hundred thousand. You will not be the only one who wants to get a bit closer. Once a path is started, more people will follow. There are places where the John Muir Trail is worn hip deep with several new parallel paths.
"Take nothing but pictures, leave nothing but footprints" should be updated to "Take nothing but pictures and trash, leave nothing." The person behind you may appreciate it.[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']
I have just returned from a wonderful two-week trip through the five National Parks in Utah,
Just as an example, one of those parks, Zion NP, had about 2-1/2 million visitors last year.
I spent the whole two weeks trying to manuever around near the parking lots, pull-outs, and (IMO) poorly-maintained "trails," looking for good angles to make good images.
Most of those 2-1/2 million visitors were just like you, they were concentrated in the areas near the roads, and most of them visited during the peak months of the year. That is a lot of people in a very small area. There really isn't any choice but to ask everybody to stay on the trails, etc. Major tourist attractions do not necessarily equate to ideal nature photography sites. If you want freedom to move around, you need to be in the backcountry. Even there, you need to follow the rules so that others may enjoy it after you.
As for the poorly maintained trails, the budget at Zion NP last year was about $6 million, or a little more than $2 per visitor. If we want better parks, with more room for everyone, we have to be willing to pay for them. (BTW, I don't work for the government; I just happen to think that a society that doesn't invest in itself will be a poor society.)[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']Hi there...first post so go easy on me!
I dont have a clue how the USA national parks are run or what the rationale behind their selection and management actually is. But it strikes me that these are probably very special places where they aim to conserve the very best examples of your nations natural heritage. If the cryptobiotic soils are a key feature of this particular range of habitats then I would expect the national park to want to conserve the best example. Perhaps it may not look as attractive as the landscape or a colourful bird or insect, but the fragile soil structure is just as important. So if the policy is to protect the best examples...then it is only right that these soils should be protected. If that means no-go areas then that is what we should all respect. As other folk have said there are other areas (not within the core conservation areas) where the strict guidance is not applied.
Graeme[/font]
[font color=\'#000000\']Problem is Graeme [you all are so profligate with your vowels ;-)] there are extremist 'greens', as you call them over there I think, who seem to want no one to have access to certain special places. One suspects that what they really want is that eventually there will BE no one to access any place. I have had high ups in the environmental movement (professors) tell me they hoped for a super-plague to wipe out mankind as we are a cancer that needs eradicating. (this guy is a neighbor of mine and has authored many books including textbooks)
Many extremists have long ago entered our forest service and they can be radicals. They believe in things like letting forests burn, especially any human habitations surrounding them, instead of managing them.
So when they come up with 'crypto-biotic soil' ... the more skeptical amoung us may tend to doubt their motives. Americans don't like their government much. I like to keep my government on a short leash and well disciplined. It takes constant vigilance.
I especially don't like elitist morons who wear funny looking pointy hats acting like god's own wardens running roughshod over my high-tax-paying rights. I have never left so much as a piece of a film wrapper ... even on a city street ... let alone in the wilderness. It seems to take about six months for an enforcment official on the job to begin judging all people by the lowest common denominator.
It's obviously a great lacking in their educational process but then it's well know that our educational institutions are the last place on earth where they still believe in Marx.[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']
The invirowhako thing to do is to keep out the loggers for no good reason and let them burn.
My personal concern is how logging will be managed. I don't see logging companies clearing away brush and dead falls; that would not be profitable. Logging companies will want to cut down large old growth trees because they have more wood in them. I don't see that helping with the fire situation.
I especially don't like elitist morons who wear funny looking pointy hats acting like god's own wardens running roughshod over my high-tax-paying rights.
What does this mean then? It sounds to me like you assume your taxes entitle you to do something, but guess I am not sure what that is.
Maybe you think your taxes are high here in the US, but they are not. I moved here from Canada because the taxes are so much lower. The difference in taxes more than offset the exchange rate, which was about 30 cents on the dollar at the time. I think taxes in the US are lower than they are in most modern nations.
My understanding is that most of my tax money goes to things like roads, and police, and the military, and national parks. Services I use, and security I enjoy and don't mind paying for. I think if I had to pay more to get into a park, I really wouldn't mind that. I expect to pay my own way.[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']Howard, I agree with you. Humans are part of nature. And we're a very successful part, so successful that we have been able to dominate almost every other part.
But our success can also be our downfall. If we observe other species we see one become successful and its population grow. That growth continues until there are so many individuals that the food source is depleted. Then we see populations crash.
We've grown our population to the point where we are significantly taxing our resources. Here in the US we have grown our population to the point that we are experiencing significant decreases in 'quality of life'. It's not about building one dam that produces power, it's about damming most rivers, about eliminating the ability of fish to reach spanning grounds, ....
There is a need to find a balance between protection and development. We're struggling with this one. As of this moment over 90% of the old growth redwoods, the largest trees in the world have been harvested. It's a battle to save the last 3%. Should we cut them all?
If we don't take some measures to protect the 'natural environment' you will be taking your landscape photos of golf courses, shopping malls, and erosion ruined slopes.[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']Good grief...there are some prety extreme views out there....
As I said in my earlier post "I dont know what the purpose of an American National Park actually is...."
The point I was trying to make was simply that if they are supposed to be very special places then they have to be treated very specially. If they are not that important then fair enough...complain about restrictions, I would.
If on the other hand they are the best examples, then accept the rules with good grace and be pleased that they are being looked after.
Over on this side of the Atlantic we do not have the luxury of such huge, unspoilt areas. In the UK, I doubt that it is possible to get further than 10 miles from a road. We are very keen to protect our areas which "have the character of wild land". We have no wild land...its all domesticated to a degree. We have no large predators...all extinct. For many species of plants we are able to tell you almost exactly how many individual specimens are left. As for woodlands...the huge bulk of our forest area is made up of hand planted Sitka Spruce..imported and grown for timber production.
I suppose the message I would give is ...you are very lucky to have what you do have...use it wisely (ie conserve it).
Graeme
PS anyone got a link that would tell me what the purpose of a US National Park is?
Thanks[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']As a retired scientist, Bob, I realize that the testimony of eye witnesses only brackets what actually happened. We all see the same thing from a dfferent point.
"Lied." Very harsh. How about you changed your mind?
I wasn't belittling Hollywooders. They just make me mad. I see them as uninformed people using their status as a lever. Their world works for them, but not for me. I may be equally uninformed.[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']
ANY open space that's preserved is good. Our fauna and flora suffered and still suffers tremendously by our most often unsustainable land use practices.
There's a spot by my house that I used to be able to sit on a hill and watch foxes hunt, and deer graze. It's a parking lot now...
I understand that we have to use our land, but I think we could be smarter about it.[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']Hi, folks, I am new to the website and this forum, but I already consider them terrific resources. I am sorry to be posting about something "controversial," but this is bothering me, and I wondered how other photographers deal with it.
I have just returned from a wonderful two-week trip through the five National Parks in Utah, and also shot in the State Parks like Kodachrome Basin, Coral Pink Sands, and Goblin Valley.
It seemed like wherever I went, there were many signs warning me to stay off of the "cryptobiotic soil." For those who don't know, this is a kind of fungus that grows on top of the sandy soil, helping to hold it together, and encouraging plants to sprout and discouraging erosion. The mature life-form is easy to see (and stay off of) as dark, lumpy clumps. But the immature form is--get this--invisible to the naked eye.
The Park Services don't want people tromping around on this stuff. I even caught a piece of a video on the Moab tourism TV channel depicting what they want us to think of as "eco-criminals" carrying tripods hopping around on a hill. The narrator was saying, in effect "Your pictures won't be any better a few feet from the parking lot."
I think that this "suggestion" is wrong-wrong-wrong. I spent the whole two weeks trying to manuever around near the parking lots, pull-outs, and (IMO) poorly-maintained "trails," looking for good angles to make good images. And all the time I was fearful that I would be reported to a ranger, as they ask the public to do.
I am all for "taking nothing but photographs and leaving nothing but footprints," but the Park Services now don't want us to leave the parking lots and pullouts. What's next? "Don't leave your vehicle"?
How do others feel about this, and how do you deal with it?
Thanks, JP[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']Peter is exactly right. I live and photograph extensively in Utah and am able to get just about anywhere I need to without trampling crypto or other sensitive areas. All it takes is a little education to recognize where you should or should not walk.
What does upset me enormously is that in vast areas of the west (beyond the window dressing of national parks), cattle is allowed to roam free, erode the soil, pollute the waterways, and destroy vegetation to a much greater extent than any random hiker ever could.
Guy[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']Perhaps Infrared was not clear enough but it also appears that others have purposely missed much of what he is saying.
If we are all restricted to staying SOLELY on the blacktop and hewn trails it will be a sorry sorry day.
I understand that many who go cross country are irresponsible. I could horsewhip anyone who leaves trash in our wilderness or serriously mars the landscape.
I think what is needed is a liscensing program. For sensitive areas one should be required to take an internet based education program and pass a test in order to obtain a liscense for a reasonable and meaningful fee. The fee should be large enough to help support the parks. It should have a scale built into it encouraging education.
I have another little idea I'd like to see implemented. Fingerprint tossed cans and bottles and arrest and fine the criminals several hundred dollars. This would at first raise millions and eventually solve the problem. I know it wold sure clean up our lovely rivers here in Texas where many many people are positivly cretinous about littering.[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']Howard,
I'm no fan of government either. Unfortunately the more irresponsible people are ... the more government it takes.
Hunters and fishermen must be licensed. The license program pays to improve the hunting and fishing and protect species.
Hikers and campers should pay more too. It is really a problem of dollars. Our parks and wilderness areas ARE suffering. All one has to do is get out there to see it. If paying for use fences out some ... so be it. It will probably be the abusers who are kept out.
I really don't care how the slobs feel about increased fees. They brought it upon themselves.
I suppose you are right about my fingerprinting plan. Like so much in this egalitarian society of ours ... we all must pay for the slovenliness of others. Whether it's insurance or crime ... or litter, everybody pays.
Personally I want something done. It makes me livid every time I go out. Texas is probably worse than many other places. Very low consciousness amoungs a huge percentage of the population.[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']Tough problem. It already costs $20 to enter Zion and many other parks. That, plus a portion of my taxes. I'mnot sure how much more it would take to limit crowding.
On the other hand, people tend to value something in proportion to the cost. It is well documented tat college students who work to pay for at least part of their education do better than the free riders. Like the poet Kris Kristofferson said, "Nothin' ain't worth nothin'..." But then some folks figure that if they pay a lot of money to get in, they deserve more, like maid service. I'm paying, so let someone clean up the mess I make.
A very effective program from years ago was the "Don't be a litter bug." I tough it really worked.
When I started backpacking many years ago, you laced up your boots, strapped on your pack, and went almost anywhere you wanted to go anytime you wanted to go. I got really turned off when I had to stand in line to see if I could get a permit to hike a few miles to camp and fish. It took a lot of time, phone calls and letters to get a permit to hike across the Grand Canyon. But at least there was room at the campgrounds.[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']Howard,
There exist fabulous places where nobody goes. One I found is Mountain Home State Forest in Californicate. It's straight E. of Bakersfield. The lower camps in the Giant Seqoia can get a tad crowded in the summer time but nothing like the National parks. Walk five miles up and you won't see a soul. It's incredible. Right in the heart of the Sierras.
I'm sure there are places all over the country like this. Actually I avoid Natl. parks like the plague. Except in the off season.[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']Hi there...first post so go easy on me!
I dont have a clue how the USA national parks are run or what the rationale behind their selection and management actually is. But it strikes me that these are probably very special places where they aim to conserve the very best examples of your nations natural heritage. If the cryptobiotic soils are a key feature of this particular range of habitats then I would expect the national park to want to conserve the best example. Perhaps it may not look as attractive as the landscape or a colourful bird or insect, but the fragile soil structure is just as important. So if the policy is to protect the best examples...then it is only right that these soils should be protected. If that means no-go areas then that is what we should all respect. As other folk have said there are other areas (not within the core conservation areas) where the strict guidance is not applied.
Graeme[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']I would never advocate letting people's houses burn, but fire is a part of the natural process. One of the reasons fire is a problem now is because we have attempted to control the natural process for too long. Undergrowth and dead wood have been allowed to pile up while we do everything we can to stop fires. Nature can take care of itself, but we insist on meddling.
I especially don't like elitist morons who wear funny looking pointy hats acting like god's own wardens running roughshod over my high-tax-paying rights.
I'm assuming you're not living in the US, because if you are, you are not paying high taxes. I'm not sure that paying taxes gives anyone the right to destroy something to obtain a good photograph.
I believe the welfare of the subject should always come first. I have no idea what crypto-biotic soil looks like, and I have no intention of leaving the trail in case I walk on it.[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']I'm old enough to remember places, that became National Parks, these places were only accessable by rugged 4wd roads and hiking. There were no crowds. But when the government puts in black top roads it just brings in the people,because it is easy. Then the government has to "maintain" said road and charges visitors a "fee". Then, as more people come, they have to "hire" more rangers.Then the head of the park service begs for more money from Congress to further "improve" the park.The Parks advertizing budget goes up and so do the number of visitors. Eventually our park is no longer our park we can't get out of the bus unless it is to buy a souvenir. Most of the park rangers and wildlife biologists, that tag every thing that walks, flies or crawls think it's their park and WE are the problem. Pretty soon we will have to pay to take photo's for our personal use, and we will not be able to sell any images taken in a Park as all the sights or icons will be copyrighted.
I think that Baxter State Park in Maine is probably the best managed park in the country due to the foresight of the Governor that gifted the land to the State with provisions.
At least that one mans opinion.
Richard Martel, Florida Keys[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']Old growth forests, here in the Pacific Northwest, consist of very large trees and little undergrowth. Historically fire (often set by lightening strikes) can move through these areas, burning the undergrowth and leaving the large trees unharmed.
Logging has been a process of removing the large trees and letting the forest regrow, generally unaided. Where one large tree grew dozens of small trees spring up. Over time most of them are crowded out and die. The result is a huge amount of dry fuel waiting for a spark.
When fire burns through these areas all the trees die. It's not a pretty sight.
Our logged woods need to be thinned, but that means removing the smaller trees that won't survive and will just become more fuel. But that's not what is likely to happen. "Thinning" will most likely be an excuse for more logging. There is no commercial value in a Doug Fir that's 20 high and 6" at the base.
I live on a piece of land that was logged about 25 years ago. Parts of it are a tinderbox. The dead and dying trees are so thick that one can't walk through without constantly breaking off branches to permit passage. (I'm in the process of thinning but 60 acres takes a while. ;o)
Much public and private land is like mine, logged in an earlier time with a not well developed concept of good forest management. Really more a 'slash and run' approach.
We're looking for answers. Letting fires burn when possible, including intentionally setting fires is sometimes desirable. Some of the intentional burns have gotten out of control. Burning people's homes is never desirable. Now we're beginning to do intentional thinning (the right way) around settled areas and remote homes. We're replacing flammable roofs with ones that won't burn.
It's getting better here, but we've still got a lot to do.
And 'Sfleming', luckily we have fewer people like you around here to make the communication between loggers and environmentalists difficult. We really have come a long way in learning how to get along. One of the things that we've become better at is not calling each other ridiculous names. We're learning how to listen to each other. And we're finding that we have many, many things in common.[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']Sigh!!!!
I'd write more, but the last couple of messages have left me totally depressed.
Excuse me. I have to go hug a tree.
Michael[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']Bob, I can't disagree with anything you said.
The human population has varied over the ages. Noah's flood reduced the human population from perhaps a billion to 6. The Black Plague. I sometimes wonder what the US population would be now if we hadn't killed off many thousands males of breeding age in the Civil War. Then World War I. World War II killed several million. Aids promises to kill millions more.
I have seen estimates for populations the earth can sustain. They range from a billion to a trillion. The current population is about 5.7 billion. So, we are either in deep trouble or have a long way to go.
There is a need to tread the middle ground. Humans need to carefully examine the benefits and cost of any projects. It is seldom an either/or choice.
No, I wouldn't cut the last red wood. What frosts me is the guy who, sitting on his redwood deck, sipping a whatever and water and watching the game on TV, who says he is opposed to cutting trees of any kind or damming any river for any reason. The same for the photographer standing on the edge of the Grand Canyon, wishing all these people would go back where they belong.
I had to laugh a bit at the end of your last post. Isn't the Grand Canyon a giant display of erosion?[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']
There is a place in Death Valley near the Dunes where you can still see wagon tracks that are 100 to 150 years old. The place heals slowly. Perhaps you think one person cannot do a lot of damage, but multiply that by, say, a hundred thousand. You will not be the only one who wants to get a bit closer. Once a path is started, more people will follow. There are places where the John Muir Trail is worn hip deep with several new parallel paths.
Howard, the earth can most likely support many more people than currently live on it today. But there is a large difference between simply living and living what most of us believe to be a quality life.
Here in the west our milk and meat producers have discovered that they can increase the number of livestock that they raise by cramming them into feed lots. Now, do you want to take photographs of cattle spread across a rangeland or photographs of cattle crammed into pens? Do you want to live the equivalent life of a cow restricted to a small space, standing in your own filth?
Please go back and read the posts in this thread and I think you will see that some of the complaints that people have made are largely due to the stresses that our population size have made on our natural resources. We are having to restrict ourselves to fixed paths in order to not trample too much of a slow healing landscape.
------
Now to both Howard and "Sfleming".... Let me ask you both a favor.
Please consider ceasing to engage in the divisive behavior that is so tearing our culture apart. Name calling and characterizing groups of people by extreme examples does no good in the attempt to solve problems. Please make an effort to listen to all sides, communicate your ideas and concerns in an objective and helpful manner. We, as a country and a world, would be much better off if we quit treating issues as we would a sports engagement. You know, I win. You, therefore must loose.[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']That's fine Bob but I don't feel like being polite when extremist environmentalists are working hand in glove with eletist leftist academics and most of the main stream media to revolutionize American society. My society. I for one am not going quietly.
I don't care to live in a socialist Big Brother world and it is plain that the Left is radically undermining western society. Environmentalism has become the spearpoint of the assault. It has to be not just resisted but fought because the end result of a command and control economy run by an oligarchy of academics and political scientists will be indeed a Brave New World.
Human freedom is what this country is all about. Yes it does not work without a responsible population and sadly many many of us have lost or not developed the intestinal fortitude to accept and shoulder necessary personal responsibility. The answer is not to imprison people within a police state run by eletes. Rather it is to educate and require people to exhibit character.
I have a quote hanging on my wall by John Adams: "We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge or gallantry would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Or constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
The natural state of man is to be inslaved by kings and despots. That is the history of us. This country has the oldest constitutional republic on earth and most other western constitutions were modeled on ours. We all grew up in, by all history's example, a very strange situation. We are free. I'm not willing to surrender my freedom to a bunch of scare mongers shrieking 'global warming' or any other such poppycock.
Peolpe who try and tell me and others that Giant Sequois are still being harvested need to be resisted strongly. I'm sorry if you don't like my tone. I don't like your intentions.[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']Bob, before you check out, please tell me where I was name calling. I reread this and other similar threads and just didn't see it. Any name calling was unintended.
Your intention to lead a good life and leave the earth a better place is admirable. There is a huge difference between leading "a good life" and living "the good life." The only group I have been critical of are those living "the good life" who now want to save it all and deny "the good life" to others. Those are the folks I see as being opposed to any kind of develoment because it ruin their enjoyment (the good life) of the environment. I personally don't think they really care all that much about the snail darter or spotted owl. Those creatures are simply the rally cry. "Save the spotted owl" sounds much better than "Save my playground."
I have referred to them as "Hollywooders." I see them as the people who have the good life and can now afford to pay three times what steak is worth. So they want to get rid of ugly feed lots in thename of the cows. They don't want to live in poluted air, so they drive electric cars powered by electricity made in someone else's backyard where someone else get to breate the poluted air.
I would add to that group those who oppose development in Iceland. They say it will ruin the pristine wilderness. That Icelanders don't need it. After all, they have a per capita GNP that is the envy of much of the world. Maybe so. But I also see on this site from a MR workshop attendee in that pristine wilderness that everything cost three times what i was worth. Maybe Icelanders need all that GNP if they want lettuce and tomato on that cod fish sandwich. Why should I have that simply because I have three times what its worth?
There are a lot of people on our planet. As the population grows, the space available to grow food decreases while the demand for food increases. Hence, a more practicle reason for feed lots than corporate greed.
No Bob, I don't want to live like a cow crammed into a feed lot. Nor do I want to live "the good life" of a range cow, free to roam about before the truck ride to McDonald's. But thus is the life of a cow. But I think that is what cows are for.[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']Howard, I'm sorry that you thought I was including you in the "please, no name calling" request. If you read that into my post, my bad.
I will repeat my request that we not try to make our points by using extreme examples, often very non-representing examples, of those who have a different opinion.
If I wanted to make a pro-environmental statement I could bring up the logger who recently drained his Cat oil into a local creek when changing his oil, the local guy who intentionally cut down several trees containing nesting egrets, the person who took a chain saw and girdled one of the largest redwoods in the area.
But those people are not representative of the loggers in our area. Most of the loggers and timber workers are good, decent people. And they are truly troubled by the behavior of these extreme, out of control individuals, just as the vast majority of environmentalists are disgusted by such activities as burning SUVs and damaging logging equipment.
We've gone from a country where there was plenty of room for people to do as they pleased. But the days when we could trash an area, move on, and let the environment recover are over. We've gone from a few wagons moving over fragile terrain to millions of feet and tires. That means that we have conflicts between people who want to make a living by harvesting/extracting natural resources and people who want to enjoy nature.
If we allow ourselves to get caught up in name calling and other divisive behavior we are going to spend a lot more time getting to some reasonable solutions. And we spend a lot of time with our knickers in knots rather than enjoying life.
Me? I prefer to be free range for as long as I've got until I head for the charcoal grill. (Actually, I'm getting interested in some of the new 'non-embalmed, non-concrete' burials rather than cremation. I'd rather be slowly taken up by a tree than adding to the global warming problem. ) :)[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']AGW, it is my understanding that National Parks here in the US are to preserve unique areas of the US for people now and in the future to enjoy. I think they do a good job of that. Especially considering the high uses some areas get.
Forty years ago, I would drive to Yosemite Valley an any Friday night and find plenty of available camp sites. But now, well, first-come-first-serve is just not an option. To get a camp site this Friday night would nean you would have to arrive two weeks ago and wait. I can live with hard to get reservations. Or go somewhere else. There are planty of palces where you can still just arrive. Just not Yosemite Valley in July.
I hiked across the Grand Canyon (South-North and back) a few years ago. It was difficult to get one of the few permits to camp below the rim. I had to camp two extra nights on the norther rim to make it work. While talking with the Park Service, I learned that on Memorial Day (first summer holiday in the US) before the quota system ws put in place, there were nearly 3000 campers at the Colorado River campground at Phantom Ranch. When I visited, it was crouded with a few hundred. It is easy to see why some areas need extra protection.
On the other hand, there are plenty of places where few people go and access is pretty free and easy. The reason is so few people go there, there is no need to limit the visits. Yet. I really do feel limited access to certain areas is for the good of the area and the visitors, today and next year. The rules aren't there just to keep you from getting that great photo.
I like to go to North Coyotte Buttes in Utah/Arizona. There is a limit of 10 people per day. I go in August because that when I can go, and it is relatively easy to get one of the 10 permits 6 months in advance. Mainly because it is HOT. I have been there many times and most often I see no one else, or a single group of 2 or 3 people. Frankly, I prefer this to "SRO" crouds.
Some rules are in place for the least common denominator visitor. For instance, I have been in Death Valley many times. Stop at the visitor's center and ask about going to the Race Track. "4WD only. Very hard drive." I've been there in a Volvo wagon and a VW van. But the 70 year old tourists in their rented car from Las Vegas airport could get into serious trouble. So, the blanket advice is to not go, rather than, it is OK for you but not for them. Especially when they may be more up for the trip than you are. The Park Service doesn't want any one to have a bad time or get rescued, or worse.
Bob, I did read it that way. Sorry. And thanks for helping me. My reference to Hollywooders is meant to address people of wealth and high visibility. Some think we should all drive electric cars. I know I can't afford it now. I can't understand why I should vote for John Kerry because Cher thinks Connie Rice is an idiot. I saw a TV item with the proud actress showing off her organic garden in Malibu. We should all have one andlive like she does - so aware of the environment. Then she waters here tomatoes with water from the Feather River brought to LA through the California Aquaduct. If you have eaten lettuce in the US, it was probably grown in the Southwestern desert - totally unfit to grow much of anything but lizards and cactus but for water from the Colorado River, saved behind the Glenn Canyon, Hoover and other dams.
Bob, I am a retired nuclear engineer. I had a 35 year career, mostly in nuclear power generation. I think I understand what environmental extremists , well meaning or other wise, can do. And I also understand the risks of technology.[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']Howard, I said that I was going to withdraw from this discussion. I guess I lied. ;o)
I'm a retired psychologist. I can assure you that there are plenty of crazy people on both sides of every issue. (And even some crazy people who haven't taken sides. ;o)
To pick out one, or a few, of the most extreme on an issue to support your disagreement with that position does rational discussion no favors. I think we would be much, much better off if we refrained from the 'talk show' behavior of belittling the ideas of others and tried to understand their concerns and to clearly communicate ours.
I'm so tired of politics as a competitive sport....[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']Interesting debate. What troubles me in all this is that most of you talk about how we, human kind, will be affected by our own land use strategies as far as our recreational behavior is concerned. There's much more to it than that, IMO. ANY open space that's preserved is good. Our fauna and flora suffered and still suffers tremendously by our most often unsustainable land use practices.
Case in point: I just returned from a trip to the Extremadura-region in western Spain, where agricultural practices are still relatively traditional and diverse, and there is lots of open space. What a huge difference in bird diversity compared to Switzerland, where I live. Large-scale monocultures and urban sprawl have robbed many bird species of their habitat here. Their numbers have declined, as they can't move elsewhere. There is no elsewhere!
The park management strategy that works best in my view is what I experienced in the national parks of Botswana (southern Africa): High price, very poor infrastructure = low visitor volume. Not a single tarred road (in fact, gut-wrenching road conditions most of the way). You pay more than USD 100 admittance for a vehicle and two persons per day. Camp sites consist of a mowed spot under a tree with a little number plate on it. Toilet facilities are monopolized by Baboons ;-). You're not allowed to leave your vehicle either (except at camps) - but considering the fact that there may be a pride of lions hiding in the tall grass a few meters away from you, you may not want to, anyway...
I agree, this is an elitist approach to conservation if you beleive that everyone is entitled to the recreational benefits that nature reserves can provide us with in the short term. But the fauna and flora are surely the merrier, and that's what's far more important in the long run IMO.
FWIW,
Ron[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']Thanks for the Link Howard....There is a very useful page which sets out the rationale behind the selection of National Parks and their operation.
I'm assuming that those who are complaining are doing so in relation to park policy rather than to the concept of the National Park itself. I would therefore recommend that they follow the link and get a better understanding about what the park service are trying to achieve.
It is also clear from the ancillary info on the site that there is whole structured hierachical approach to natural heritage conservation in the US. From NP's, through State facilities to local designations and places managed by NGO's. There are also huge tracts of land which are unaffected by designation or restriction.There are recreational areas and there are conservation areas etc....in actual fact it seems prety well sorted.
I'm now facinated by crypyobiotic soils and I'm off to find out more about them.
Graeme[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']I've come across this issue many times in my travels in the desert southwest and I've come to the opinion that "Leave nothing but footprints" is a bad idea. When I'm walking in the wilderness I pretend that I'm a secret agent on a covert mission and leaving footprints is the LAST thing I want to do.
It's usually pretty easy to avoid the cryptobiotic soil, once you know what it looks like. There are plenty of rock outcroppings, gravel beds, etc. that you can use to get yourself to your shooting location. Walking on rock or gravel leaves not a trace. A few seconds thought and a minor detour can eliminate all traces of your passage.
It's easy, all it takes is a little conscious thought.[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']Yet another layer of government is not the solution. People can be clean and considerate if they want to be. Spanking the bad ones doen't seem cost effective to me. Finger printing the tossed can would only work if the culprit had his prints on file. Not all of do. It would cost plenty, and in the end, a shrewed lawyer would say the finger prints only proved the culprit had touched the bottle, not thrown it away.
Many states have a deposit on bottles and cans. If you return the item, you get your deposit back. If you throw it away, it is still worth a nickel for someone to pick it up. Make the deposit big enough, and no one would throw it away. Bigger yet, and you might get mugged for your cans.
Some places have trail head limits on the number of people that can enter an area at any given time. This allows for a better wilderness experience and reduces impact on some fragile areas. Some areas are closed to camping altogether.
I have been to a few parks in Canada and New Zealand. The first thing I noticed was how pristine clean they were. So, people can take care of their parks if they want to.
It has also been my experience that the farther from the parking lot you get, the less trash and heavy impact you see. Yes, part of the reason is fewer people go there, but also the more serious the hikers, the better care they seem to take of parks and public places.[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']I know places in Yosemite where you can spend several hours alone that are less than a half mile from the roads. It can be done. There are no trails to these places but no signs that say don't go.
I saw on the news today that a visitor to Yellowstone was scalded when he left the trail and broke through a thicn crust into very hot water. Another reason to follow the rules.[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']I would never advocate letting people's houses burn, but fire is a part of the natural process. One of the reasons fire is a problem now is because we have attempted to control the natural process for too long. Undergrowth and dead wood have been allowed to pile up while we do everything we can to stop fires. Nature can take care of itself, but we insist on meddling.
I especially don't like elitist morons who wear funny looking pointy hats acting like god's own wardens running roughshod over my high-tax-paying rights.
I'm assuming you're not living in the US, because if you are, you are not paying high taxes. I'm not sure that paying taxes gives anyone the right to destroy something to obtain a good photograph.
I believe the welfare of the subject should always come first. I have no idea what crypto-biotic soil looks like, and I have no intention of leaving the trail in case I walk on it.[/font]
[font color=\'#000000\']Spoken like a true believer who has never bothered to search and study OUTSIDE his own faith.
Yes fire is natural but naturally fire would sweep through forested lands in intervals of decades ... not centuries. Because we followed Smokie's precepts for so long forests became cluttered. The smart thing to do would be to log them, clear the brush and replant. The invirowhako thing to do is to keep out the loggers for no good reason and let them burn. Thus precluding logging for another century. Why do they hate logging so much? Because they love Salmon? Salmon can be protected through logging operations done intelligently. When thousands of acres of forest overgrown for a century burn ... everything dies and it takes a long time for it to come back. So why do the tree-huggers advocate such foolish practices? I think it is because they are anti-human-anti-capitalist and thus anti-freedom.
You also make the slanderous assertion that I advocate destroying something because I pay taxes. I think I made it pretty clear that I personally am very aware of the wilderness and my environment and that I believe in nurturing both. Your statement simply reveals your prejudice and dishonesty.
As to taxes: Just what is 'high' to your mind. Right now ... all told ... I surrender about 50% of my income .... most of which goes to support lazy irresponsible people who can not manage to make their way in life. You want more?
And back to the wonderful 'crypto' ... 'biotic'. Don't you wonder about that nomenclature? I certainly do. I think it's bullshit.
If you read my other posts in this thread you will see that I advocate more money for support of our wildlands and I advocate that those who use them do the payin. I also advocate licensing and educating to protect them. What's your plan?[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']I have literally no respect for environmentalists any longer. They've been caught in far too many lies and deceits. Whether it's planting lynx fur in Minnesota, reintroducing wolves where they are not needed, protecting cougars where they kill children and eat women hikers or preserving crocs in Austraila where they can eat more people.
The environmentalists are extreme. Yet they alway accuse industrialists of crimes against nature. I'd like to see a happy medium. Thousands of lives were impacted and the price of lumber has been doubled by the Spotted Owl scam. This was an out and out lie.
Same thing is being done right now in Ca. with the red legged frog. Plant one frog in one drainage ditch and a billion dollar development can be killed.
Of course thats just fine because 'development' is evil. Development means jobs and houses for people to live in.
Here in Central Texas the environmentalists have gotten near total control of development using the lever of the Edwards Aquifer. This aquifer MUST be kept nearly full all year round. Why? Because of an indroduced non indigenous species of minnow and a salmander. These live in non natural springs that were dynamited out of the hills in the thirties and have been netted out prior to severe droughts in the past when the springs did dry up ( the aquifer was still 90% full) and then were later reintroduced where they flourished.
Of late a 4 golf course and several hundred home development was quashed after years of planning by these 'nature lovers'.
So ... yes I call environmentalists names. I think they are charlatans with a hidden agenda. I don't have to wonder about this. I know it. The Left went underground and came back up calling themselves environmentalists. Their goals have remained unchanged. To institute a command and control economy ruled by an elete few.[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']People are a natural part of the earth's environment, no matter how you think we got here (except perhaps by spaceship from somewhere else). I see the problem to be that people are the only species on earth that is capable of making huge changes to the environment. So it may be a matter of degree. A beaver builds a am. Cool. Humans build a dam. Bad. The beaver pond eventually fills with dirt and a meadow is born. Cool. Lake Meade fills with dirt. Bad. Both change the world, ony to a different degree. Some environmentalists say the beaver dam is natural, Hoover Dam is man-made. True, but not the whole truth. Humans are natural so what they do is natural so Hoover Dam is natural. Humans use concrete, not mud and trees.
A small beaver dam benefits a few beavers. Hoover Dam benefits millions of people.[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']Excellent points Howard.
I would like to try and inject a droplet of truth into Bob's seemingly closed mind.
NO Giant Sequoias are threatened with logging. Not for many decades. There shall never be a Giant Sequoia harvested ... EVER again. There is limited logging of the Dawn and Coastal species of Redwood which are much lesser species which grow rather quickly compared to their altitude loving bigger cousins.
This is how environmentalists spread their propaganda and misinformation. This sort of manipulation of the public mind is their stock and trade. You can't make any headway with them either because we are talking religion here. Mother Earth is their goddess and they will do anything to protect her. Spreading lies is justified because the cause is so righteous.
In the beginning the environmentalists did humankind a great favor. Back then they were called conservationist and I think that was a more honest word. We WERE acting in a near oblivious manner to our surroundings and horrible crimes were committed against the land we all must live on and from. Most of the wrongs have been wholly stopped in the US. The rest of the world will catch up when the big picture economics of it all hits home. This is now happening in China. The industrialists ( all sons and daughters of the old guard millitary) are realizing that piles of money are not so fun if you and your children cannot breathe the air.
But now the environmentalists carry on as if no progress has been made. They cry ever louder and trumpet their alarmist BS ever more hysterically. They come at us preaching fire and brimstone and ever lasting damnation if we do not reverse the industrial age. It's just nonsense.
Human population and science got us into this situation and that is the only way to proceed. We must continue to develop non poluting tech and teach responsibility to our kids. Population pressure is lessening as the entire world becomes industrialized. Europe and America only grow due to immigration now. Sensible progress can still be made. The screeching of the treehugging alarmists needs to stop. They are actually have a reverse effect to their goals now. The sky is not falling and there is no wolf. There are concerns and dangers. They will be faced and dealt with.
Perhaps we shall cause some global warming. This will not harm the planet. Some folks may have to relocate. Some folks will get a better climate. Some will get worse. It will happen so gradually that the population moves will not even be realized by the affectees at the time.
We WILL come up with an alternative to fossil fuels long before it could become the problem the treehuggers say it is right now. Or we won't and we will go back to the stone age. None of us will see it.
I still maintain that the environmentalists (the leaders) have a hidden agenda and it is political.[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']My intentions are to lead a good life and to try to leave the earth in a little better condition than how I found it. I'm sorry you don't like my intentions.
(Let me clear up a little misconception/understanding. The redwoods in my neck of the woods are coastals, not Sequoias. We've already cut so many of the Sequoias that we keep the few remaining in a couple of inland parks.)
"Sfleming", you sound like a very angry person. I'm going to drop out of this discussion (it has little to do with photography anyway). I hope you find a way to relax a bit and try to see issues from more than one extreme position. The world is a very complex place....[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']AGW, I got so whippd up, I forgot. Try www.nps.gov.[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']Elitist? Yep. Pretty soon only Hollywooders will be able to fly to Africa and ebjoy nature. Pay the $100 or whatever, jump into their Landrover and go see the wilds. I'm happy for them. Maybe I will able to see their National Geogrphic special.[/font]