"Glamping" - Enticing new campers into the woods

[PA Ridgerunner]

I couldn't care less how many people camp, or how they camp, as long as they shut the hell up during quiet hours.

Amen, brother!

 

[RoySwkr]

I don't think the members following his track are the same ones eschewing the techie-gear in the back country, but I also notice there weren't any of these anti-technology sentiments regarding his choice to bring the iPhone along (with solar charger) and keeping us armchair enthusiasts informed almost every step of the way.

If Glamping gets more folks into the great outdoors then so be it. Who's to say my way is right or wrong? I was bringing techno-gizmos (ham radio) into the woods long before cellphones were common.

Ham radios are a specialized hobby, and not a "threat" to Wilderness wannabees, and real-time tracking is still in that state

If and when real-time tracking becomes common enough that spouses start demanding you carry one, then start asking why you hike slower than Mats and why you stopped so long at the summit, there will be more of a backlash

 

[Stash]

If the argument is less visitors is better (and from a wear and tear point of view I can see the point) who gets to choose which people should be out there?

If only a limited number have the right to be there is someone carrying/using some sort of techno-device less worthy to be there and some who chooses to be out there without? If that device does no harm to the environment (including noise pollution) what makes it less worthy to be in the woods than a fancy GPS or even a modern headlamp?

Or if it's car camping is my Thermarest more worthy than someone's velvet air matress?

 

[Chip]

If the argument is less visitors is better (and from a wear and tear point of view I can see the point) who gets to choose which people should be out there?

Me. I'm in. All other wannabees are out. They should have gotten here on the Mayflower. Manifest Destiny, and fancy phrases like that.

 

[Waumbek]

I couldn't care less how many people camp, or how they camp, as long as they shut the hell up during quiet hours.

Ditto & Amen.

 

[TEO]

If the argument is less visitors is better (and from a wear and tear point of view I can see the point) who gets to choose which people should be out there?

Actually, it's not necessarily the wear and tear that concerns me most; the presence of people detracts from the wildness. This creates a paradox, because when we go out to enjoy it by spending time in the woods, our presence is taking away from it.

Who has more of a right to be out in the woods and mountains? No one. Those of us who having been hiking for years have no more or no less of a right than someone whose never hiked before in their lives.

I've mentioned this several times recently, but I encourage everyone on this forum to read or reread Laura and Guy Waterman's Wilderness Ethics. They certainly discuss the issues involved--for which there are few easy answers--far more eloquently than I can.

 

[Puck]

Me. I'm in. All other wannabees are out. They should have gotten here on the Mayflower. Manifest Destiny, and fancy phrases like that.

Damn I am late again. I have people that came with the Winthrop fleet in 1630...I won't be able to pass the worthy meter test. It has been nice camping with everyone.