Interesting Article about 'Wilderness'

[Tom Rankin]

A then-young forest Ranger recounts burning a back country shelter, and the aftermath of his actions.

http://www.utne.com/Environment/Burning-The-Shelter-Environmental-Crisis.aspx

 

[Creag Nan Drochaid]

People in wilderness

The article is another voice in the long conversation about humanity and nature. Without detouring into its history or abstractions, I think the question boils down to whether irresponsible use is inevitable, and therefore all use must be limited and rigid rules enforced to protect the wilds from us. That seems to be the attitude of the Wilderness Act of 1964 et. seq., and that seems to be the attitude of forest managers who decree that trails are to be unmarked and kept only minimally open, or that shelters and bridges are an abomination on the wild land that must be removed, the owners' right to walk it be damned.
That attitude is in contrast to the education efforts of the past forty years: carry-in/carry-out, Leave No Trace, low-impact gear and techniques, HikeSafe, leader education/certification, ridgerunners and shelter caretakers etc. It is also in contrast to the work of trail crews in marking/defining established trails with sufficient erosion control in place so the users do not damage the landscape. All these efforts are based on the assumption that most people who are aware of the issues will choose to act responsibly as stewards of the land.
Those efforts do support lowering our impact on wild lands while admitting that we have the right to be on most of the lands we own. I think that that is why we have considerable success in implementing them, because they appeal to people's better altruistic aspects rather than assuming we can only be part of the problem.
Creag nan drochaid

 

[TCD]

+

The trend described in the article is unfortunate. Should be required reading for land managers. The Adirondacks are poorer for the maniacal burning of facilities that took place in the 70s. Now the deliberate fires are over (due to public outcry), but we are still busy destroying our leanto shelters as fast as we can. Sad.

 

[JacobH]

Great article, thanks for posting it.

Does this attitude mostly apply in the United States. The other day I ended up on a long, long chain of links (Wikipedia is great at that ) regarding Triglav. Reading about the way Slovenians talk about these mountains made me really ponder about the kind of attitude we have in the US towards our environment. In Europe (and other places) these implied negative views on shelters, paths, etc. through "wilderness" areas don't seem to exist in the same context that they do here. Imagine if Lakes of the Clouds hut was 5 stories tall and slept 300+ like the Kredarica hut, and it was still so crowded that people often sleep on the floor

(Note that Kredarica hut also serves as a meteorological station akin to MWOBS)

http://www.summitpost.org/triglav/150787

There is a small shelter upon the peak of Triglav. It is now a national symbol of the entire country!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aljaž_Tower

"Aljazev Stolp on Triglav (2864m). Jakob Aljaz, famous priest from Dovje-Mojstrana village, and explorer of Julian Alps, came in 1895 to idea to erect Aljazev Stolp and show Germans that Triglav is Slovenian mountain. He decided to privately fund placing of small round prop on the summit of Triglav to act like a symbol, viewpoint and small shelter in case of sudden storm. He bought ground on the summit of Triglav from Dovje County for 1 goldinar. He designed pillar that will be 1,90m high and will have 1,25m in diameter and could accommodate 4 to 5 people. It would be highest lying Slovenian object. Idea was very enthusiastic for the time being. In the August of 1895, 6 strong men carried whole week 20kg heavy steel plates and other material from Vrata valley to Triglav summit. On August 7th, Anton Belec and 4 assistants put it together in 5 hours and erected 1m high wall around it to make it more resistant to fierce winds. Since then it is standing proudly on the summit of Triglav, now over hundred years. It became a National symbol and in 1990 it was declared a cultural and historical monument."

I have no experience in Europe whatsoever, but reading things like this makes me think the grass may be greener... am I far off? Is this just an American attitude that we should be separate from nature and not learn to co-exist? As if humans are inherently unnatural? The people of Slovenia seem to embrace their mountain trails, huts, parks, peaks as a positive symbol of their entire nation. Is their attitude more akin to the ranger from the article post-shelter-destruction or is there just as much dissent regarding "wilderness" as there appears to be in the states?

 

[TCD]

Yep, only in America. In Switzerland, common sense prevails, as it apparently does in Slovenia. Here, especially in the East, they would spend your tax money to chopper in a bulldozer to knock down that Triglav hut. All so city folk who cannot navigate off trail, can walk trails and imagine that they're explorers...