No, pet dogs are not allowed in Baxter State Park.

[dug]

It's not the # of rocks, it's the quality, to be considered.

There's a location on the upper peninsula in Newfoundland that has many fossils. There are signs asking you not to remove them, so others can enjoy them.

There's nobody standing there checking pockets when you leave. It's up to the individual to decide if they want to follow the rule, or really, the "request" or not.

 

[hikerbrian]

It's not the # of rocks, it's the quality, to be considered.

There's a location on the upper peninsula in Newfoundland that has many fossils. There are signs asking you not to remove them, so others can enjoy them.

There's nobody standing there checking pockets when you leave. It's up to the individual to decide if they want to follow the rule, or really, the "request" or not.

And this one is obviously NOT an example of 'grey area,' in my opinion.

 

[sierra]

It's not the # of rocks, it's the quality, to be considered.

There's a location on the upper peninsula in Newfoundland that has many fossils. There are signs asking you not to remove them, so others can enjoy them.

There's nobody standing there checking pockets when you leave. It's up to the individual to decide if they want to follow the rule, or really, the "request" or not.

I would not take fossils in a place like that, agree, no grey area there.

 

[TJsName]

Folks with only a recent view of backcountry history don't realize how bad things were in backcountry in the sixties and far worse the late seventies...

The big problem I expect with many folks is that the vast majority of those entering the backcountry are new at it. They need rules and guidelines to establish what is and isn't acceptable. Eventually the minority of folks who continue to recreate in the woods will think they have figured out the whys behind the rules and guidelines and get to the point where they think they can rationalize why their breaking of the rules is acceptable. Unfortunately I expect only a tiny fraction of those folks are really at that point. Talk to any F&G or WMNF employee and they will tell you their primary goal is education and the rule book and citation pad is not used very often. Some folks need the extra education inherent with a citation but generally they are reserved for the totally clueless.

Exploring the area really shows how much destruction was done. The Black Mtn Pond campsite is a good example of an area that was ravaged pretty hard. The woods around Mountain Pond shelter are also stripped pretty bare. The big site on the Dry River trail, near Isolation West is regurgitating, but clearly got lots of use in its day. Blue Brook Tentsite in the Wild River Wilderness is also a huge blotch that's being revegitated, but it'll take a while. Sometimes it's best to just create a sustainable alternative, like at Unknown Pond. They closed all the pond-side campsites and built a new area on the hill.

I think that people new to hiking don't appreciate the slow changes that occur due to use and erosion. The Signal Ridge trail is a good example, as even in my hiking (not quite 20 years) it's become a heavily eroded string of rocks where it used to be mostly mineral soil. Hopefully more people get involved to take action to help fix and maintain trails.

 

[dug]

OK, fossils are out.

The rest are in?

 

[TJsName]

OK, fossils are out.

The rest are in?

First: this.

Second: I think the challenge of creating rules is similar to the challenge of writing code. In both instances, the author is hoping to achieve an outcome. That desired outcome in coding could be a broad data set, or a single piece of data. For laws and rules, the outcome is typically a behavior change that leads to some desired secondary or tertiary change. Those latter desired changes are what I would call the 'spirit' of the law/rule, and to me, that's what really matters. Once someone understands the spirit of the rule/law, I think they can then decide whether or not to follow it.

What's the connection? There are many ways to get to the same answer in coding. Some problems allow for code that is elegant and simple, but some problems call for code that is nasty and complex. It's can be easy to write code that gets the job done, even if it's ugly looking. It's hard to consistently write simple and elegant (aka 'good' code because it takes time to write, and can take a significant amount of time to test.

Similar problems creep up when creating laws and rules. Someone may spend hours or even days trying to craft language to address a problem. If they are successful in getting their language approved, they don't have a great way to test it other than to see how people react. If there is a problem, then the laws/rules can be amended, but sometimes it takes years for that cycle to complete. Knowing the spirit of the rule can help inform people as to what someone is trying to accomplish with a law/rule, as opposed to blindly obeying a law/rule to an end that potentially doesn't address the problem, or maybe even makes it worse. Writing code is hard - I think writing rules and laws is even harder due to significantly lower processing power.

 

[dug]

OK. Words.

Where is the line drawn? Rocks that have imprints on them vs. rocks that look really cool? It was determined that that my example was not in a grey area, so I'm looking to understand what areas are in the grey.

 

[Raven]

It's a shame when people forget freedom is the opportunity to do what's right, not simply to do as we please. I've rarely seen a case where anything other than simple respect is necessary. Respect for oneself, respect for the environment you're in, common courtesy for others. And although there may be minor differences, the reality is we all know what those words mean in most situations.

I'm not a fan of regulations in general. Real shocker, I know. I AM a fan of doing the right thing, especially when no one is watching. I think the argument we all have a different view of the right thing is BS and counterproductive. We agree on most.

Given a backwoods ethics test, most of us would pick the same written answers (experienced or not). We know the right thing. The true test is is not on paper though.

 

[hikerbrian]

Sheesh, with all this mention of 'right', 'wrong', 'shame', and 'true test', I think I might be back in CCD! That's a joke people, no really, no emotional trauma to be seen here.

Anyway, I don't agree with the idea that, if everyone thought for themselves, the woods would be a trampled mess. I think the vast majority of people hiking in the woods would prefer to preserve the experience for others. And for those that don't care, the rules don't matter to them anyway. That's why I lean towards educating others (and myself) on principles of conservation rather than 'rules that must be followed.' Shaming people for not following the 'rules' is usually counterproductive in the woods because it's hard to make a rule for every single scenario, and because many people object to being told what to do when they're out hiking. On the other hand, if you can teach people the principles of conservation, they'll usually act in a manner consistent with those principles. And that's the outcome we're looking for, right?

Also, in my opinion the White Mountains are not museum artifacts to be observed at a distance. When I go hiking, I'm a part of the environment. I have an impact on it, and it has an impact on me. There's no avoiding that. Even footprints are an impact. As I mentioned previously, I try to preserve the experience for others, and I try not to be a jerk, and to my mind that's what matters. I wish everyone acted that way, regardless of what the 'rules' say. But I don't feel any shame at all over taking my kid off trail to pee. It's also worth remembering that the entirety of the White Mountains was clear cut a century ago. It has bounced back amazingly well. It is possible to worry too much about the little things (i.e. hiking back up the mountain to put back the soil you took out on your boot tread, as Becca mentioned) and thereby lose sight of what's really important. Preserve the experience for others, don't be a jerk, and (OMG!) refresh and renew your spirit. If you can do that, the world will be a slightly better place than when you started.

 

[expat]

How long is "A while" as far as I can tell, the mountains are still there and still full of rocks.

But some of the most interesting, beautiful, inspiring, etc. rocks are gone now. Maybe they will be replaced by others, maybe they won't.

Butterfly wings flap and the results are unpredictable.

 

[TJsName]

OK. Words.

Where is the line drawn? Rocks that have imprints on them vs. rocks that look really cool? It was determined that that my example was not in a grey area, so I'm looking to understand what areas are in the grey.

I think it's fair to say that not all fossils are created equal. I think you'd be hard pressed to take a fossilized leaf and trade it for the fossilized skeleton of a T-Rex. Some things more valued due to their rarity and demand. The infractions for taking something are also scaled (though likely not proportionally - again, writing good laws is hard). The think a fair consideration would be rate of replacement.

For fossils, it's really slow, so you can't take many without seriously depleting the resource.
For rocks, it's also very slow, but with a considerably large pool of resources. Some rocks are more important for erosion control than others.
For trees, it's a fairly fast regeneration and when don't strategically it can be sustainable.
For animals, some replace more quickly than others. Killing a mouse at a shelter is more sustainable than killing a bear due to their replacement rates.
For water, it replaces very quickly. I would guess that most people probably don't think of this as taking something, but it is. Of course, most of us return it within a few hours one way or another anyway.

So, there is a lot of gray, but that doesn't mean we can't discriminate between the shades. In psychology they call it the just-noticeable difference (JND). Here, the colors are metaphorical, but the analogy is good enough (I hope). So, while taking fossils is likely unsustainable, taking a drink is (and the difference between them is pretty easy to see). Taking a fossil vs. taking a rock? The difference is less obvious I think. The slippery slope fallacy often involves invoking the small differences between each step on the scale (e.g. fossils to rocks) to argue that there isn't a big difference between items further apart on the scale (e.g. fossils to water).

It's probably also worth stating that I'm don't disagree with most people here - I'm attempting to parse out broad, high-level assumptions (as are others, which is much appreciated).

 

[egilbe]

There is Glass Beach on the California coast. Was an old dump site. All the old glass bottles in the dump broke apart and created these pretty multi-colored glass pebbles. Tourists would take them home. So many tourists took them home, that the beach was in danger of being cleaned up. California now has laws in place to protect the dump site from being cleaned up. Comedy of the absurd.

 

[Hillwalker]

Just adding to the discussion mix, how about the Deer Hill Amethyst digging site or the Lord Hill mineral collecting site? Both of which are in the WMNF, ans allow legal collecting. I have been to both sites within the last two weeks. There are more listed here: https://www.fs.usda.gov/activity/whitemountain/recreation/rocks-minerals

Dogs are allowed.

http://www.nhmagazine.com/July-2016/Rockhounding-in-the-Granite-State/

 

[skiguy]

Just adding to the discussion mix, how about the Deer Hill Amethyst digging site or the Lord Hill mineral collecting site? Both of which are in the WMNF, ans allow legal collecting. I have been to both sites within the last two weeks. There are more listed here: https://www.fs.usda.gov/activity/whitemountain/recreation/rocks-minerals

Dogs are allowed.

http://www.nhmagazine.com/July-2016/Rockhounding-in-the-Granite-State/

As a rather mainstream I always follow the rules kind of guy I find this a prime example of an infrastructure that works because of rules. No independent kind of thought needed here.

 

[Becca M]

I think the litmus test of "not being a jerk" is a pretty good one - that would solve 99% of these issues..... and, I have to say, bringing a dog where a dog isn't allowed, by the property owner, is, in my opinion, being a jerk... YMMV

Like, do you walk past garbage and not pick it up? A mylar balloon when on a bushwhack? (I exclude TP)

 

[egilbe]

I carry a trash bag with me on hikes to pick up trash I find along trails. It seems that trash, or litter, attracts more trash.

 

[Raven]

In CCD, they justify taking the fossils because they are only 14 years old.

I think it's funny when we talk about removing rocks as harm. Yes it harms another's experience but the funny part is that in a 100,000 years, when us, our ancestors, and even our precious sea glass and 50 year old historical litter are long gone, that rock will be sitting back on the ground laughing at all of us waiting for some other life form to move it.

Short timer.

 

[TJsName]

In CCD, they justify taking the fossils because they are only 14 years old.

I think it's funny when we talk about removing rocks as harm. Yes it harms another's experience but the funny part is that in a 100,000 years, when us, our ancestors, and even our precious sea glass and 50 year old historical litter are long gone, that rock will be sitting back on the ground laughing at all of us waiting for some other life form to move it.

Short timer.

Haha - well played.

I like your optimism about having ancestors in 100,000 years.

 

[sierra]

In CCD, they justify taking the fossils because they are only 14 years old.

I think it's funny when we talk about removing rocks as harm. Yes it harms another's experience but the funny part is that in a 100,000 years, when us, our ancestors, and even our precious sea glass and 50 year old historical litter are long gone, that rock will be sitting back on the ground laughing at all of us waiting for some other life form to move it.

Short timer.

Very profound indeed. I always wanted to be an Eagle, now I want to be a rock.

 

[JoshandBaron]

Food for thought: https://www.outsideonline.com/2236871/stop-faking-service-dogs