Why is it important to "Leave No Trace" ?

[DougPaul]

What this thread shows me is that there doesn't seem to be a strict definition of "leave-no-trace". It seems to be highly dependent upon the environment in which the dumping occurs.

Of course. It is about minimizing one's impact where ever one happens to be. The techniques are location/environment dependent and may not always be obvious at first.

For instance, to minimize the effects of taking a pee:
* In the NE, a distance away from the nearest open water (minimizes the amount that gets in the surface water)
* In Grand Canyon close to the river, in the river or wet sand at the edge (dilution in a 15000 to 50000 cfs river has less effect than on desert soils)
* in the rain forests of the Olympic Peninsula, in the trail (the area is so salt starved that animals will tear up any vegetation with salt on it)

Doug

 

[VFTTop'r]

I speculate that most on VFTT hold to Darwin's theory of Evolution and survival of the fittest. Other than packing out trash, wouldn't LNT be interfering with the process of Evolution?

 

[Rivet]

Nah, I think it violates the Third Law of Thermodynamics.

 

[DougPaul]

I speculate that most on VFTT hold to Darwin's theory of Evolution and survival of the fittest. Other than packing out trash, wouldn't LNT be interfering with the process of Evolution?

No. Evolution will continue no matter what we do. In effect, it is just each species doing the best that it can in the environment available to it. (A rather simplified overview.) And, of course, each of the species affects the environment available to itself and other species. (Everything is connected to everything...)

So we could clear-cut the Whites, mow any new growth, build cities, and dump our trash there. Evolution will continue. Some species will diminish and perhaps die out, some will increase, some will adapt, some foreign ones will move in (exotics), and perhaps a few new species will be created.

At one level it is a question of esthetics--do we want to live in an eco-trash-dump? Do we want to have access to some places that are minimally impacted by man?

At another level it can be viewed as pure self-interest. Nature provides us with air to breath, water to drink, and directly or indirectly, food to eat. It also provides us with many raw materials, medicines, etc. There have been local human population collapses when humans have demanded more from their local enviroment than it can provide, the environment has changed in a way that reduces that available resources, and/or have degraded their local enviroment to the point that it cannot provide adequately.

Humans, as a species, are stressing many of the ecosystems of the planet. LNT is an attempt to minimize our impact on the remaining relatively wild places.

Doug

 

[VFTTop'r]

"No. Evolution will continue no matter what we do. In effect, it is just each species doing the best that it can in the environment available to it. (A rather simplified overview.) And, of course, each of the species affects the environment available to itself and other species. (Everything is connected to everything...)"

If "Evolution will continue no matter what we do" and "each species doing the best that it can in the environment available to it." and "each of the species affects the environment available to itself" then species controls environment and envrionment controls Evolution.

So species controls Evolution.

 

[dave.m]

Regarding the issue of buried tin cans Jastonst asked:

Hmm, and is the wilderness any worse off because of it? I am sure someone would argue something ridiculous about soil alkalinity but seriously...

I won't argue about alkalinity, but I will argue that is sucks to find trash in the woods. IME, "buried" trash often doesn't stay buried.

I am sure we will hear from AFKA_bob at some point here...

And I would be eager to hear what he has to say about it too.

 

[dave.m]

The wilderness quite often heals itself (as stated by Mavs) What could have left more impact in the Pemi than the fires, logging and railroading of last century? Over time, the wilderness wil regrow and recover. Take a closed trail, for instance - how long does it take before that trail is no longer distinguishable? 5, 10, 15 years? The wilderness is quite hardy and not as fragile as many would indicate.

You must define "distinguishable" and "wilderness".

Some points to consider....
1) I think everybody has seen the before/after pictures relative to introduction of scree borders on Lafayette. Impact is impact and sometimes it is quite visible.

2) My understanding is the soil compactification on trails (and campsites) remains long, long after the trail has grown back over.

3) One must not confuse wilderness (small 'w') with Wilderness (large 'W'). Wildernss (large 'W') has a whole different set of land management goals goals to consider by law that may or may not line up with any single person's understaning of distinguishable. For example, the rail beds and fire caused slides in the Pemi are clearly marks left by human use/abuse of that area that are, imo, incompatible with the Wilderness goals. As is the lack of old growth forest there. I think it will take a long long time for the Pemi to get back to something that is indistinguishable from virgin old growth.

 

[Jasonst]

Ahh... Ok, the majority of people who hike in the Pemi would probably agree that the "Wwilderness" or "forest" has returned. I am well aware that a biologist / ecologist would differ.

 

[VFTTop'r]

You must define "distinguishable" and "wilderness".

Some points to consider....
1) I think everybody has seen the before/after pictures relative to introduction of scree borders on Lafayette. Impact is impact and sometimes it is quite visible.

2) My understanding is the soil compactification on trails (and campsites) remains long, long after the trail has grown back over.

3) One must not confuse wilderness (small 'w') with Wilderness (large 'W'). Wildernss (large 'W') has a whole different set of land management goals goals to consider by law that may or may not line up with any single person's understaning of distinguishable. For example, the rail beds and fire caused slides in the Pemi are clearly marks left by human use/abuse of that area that are, imo, incompatible with the Wilderness goals. As is the lack of old growth forest there. I think it will take a long long time for the Pemi to get back to something that is indistinguishable from virgin old growth.

1. If you hike then YOU are part of the "Impact is impact" problem that you
complain about. So don't hike.

2. "My understanding is the soil compactification on trails (and campsites)
remains long, long after the trail has grown back over." If you hike and
camp YOU may be contributing to a future problem of which you speak. Maybe
you shouldn't hike or camp.

3. "I think it will take a long long time for the Pemi to get back to
something that is indistinguishable from virgin old growth." Is that the
goal? Then lock up the WMNF for a hundred years.

Problem solved.

 

[Jasonst]

Ok, I want to post the question again, give it it's own thread since the subject seems to come up often. I want to hear what others think before I post my own opinions on the matter. Yes, I really want to know what you think, so please feel free to post your opinions. Who knows, with new insight into the subject I might even change mine!

!!!One thing I will request is to keep the conversation civil!!! We can do that, can't we? I would love to see a good discussion and lively debate happen here, w/o fear for our reputations!

So where's Funkyfreddy? He dropped this bomb - does he have an opinion?

 

[sun=electric]

leave a trace

In other areas of protecting the wild we can leave our mark if not a trace! I bought 100 acres of adirondack inside the blue line and will keep it from development. I removed all the old tumbled down structures, removed the old tires and other garbage. I built a nice outhouse (latrine) which will add some nitrogen to a small spot! Our family (me wife and two kids) camps there. All the neighbors have permission to walk and hunt my land (like they have done for 4 generations). I got it for $530/acre. If I spread that out over my remaining lifetime it is $3.65 a day. I will just have to make my own coffee in the kitchen and take a thermos before I go to my construction job to save the money, instead of stopping at Stewert's!

 

[dave.m]

1. If you hike then YOU are part of the "Impact is impact" problem that you complain about. So don't hike.

Exactly. This is why I support the implementation of hiking permits and lotteries. I am happy to restrict my hiking so long as I have as much of a shot of hiking in that fragile place as the next guy or gal. Whitney (California), Yosemite (California), Baxter (Maine) and Great Gulf (New Hampshire) are places that have or have had lottery systems to control the number of hikers or campers (or both).

IMO, discussions about "leave no trace" are sort of like arguing about gas milage for internal combustion vehicals. Better milage is better but you're still burning oil. "Leave no trace" may minmize impact but will not eliminate it. A million people in the Pemi over the course of a summer would crush it due to sheer numbers, regardless of whether or not "leave no trace" was strictly adhered to or not.

3. "I think it will take a long long time for the Pemi to get back to
something that is indistinguishable from virgin old growth." Is that the
goal?

Yes.

The "goals" of USFS lands designated as Wilderness are best articulated in the statement of the Wilderness Act (below). Among other things, a Wilderness is defined to be an area "retaining its primeval character and influence".

I think, however, there is a flaw in the Act as stated. The act specifically prohibits permanant structures but also makes Wilderness Areas available for human travel. I think the assumption underlaying this is that "leave no trace" usage can be done at a level that allows the land to heal and hide the impact of that use. I've seen enough to think this is overly optimistic. Better IMO to accept some permanance of human use (e.g. trails, designated campsites) and localize the impact.

Then lock up the WMNF for a hundred years. Problem solved.

Well, this has certainly happened. I know that the USFS entirely shut down a Wilderness Area in CO about 10 years ago to let it recover. The problem had been over use.

Here's the quote from the Wilderness Act

-Dave

DEFINITION OF WILDERNESS

(c) A wilderness, in contrast with those areas where man and his own works dominate the landscape, is hereby recognized as an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain. An area of wilderness is further defined to mean in this Act an area of undeveloped Federal land retaining its primeval character and influence, without permanent improvements or human habitation, which is protected and managed so as to preserve its natural conditions and which (1) generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint of man's work substantially unnoticeable; (2) has outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation; (3) has at least five thousand acres of land or is of sufficient size as to make practicable its preservation and use in an unimpaired condition; and (4) may also contain ecological, geological, or other features of scientific, educational, scenic, or historical value.

 

[Jasonst]

A million people in the Pemi over the course of a summer would crush it due to sheer numbers, regardless of whether or not "leave no trace" was strictly adhered to or not.

Could you explain this? In what way would it be crushed?

 

[dave.m]

Could you explain this? In what way would it be crushed?

Sure.

A million people (or better, user days) spread out over a 60 day summer hiking season is north of 16,000 users per day.

Let's assume that the Pemi was in pristine, virgin condition with no maintained trails or campsites. Let's also assume that this 16,000 daily hikers and campers use "leave no trace" ethics. What happens next will fall in between 2 extremes.

On one exttreme, the hikers and campers will all follow the model of dispersed use and will all hike along different routes and camp in sites that appear to be unused. On the other extreme, the hikers and campers will concentrate their use because of terrain dictates. The reality would be somewhere between these. There would be some dispersal and some localization of impact. The areas where dispersed use takes place would suffer from long term over use by things such as soil compactifiation and defoliation. That is, at some point, the concept of dispersal as a means to ensure that land has adequate time to recover is steam rolled by volume of visitors. [note: this can be clearly seen out west in the Sierra where the gospel of dispersal is still preached but the signs of impact are clearly visible even off trail]

Of course, you could run the thought experiement differently. Assume the Pemi has maintained trails and campsites and then pump 16,000 hikers and campers a day through the system. In this model, impact is entirely localized to maintained trails and campsites. I could be wrong on this, but I seriously doubt the trails and campsites could handle this volume in their current state.

 

[VFTTop'r]

Exactly. This is why I support the implementation of hiking permits and lotteries. I am happy to restrict my hiking so long as I have as much of a shot of hiking in that fragile place as the next guy or gal. Whitney (California), Yosemite (California), Baxter (Maine) and Great Gulf (New Hampshire) are places that have or have had lottery systems to control the number of hikers or campers (or both).

IMO, discussions about "leave no trace" are sort of like arguing about gas milage for internal combustion vehicals. Better milage is better but you're still burning oil. "Leave no trace" may minmize impact but will not eliminate it. A million people in the Pemi over the course of a summer would crush it due to sheer numbers, regardless of whether or not "leave no trace" was strictly adhered to or not.



Yes.

The "goals" of USFS lands designated as Wilderness are best articulated in the statement of the Wilderness Act (below). Among other things, a Wilderness is defined to be an area "retaining its primeval character and influence".

I think, however, there is a flaw in the Act as stated. The act specifically prohibits permanant structures but also makes Wilderness Areas available for human travel. I think the assumption underlaying this is that "leave no trace" usage can be done at a level that allows the land to heal and hide the impact of that use. I've seen enough to think this is overly optimistic. Better IMO to accept some permanance of human use (e.g. trails, designated campsites) and localize the impact.



Well, this has certainly happened. I know that the USFS entirely shut down a Wilderness Area in CO about 10 years ago to let it recover. The problem had been over use.

Here's the quote from the Wilderness Act

-Dave

DEFINITION OF WILDERNESS

(c) A wilderness, in contrast with those areas where man and his own works dominate the landscape, is hereby recognized as an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain. An area of wilderness is further defined to mean in this Act an area of undeveloped Federal land retaining its primeval character and influence, without permanent improvements or human habitation, which is protected and managed so as to preserve its natural conditions and which (1) generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint of man's work substantially unnoticeable; (2) has outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation; (3) has at least five thousand acres of land or is of sufficient size as to make practicable its preservation and use in an unimpaired condition; and (4) may also contain ecological, geological, or other features of scientific, educational, scenic, or historical value.

In our culture which has adopted and embraced Evolution (survival of the fittest, etc) and Relativism (no absolute truth) as worldviews (weltanschauung), let's face it ANY LNT discussion is irrelevent and purely based on preference and emotion.

Maybe states should first try limiting their forest esage use to residents only and see if that would cut down on the (1 million in NH) using or "abusing" the land.

We should do it for the children.

 

[dave.m]

In our culture which has adopted and embraced Evolution (survival of the fittest, etc) and Relativism (no absolute truth) as worldviews (weltanschauung), let's face it ANY LNT discussion is irrelevent and purely based on preference and emotion.

I'm not following this. Are you suggesting that my post is based on preference and emotion in a manner that makes my stated opinion less valid than others or are you suggesting that everybody's opinions on LNT are equally valid (or invalid) since they are based on preference and emotion?

Maybe states should first try limiting their forest esage use to residents only and see if that would cut down on the (1 million in NH) using or "abusing" the land.

The State of Maine is certainly well known for its imposition of strict guidelines and usage quotas in their Baxter State Park. And, in fact, they do give preferential consideration to Maine residents. Regarding the processing of mailed in reservations, they state:

"Mail will be randomly processed (not in the order it was received) except that all Maine resident reservation requests made by mail will be processed before non-resident requests on a daily basis."

See: http://www.baxterstateparkauthority.com/camping/summercamping.html

We should do it for the children.

Indeed. For the children and for Bambi. Ok, we can do for it Thumper too cause Thumper is real cute and the kids just love that.

 

[shadowcat]

LNT the short version

gosh sometimes you guys just go way off on these things. does everybody here work for the government.
LNT means one thing real simple: don't leave your **** all over the place (**** meaning more then just **** so we don't have to interpret that too)

 

[Jasonst]

Sure.

A million people (or better, user days) spread out over a 60 day summer hiking season is north of 16,000 users per day.

Let's assume that the Pemi was in pristine, virgin condition with no maintained trails or campsites.

Ah Ha - That's where you lost me. I was assuming you were referring to the "actual" Pemigewasset wilderness, complete with trails and campsites.

 

[dave.m]

Ah Ha - That's where you lost me. I was assuming you were referring to the "actual" Pemigewasset wilderness, complete with trails and campsites.

You should have kept reading because I specifically addressed this at the end of my post.

Would be interested to know if you think the current trail and campsite structure in the Pemi could absorb 16,000 people a day.

 

[VFTTop'r]

Dave,
In answer to your reply how can anyone's opinion matter in a culture that believes and attempts to live like "it's all relative"?