Why is it important to "Leave No Trace" ?

[Jasonst]

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.

No, I read the whole post but it seemed that most of your point was based on your initial premise. Do I think that the Pemi could handle 16000 people per week? What do you mean by handle?

 

[VFTTop'r]

Are we talking 16000 per day or week?

 

[dave.m]

No, I read the whole post but it seemed that most of your point was based on your initial premise. Do I think that the Pemi could handle 16000 people per week? What do you mean by handle?

My point about impact on the Pemi assuming its current state as a starting point was in no way based on the first (alternative) premise. Traiils and campsites will localize impact almost exclusively (until there is overflow which will not be handled by LNT dispersal methods).

BTW, the rate of a million person days over a 60 day summer is more than 16,000 person days PER DAY, not per week.

By "handle" I mean to be used at that rate with no further damage (erosion, vegetation loss, water sedimentation, refuse composting) and without the need for additional "improvements" to harden the area (paved trails, additional toilettes, additional campsites).

Do you really think the Pemi is so robust that it could handle 1 million LNT hikers and campers in a summer?

 

[VFTTop'r]

I have been receiving reputation comments such as "troll", "insincere" "smug" etc.
I am asking questions and making comments that I have for this issue without name-calling and personal attacks. They are meant to provoke thinking from the foundational level through to the logical conclusion. And they are valid questions in my opinion.

If they challenge your thinking or point of view don't shoot flames, engage in name-calling or personal attacks, just offer your opinion to the discussion.

 

[dave.m]

I have been receiving reputation comments such as "troll", "insincere" "smug" etc.
I am asking questions and making comments that I have for this issue without name-calling and personal attacks. They are meant to provoke thinking from the foundational level through to the logical conclusion. And they are valid questions in my opinion.

If they challenge your thinking or point of view don't shoot flames, engage in name-calling or personal attacks, just offer your opinion to the discussion.

VFTT'r,

My personal advice is to ignore the reputation comments. I've had exactly the same thing happen to me for comments I made in the Feedback and Comments forum. Nearly all of the negative reputation marks I got were anonymous to me and left unsigned. IMNSHO, this reputation mechanism is just an outlet for those folks who are too timid to confront you out in the open where their name (or handle) can be attached to their comments.

I, for one, appreciate your last question regarding how to settle issues in the face of relativism and I think it is critically linked to the issue of Wilderness Area management as it relates to LNT. I will post more when I have more time.

Closing comment.... While I think it is appropriate to ask and respond to reputation point nonsense you are getting about this thread here within this thread, my understanding of the forum charters is that a dedicated discussion of their virtues should be channled to the Feedback forum.

 

[VFTTop'r]

Dave,
Thanks for the good words.

Anyone posting flames,
Please note. Even if Dave and I don't agree on certain points, and they are his points, yet he doesn’t see my comments and questions as "trolling" and the like. So neither shoud you.

If you have a problem with my questions, answers, or comments, PM me.
Thanks

 

[Jasonst]

My point about impact on the Pemi assuming its current state as a starting point was in no way based on the first (alternative) premise. Traiils and campsites will localize impact almost exclusively (until there is overflow which will not be handled by LNT dispersal methods).

BTW, the rate of a million person days over a 60 day summer is more than 16,000 person days PER DAY, not per week.

By "handle" I mean to be used at that rate with no further damage (erosion, vegetation loss, water sedimentation, refuse composting) and without the need for additional "improvements" to harden the area (paved trails, additional toilettes, additional campsites).

Do you really think the Pemi is so robust that it could handle 1 million LNT hikers and campers in a summer?

Probably not, but I don't think we are anywhere close to approaching that amount. Anyway, nice discussing it with you.

 

[dave.m]

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"?

In between things so I'll try to be brief yet accurate....

1) I try to distinguish between the concepts of tollerance and relativism. Tollerance says that I acknowledge the rights of others to make their own choices. One can be tollerant even while still holding that your own personal beliefs are the only true way. For example, I think this is the orthodox belief in most judeo/christian traditions. It is generally asserted that the individual has the right to accept or reject God while at the same time asserting that belief in God is the only correct way. Another way of putting this is (and getting closer to the point of how to decide land management goals for public lands) tollerance says all beliefs are equal in terms of public rights (in so far as those beliefs don't interfere with other public rights) while tollerance does not say that all beliefs are equal in an absolute sense.

Relativism is different, at least as I understand it. It says that all belief systems are equally valid in an ultimate sense.

2) Arguably, I've made a distinction with no real difference, at least in terms of public policy. Whether you get there by way of tollerance (while holding onto your own beliefs) or by relativism, we all end up with a representative republic (if not a pure democracy). So in short, the majority decides. Or more precisely, the majority of the represenatives of the people decide. [I'm ignoring the sticky bit about $$s in politics] So, to answer your question directly, we decide these issues by writing our representatives.

In the case of Wilderness Areas, these are federal lands and there are all sorts of mechanisms to engage the USFS directly and indirectly. Its an ugly system but paraphrasing Dirty Harry in Magnum Force, its the best one we have.

3) Regarding your question about the culture buying into relativism... I'm more pessimistic than you are. I get the feeling that most folks don't think through deeply enough to say, "I'm a fully deconstrcuted post-modern relativist" or "I'm a staunch Scientific Materialist". Instead, most folks I talk with seem to think the big moral issues are easily understood as common sense.

Interesting questions and discussion. I'll buy you a beer when your icon goes red if you buy me one when mine does!

 

[VFTTop'r]

In between things so I'll try to be brief yet accurate....

1) I try to distinguish between the concepts of tollerance and relativism. Tollerance says that I acknowledge the rights of others to make their own choices. One can be tollerant even while still holding that your own personal beliefs are the only true way. For example, I think this is the orthodox belief in most judeo/christian traditions. It is generally asserted that the individual has the right to accept or reject God while at the same time asserting that belief in God is the only correct way. Another way of putting this is (and getting closer to the point of how to decide land management goals for public lands) tollerance says all beliefs are equal in terms of public rights (in so far as those beliefs don't interfere with other public rights) while tollerance does not say that all beliefs are equal in an absolute sense.

Relativism is different, at least as I understand it. It says that all belief systems are equally valid in an ultimate sense.

2) Arguably, I've made a distinction with no real difference, at least in terms of public policy. Whether you get there by way of tollerance (while holding onto your own beliefs) or by relativism, we all end up with a representative republic (if not a pure democracy). So in short, the majority decides. Or more precisely, the majority of the represenatives of the people decide. [I'm ignoring the sticky bit about $$s in politics] So, to answer your question directly, we decide these issues by writing our representatives.

In the case of Wilderness Areas, these are federal lands and there are all sorts of mechanisms to engage the USFS directly and indirectly. Its an ugly system but paraphrasing Dirty Harry in Magnum Force, its the best one we have.

3) Regarding your question about the culture buying into relativism... I'm more pessimistic than you are. I get the feeling that most folks don't think through deeply enough to say, "I'm a fully deconstrcuted post-modern relativist" or "I'm a staunch Scientific Materialist". Instead, most folks I talk with seem to think the big moral issues are easily understood as common sense.

Interesting questions and discussion. I'll buy you a beer when your icon goes red if you buy me one when mine does!

Dave,
Good comments. I'm still chewing. Would you say that common sense is formed by culture? The buying part sounds fair. I had better get trolling.

 

[dr_wu002]

Dave,
Good comments. I'm still chewing. Would you say that common sense is formed by culture?

Trying to draw negative responses from people by posting elitist, insulting remarks aimed to general audience on this site? Why?

-Dr. Wu

 

[VFTTop'r]

Trying to draw negative responses from people by posting elitist, insulting remarks aimed to general audience on this site? Why?

-Dr. Wu

Which ones where elitist, insulting remarks?

 

[funkyfreddy]

oh well......

it was a good thread for a while, wasn't it? We actually got folks here to discuss LNT relatively rancor-free for 4-5 days and 3-4 pages. The discussion was constructive and a lot of good ideas and insights were exchanged.......

Please Peakbgr, don't laugh at me! I did try and my intentions were good.... Maybe if we can get back on topic and leave the relativisms, absolutisms, elitisms, post-modernisms, Darwinisms, jisms, schisms, and whateverisms behind we might even get constructive again and promote understanding as opposed to confusion. I'm hoping we can.

 

[dave.m]

Would you say that common sense is formed by culture?

Oh sure. But I wouldn't say that it is the only thing that forms one's sense of common sense. Family of origin (different from the culture?), personality, education.... I'm sure these all have bearings. Common sense is a funny thing. Used to be common sense to own other humans as slaves. Common sense to prohibit women from voting. Roderick Nash argues that attitudes towards the rights of nature (Wilderness in the context of this thread) are undergoing a shift in common sense much like the change in attitudes towards slavery and women's sufferage. Roderick says that in all cases the issue is the extension of "rights" to a previously excluded "other".

Trying to draw negative responses from people by posting elitist, insulting remarks aimed to general audience on this site?

dr_wu,

I'm not taking offense to VFTTer's questions. Maybe I have thick skin? I certainly don't see anything he's saying (or that I'm saying) as being a swipe to the general audience on this site.

I think funkyfreddy's question was excellent but it leads directly to deeper questions of why we try to minimize impact. While the discussion *could* have gotten ugly, I think we've been able to keep it "above the neck" and civil so far.

Maybe if we can get back on topic and leave the relativisms, absolutisms, elitisms, post-modernisms, Darwinisms, jisms, schisms, and whateverisms behind we might even get constructive again and promote understanding as opposed to confusion. I'm hoping we can.

I'm not at all surprised that the thread moved to the level of "isms", especially when you posed the question as "Why is it important". The important word here is "why" and that has led us to sticky-isms.

Here's my pragmatic summary of the issue. Maybe this will help steer things back where you wanted it to go?

+ LNT is an important tool for minimizing impact
+ The land has recuperative abilities that should be recognized
+ The land has limites to its recuperative abilities that should be recognized
+ Localizing impact is another important tool for minimizing impact for an area
+ Amount of traffic can overwhelm an area regardless of impact minimization is employed
+ Decisions about impact should be in line with the management goals of the area (USFS recreational area, Wilderness, State Park)
+ Different people have different, deeply held beliefs on what the management goals for different lands should be (the isms)
+ In the US, we attempt to resolve these differences democratically (and hopefully with civil discussions in the public square like here on VFTT)

Hope this is helpful,

 

[funkyfreddy]

Starting this thread has been an education for me!

On the positive side I would like to thank everyone who contributed to the thread constructively. A lot of good stuff was posted, very thought provoking! There's a lot to digest here and the subject was discussed by a good majority with depth and intelligence........

My own feelings are complicated ones. I believe in the principle of "Leave No trace" although in practice it becomes "Leave Minimal Trace", or LMT, "Carry Out what you Carry In" etc. Otherwise the concept becomes "Go No Place", as Mark Schaefer stated so well. I'm certainly not advocating that as I enjoy hiking and kayaking and otherwise exploring the great outdoors.

I think it does come down to a simple of matter of respect...... respect for the forest, respect for water sources, respect for habitats of different species. With the growing population of the US and northeast pressure on the land is increasing everywhere. Some of the most remote parts of Maine are being eyed for development. What will Maine, the Whites, the Hudson Valley, the ADK's, look like in 50 years? What do we want them to look like?

Questions, questions...... I'm much better at asking them than providing answers. The best one can do is to ask others to think about these things and be mindful of the impact they have on their surroundings. I think it does come down to a simple matter of respect and awareness......

On a less positive note I received a red square and some nasty PM's yesterday....... was called a troll, told the thread was a "load of crap", and informed that people who discuss LNT/LMT are "woods nazis". I guess you can't please everyone all of the time now, can you?

 

[shadowcat]

Lnt

Once you boys finish licking your wounds......
Try to please grasp that LNT is not rocket science - even though you sure tried to turn it into that.
Like I said before it's very simple. Treat your surroundings with respect - and I know that there isn't one person on this site that needs that defined for them - & it certainly doesn’t need to be dissected or overanalyzed to death.
And if you have the opportunity - go ahead and make a difference, however small. Trust me you’ll be a better person for it & definitely earn some points with the Big Guy!

 

[dave.m]

My own feelings are complicated ones. I believe in the principle of "Leave No trace" although in practice it becomes "Leave Minimal Trace", or LMT, "Carry Out what you Carry In" etc. Otherwise the concept becomes "Go No Place", as Mark Schaefer stated so well. I'm certainly not advocating that as I enjoy hiking and kayaking and otherwise exploring the great outdoors.

Somebody once said somethign to the effect that every difficult and comples problem has a simple and elegant solution that is completely wrong. So I think it is ok to have complicated feelings on this one.

There is a great thought experiment (I might be repeating myself, not sure) that suggests envisioning a virgin mountain valley. Then envision it with a human hiking throught it. Question: is the second image more or less "natural" or why?

I think there are 2 complications with LNT. First, it was first evangelized by books like "Soft Paths" by the Sierra Club, which definitely assumed a large, wide open wild place. So the dispersed impact ideas just don't apply well to the realities here in the east. Second, this was happening around the same time that the Ghia hypothesis was getting a lot of play, which says that the earth is an organism and humanity is a cancerous or viral infection o the earth. Hence, leave "no" trace as a goal.

On a less positive note I received a red square and some nasty PM's yesterday....... was called a troll, told the thread was a "load of crap", and informed that people who discuss LNT/LMT are "woods nazis". I guess you can't please everyone all of the time now, can you?

Personally, I would ignore all negative feedback. I've been looking but have been unable to find any permanent record on this site that documents their indented use. Perhaps Darren will at some point create a sticky in the Feedback forum and provide a link to that sticky in the Reputation pop-up window. That might *help* ensure that most people who provide feedback will get *some* guidance on what they are supposed to be providing feedback for. Until then, it just seems to me to be an easy way for people to "ding" each other anonymously. My daughter spent the dinner hour last night giving us the run down of who was popular in her class and who wasn't. Seems to be about the same thing.

As for trolling... the only reason that people post to forums, send PMs or even leave feedback is the same... It is to solicit some response. Miya had it right.

 

[TDawg]

Leave No Trace

I always liked the saying, which relates to this, "Take only pictures, Leave only footprints."

 

[jjmcgo]

Evolution vs. The Big Guy

Well, this conversation has evolved to the point where both evolution and The Big Guy have gotten a mention.
The biggest evolution in the Whites and Adirondacks has been a result of our evolving economy. If C.V. Whitney's geologists had told him there was billions of dollars worth of ore still left in the Daks, do you think he would have given it away?
Similarly, the profit in logging New Hampshire dwindled to the point that places like Berlin and (pre-Loon) Lincoln had dirt-scratching economies after WWII.
It became a lot easier to acquire these lands when they were no longer as profitable as before.
I like the learning threads like LNT, geology, weather, wildlife, botany, etc., in addition to the hiking threads.