Loving it to death

[Irrelevant]

I'm sure there is already a thread on this but I'm starting another anyway. Who pays and how do they pay for the exploitation of our public land recreation resource? When is enough enough? Is "wild" dead?

The ‘wreckreation’ in our wild places - High Country News

Too many people and too much poop.

www.hcn.org

 

[88man]

If the bears would only get a taste of those Patagonia puffys

 

[TOGIE]

such a tough discussion to have

i think the needle is moving, but i'm not sure.

i try to have discussions about this on a colorado specific hiking/climbing forum, and there are a few people that have interest in honest discussion about the problems as it pertains to wildlife, and many as it pertains to crowds with hiking and backpacking. generally it seems they don't actually give a shit about they impact wildlife, like the article says, unless it's hunters or extraction in the crosshairs. this is where we need to very carefully and with great consistency try to move the needle.

on those threads i usually get flamed out of the room when i try to bring up two things: 1) how do we get more people to pay for conservation and; 2) how do we mitigate wildlife degradation from the non consumptive recreation crowd....

it saddens me, but mostly pisses me off to no end

as mr @Ben Lamb has already tried to remind me, the anger solves no issues.

same discussions went to hell over cpw further restricting non hunter use of state wildlife areas, you could hear the mt bikers moaning from california to maine, my initial reaction was a desire to give em the middle finger and tell em to pay up, those lands weren't purchased for you. instead i tried to carefully explain the state constitution, the state land boards constitutional directives, cpw funding mechanisms, and wildlife conservation and the north american model, some people start to understand, most just continue to piss and moan, and i do flash the middle finger from time to time... but i'm getting better, i promise mr lamb

 

[MTelkHuntress]

Is "wild" dead?

I dont think "wild" is dead yet, but it is sure shrinking at an alarming rate.
I think what bothers me the most is the exploitation for money. What good that will do when we destroy ecosystems and prestigious places.
There is only so much land and people can only spread out so much. There definitely has to be some limitations in some of these spaces. I do wonder how that effects hunters. It was refreshing to be the only person in an area for once this weekend, the elk hunting wasnt that great but the solitude was amazing.

 

[TOGIE]

I dont think "wild" is dead yet, but it is sure shrinking at an alarming rate.
I think what bothers me the most is the exploitation for money. What good that will do when we destroy ecosystems and prestigious places.
There is only so much land and people can only spread out so much. There definitely has to be some limitations in some of these spaces. I do wonder how that effects hunters. It was refreshing to be the only person in an area for once this weekend, the elk hunting wasnt that great but the solitude was amazing.

one thing i think about as it relates to the bolded item, that i never really thought of until i heard rinella talking about it once, is why is it only the tall, rocky, pretty places that get the glory of wilderness area designations? the answer is obvious, and it's highlighted in bold in your post. those places have either no resources that anyone cares about, or no resources that worth trying to get to.

why does it have to only be hunters and energy companies that love the expanses of prairie and rolling hills? how do we get the hikers and mt bikers to care about those places too? maybe if we did we could get the political clout to better protect them.

but at the same time i relish the lack of hikers and bikers in those areas.... damn

 

[Oak]

as mr @Ben Lamb has already tried to remind me, the anger solves no issues.

Meh. My attitude is:

 

[rustednuts]

such a tough discussion to have

i think the needle is moving, but i'm not sure.

i try to have discussions about this on a colorado specific hiking/climbing forum, and there are a few people that have interest in honest discussion about the problems as it pertains to wildlife, and many as it pertains to crowds with hiking and backpacking. generally it seems they don't actually give a shit about they impact wildlife, like the article says, unless it's hunters or extraction in the crosshairs. this is where we need to very carefully and with great consistency try to move the needle.

on those threads i usually get flamed out of the room when i try to bring up two things: 1) how do we get more people to pay for conservation and; 2) how do we mitigate wildlife degradation from the non consumptive recreation crowd....

it saddens me, but mostly pisses me off to no end

as mr @Ben Lamb has already tried to remind me, the anger solves no issues.

same discussions went to hell over cpw further restricting non hunter use of state wildlife areas, you could hear the mt bikers moaning from california to maine, my initial reaction was a desire to give em the middle finger and tell em to pay up, those lands weren't purchased for you. instead i tried to carefully explain the state constitution, the state land boards constitutional directives, cpw funding mechanisms, and wildlife conservation and the north american model, some people start to understand, most just continue to piss and moan, and i do flash the middle finger from time to time... but i'm getting better, i promise mr lamb

I think a narrative that needs to change is the idea of non consumptive recreation. All recreation has some level of consumption of resources, whether trailhead parking, trail wear, wood for campfires. Humans like all organisms are consumptive and to keep from degragdation that consumption needs to be offset. Whether that is through money, volunteer hours, donations.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

If the bears would only get a taste of those Patagonia puffys

I keep saying CO needs some g-bears.... but noooo they're tooo scary.

Yes, exactly. That's exactly the point.

 

[Dougfirtree]

Which is ultimately scarier? Too many people using not enough public lands, or the same number of people and very few of them enjoying public lands? Need more wild places and fewer people consuming fewer resources. Hard to escape that reality...

 

[MTelkHuntress]

I keep saying CO needs some g-bears.... but noooo they're tooo scary.

It's all in the marketing. Not scary, but cuddly animals that just want a hug.


I guess there is a balance between consuming the outdoors and giving back. People have to be educated in some way about their impacts and I'm not really sure how accessible such information is. I look at my friends that enjoy hiking and they dont really know much about conservation or the landscape they enjoy. Perhaps more outdoor related organizations and companies need to step up and create a more positive impact.

 

[Jape]

It's all in the marketing. Not scary, but cuddly animals that just want a hug.
View attachment 153357

I guess there is a balance between consuming the outdoors and giving back. People have to be educated in some way about their impacts and I'm not really sure how accessible such information is. I look at my friends that enjoy hiking and they dont really know much about conservation or the landscape they enjoy. Perhaps more outdoor related organizations and companies need to step up and create a more positive impact.

Exactly. Instead of just selling product start giving back to conservation in a way similar to the Pittman-Robertson Act.

I actually hate this topic because I love it when new users discover the beauty of our natural resources, and in the same breath I dislike seeing them where I recreate.

 

[thomas89]

Went on a couple night hike earlier this summer mid-week, and while I didn’t notice any trail litter, the parking areas were overflowing with vehicles.

I recently joined a PNW Hiking FB page (to perhaps aid in finding a grumpy bear along these trails), and multiple people responded with absolute vitriol when someone kindly reminded them about upcoming hunting seasons. Would really like to sit with someone who doesn’t hunt but enjoys the outdoors and see just how far apart our views are.

 

[GrantK]

I'm torn between hoping this is just a fad and people will go back indoors when they get bored and that the new surge of people will actually start to care and maybe the wilderness will get the protection and care it needs...
as it is I really dislike where we are right now, as per the post above many or most of the new people recreating outdoors don't understand hunting at all, and it seems that their response to the outdoors, in general, is very fear-based, if they are scared of it, and they are scared of almost everything, they want it removed and sanitized...where I have some hope is that virtually all the experienced outdoors people I know are pro-hunting, they may not hunt themselves but they are aware of the role it plays in the ecosystem and the dollars it brings to conservation, hopefully as the masses of new outdoor enthusiast grow in their understanding of the nuts and bolts of the outdoors they will realize how much hunters and anglers do for the resource and become more onboard with preserving wild places.

 

[406LIFE]

In MT this isn't a fad.
Use of recreation sites continues to increase every year: Fishing access sites, states parks, trailheads, vault toliets.

Raising license prices is anathema in MT (although I'd be very ok with it.)

The question FWP is asking is how to get people who use and don't pay, to contribute. Most don't even realize how these sites are funded and what their personal impact is. It can be argued the term "non-consumptive user" isn't true and a new one could be helpful in the conversation. The Backpack Tax would be helpful to this conversation, but it gets rejected by manufacturers. I find it duplicitous that Patagonia feels they have the onus to enter the grizzly debate, but yet don't actually provide anything for the management of it.

 

[JLS]

in general, is very fear-based, if they are scared of it, and they are scared of almost everything, they want it removed and sanitized...

Sounds like grizz and woofs..

 

[88man]

I keep saying CO needs some g-bears.... but noooo they're tooo scary.

Yes, exactly. That's exactly the point.

Maybe all we need In colorado is some of those Wyoming beware of the bear signs.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Maybe all we need In colorado is some of those Wyoming beware of the bear signs.

Never thought of that... great idea.

 

[Europe]

.I guess there is a balance between consuming the outdoors and giving back. People have to be educated in some way about their impacts and I'm not really sure how accessible such information is. I look at my friends that enjoy hiking and they dont really know much about conservation or the landscape they enjoy. Perhaps more outdoor related organizations and companies need to step up and create a more positive impact.

I agree !

Education AND prosecution. and both are important.

I believe some simply dont understand and others just dont care, but either way people need to be educated and also prosecuted IMHO. Some people will only do the right thing if they think not doing so might cost them. Look at the pictures Alaskahunter posted in his thread just below this one. At the very least, the ones who created that, need to pay for the repair. And hopefully by it hitting them in the pocketbook they wont do it again.

Some will simply look at a range like Brooks or Mackenzie and say how can little old me hurt all of that, but they can, and they need to be educated on how they can, as well as how they can also enjoy the land, while preserving it for future generations.

--good thread with some excellent posts/thoughts/ideas----I hope for the sake of all future generations some of you young men and women find the answer sooner rather than later.

 

[mdhunter61]

I posted about this on the other thread, I believe it will be something that needs to be addressed as time passes...

The Forest Service manages a government contract that aims to expose all of our pubic natural resources (parks, camping areas, trails, cabins, etc. etc.) to a broader portion of the U.S. public. At the core of this contract is a website called Recreation.gov. While in today's tech-savvy world this is considered a great resource that helps people use a website to figure out how to locate and reserve camping spots, cabins, and other public resources - the other part of this is that all of our public wilderness resources are exposed to a much broader audience than they used to be.

Today, someone who jumped on Recreation.gov to reserve a campsite at a campground, might (via push technology or other tech channels) be shown some wilderness hiking or camping area that they would have otherwise never known about. Next thing you know, they tell their friends about it, and organize a group trip to a place none of them had ever heard of, or been to before.

This contract is a shared services model with a very reputable govt contractor - basically, both the govt and the contractor do better, if more people visit the public resources represented on rec.gov. Don't think for a minute that the contractor isn't doing everything they can to maximize use of these public resources, to better fulfill the terms of their contract and realize higher revenue and profit levels. They should - it's a business decision for them.

At some point, hopefully one of the agencies who jointly manages this work with the USFS will bring up the topic of responsible use and overcrowding, in a way that can better manage and preserve our national resources.

 

[Panda Bear]

I posted about this on the other thread, I believe it will be something that needs to be addressed as time passes...

The Forest Service manages a government contract that aims to expose all of our pubic natural resources (parks, camping areas, trails, cabins, etc. etc.) to a broader portion of the U.S. public. At the core of this contract is a website called Recreation.gov. While in today's tech-savvy world this is considered a great resource that helps people use a website to figure out how to locate and reserve camping spots, cabins, and other public resources - the other part of this is that all of our public wilderness resources are exposed to a much broader audience than they used to be.

Today, someone who jumped on Recreation.gov to reserve a campsite at a campground, might (via push technology or other tech channels) be shown some wilderness hiking or camping area that they would have otherwise never known about. Next thing you know, they tell their friends about it, and organize a group trip to a place none of them had ever heard of, or been to before.

This contract is a shared services model with a very reputable govt contractor - basically, both the govt and the contractor do better, if more people visit the public resources represented on rec.gov. Don't think for a minute that the contractor isn't doing everything they can to maximize use of these public resources, to better fulfill the terms of their contract and realize higher revenue and profit levels. They should - it's a business decision for them.

At some point, hopefully one of the agencies who jointly manages this work with the USFS will bring up the topic of responsible use and overcrowding, in a way that can better manage and preserve our national resources.

Same thing up this way. modern technology allows more and more people to access these trails. Hiking, bicycle, ATV, snowmobile. some are very considerate and others not so much and some not at all. I agree with April's post above that we need better enforcement of the rules and some stiff penalties for those caught not obeying the rules.