Chat
I may have a rosy view of the world, but I don't think very many people are selfish jerks. I imagine probably every instance in which someone lost track of their packgoat was an honest, ignorant mistake, and this is where education is far more valuable than bans in my opinion. Selfish people will not be stopped by bans. They'll disregard posted signs, and the only recourse for the government at that point is to impose fines. But by then any potential damage is already done. Honest but ignorant people, on the other hand, are folks who appreciate our wilderness and our wildlife and wish to do no harm. They are willing to learn and are happy to obey guidelines to their activities so long as they understand that there are good reasons behind them. Banning people who have good intentions is the best way (in my opinion) to turn them into people who don't care any more. And when people don't care any more, that's when we lose our wilderness completely.
We need to think about this carefully. The goatpacking community may be small, but it's still a group of people who are dedicated to protecting nature. Every time another "nature lover" gets cut out, that's one more blow to the ultimate protection of the wilderness. More and more people are moving to cities, and more and more children are growing up in places where the only mountain they've seen is on bottled water, the only bear they've met was on television, and the only eagle they ever saw was on a postage stamp. Can we expect any of these folks to appreciate nature or to care about protecting it? There's been a very bad "environmental" trend to make people KEEP OUT of all wilderness areas (apparently this is the only "proper" way to protect nature), but I fear that if that trend continues down the generations, people will stop valuing our wild places entirely. That's when these places get sold to developers, strip-mined, drilled, and deforested. Sure, there are Federal regulations in place now. But what happens down the road when new people get elected and constituents are pushing for the development of wilderness to deal with a budgetary crisis? This is what happens when people no longer care about something--they sell it off to the highest bidder. The more the government restricts access to our wild places, the less chance that those places will survive the politics of future generations.
I think the Forest Service needs to be as inclusive as possible to all types of wilderness travel, but ramp up education efforts. I know it's more work than banning people and costs more money in the short-term, but in the end I think this is the only sustainable approach to managing our valuable public lands. In the end, carelessness is only a minor threat compared to indifference.
We need to think about this carefully. The goatpacking community may be small, but it's still a group of people who are dedicated to protecting nature. Every time another "nature lover" gets cut out, that's one more blow to the ultimate protection of the wilderness. More and more people are moving to cities, and more and more children are growing up in places where the only mountain they've seen is on bottled water, the only bear they've met was on television, and the only eagle they ever saw was on a postage stamp. Can we expect any of these folks to appreciate nature or to care about protecting it? There's been a very bad "environmental" trend to make people KEEP OUT of all wilderness areas (apparently this is the only "proper" way to protect nature), but I fear that if that trend continues down the generations, people will stop valuing our wild places entirely. That's when these places get sold to developers, strip-mined, drilled, and deforested. Sure, there are Federal regulations in place now. But what happens down the road when new people get elected and constituents are pushing for the development of wilderness to deal with a budgetary crisis? This is what happens when people no longer care about something--they sell it off to the highest bidder. The more the government restricts access to our wild places, the less chance that those places will survive the politics of future generations.
I think the Forest Service needs to be as inclusive as possible to all types of wilderness travel, but ramp up education efforts. I know it's more work than banning people and costs more money in the short-term, but in the end I think this is the only sustainable approach to managing our valuable public lands. In the end, carelessness is only a minor threat compared to indifference.