You make good points. Control is necessary. Privatization is not a better alternative.drm wrote: ↑February 19th, 2022, 10:38 amWe have history going back centuries that shows that the community needs to control the use of the commons to prevent it's degradation, at the cost of some inconvenience for the heaviest users. The alternative is to privatize it. Maybe it is the frequent visitors who are the privileged, regardless of their financial status.
Creating a special class of public lands called "wilderness areas" falls under heading of 'controlling the use of the commons to prevent it's degradation' and I think the frequent visitors of wilderness are very happy with that level of control. The major question that keeps being raised here is whether the level of degradation, both extant and anticipated, is sufficient to merit the level of control being exerted.
After looking at its first year of operation the FS concluded that the permit system needed further optimization. This is good. It shows a willingness of the FS to see the flaws in its approach and make adjustments. I would hope that it continues to do more of this in the future, not simply changes to how the permits are issued, but regarding the necessity of particular trailheads to require permits. In my view, not every trailhead in the three Central Cascades wildernesses needs to be tightly controlled through overnight permits. Putting them all on an equal level of trouble and expense does nothing to encourage backpackers to increase their utilization of low-use trailheads and their adjacent areas.
The central argument here on OH.org seems to be not whether control is needed or should be abandoned, but if the current system of control provides an optimal balance between access and preservation. I think that argument will last a long time, as we all have different ideas about what is optimal.