The Quiet Pledge: What to do about overcrowding

[texasbb]

I'm pushing back on this idea. Anyone who wants to keep quiet about where they've hiked will hear no complaints from me, but when you start a movement for people to pledge their silence, it smacks of elitism. If this movement is successful, the natural next step will be the passing of contraband information only by PM in this and other forums. It's not a big jump from there to an organized private group. Then it's institutionalized elitism.

No, I won't make such a pledge. I may choose to keep a nice spot seekrit, but I may not.

The "destruction" we're talking about here is not environmental, it's experiential. Who am I to deny the unworthy masses an experience I've enjoyed, just because they enjoy it differently and may degrade my ability to experience it the way I like it? Like many others here, I grieve my experience being lessened, but it's not just about me.

[pcg]

I'm pushing back on this idea. Anyone who wants to keep quiet about where they've hiked will hear no complaints from me, but when you start a movement for people to pledge their silence, it smacks of elitism. If this movement is successful, the natural next step will be the passing of contraband information only by PM in this and other forums. It's not a big jump from there to an organized private group. Then it's institutionalized elitism.

No, I won't make such a pledge. I may choose to keep a nice spot seekrit, but I may not.

The "destruction" we're talking about here is not environmental, it's experiential. Who am I to deny the unworthy masses an experience I've enjoyed, just because they enjoy it differently and may degrade my ability to experience it the way I like it? Like many others here, I grieve my experience being lessened, but it's not just about me.

All valid points. There are some locations, however, that are subject to environmental, not just experiential, destruction. The location of the valley containing many balanced rocks was a well-kept secret until Grant McOmie outed it on Oregon Field Guide. It is ripe for vandalism. There are others, such as locations of elaborate petroglyphs and pictographs which should not be common knowledge because, unfortunately, they will then be subject to vandalism as well. This is one reason I am opposed to making the Owyhee Canyonlands a National Monument. It would just bring more people.

I'm happy that so many people get to visit cool places such as Oneonta Gorge, as long as they are respectful and don't pollute it with trash, touch the walls and damage the plant life, etc. OTOH it makes me sad to think back when you could go in there in the summer and enjoy quiet solitude alone in a slot canyon. It is a whole different experience now in the summer. We can't let everything go that route.

[texasbb]

There are some locations, however, that are subject to environmental, not just experiential, destruction. The location of the valley containing many balanced rocks was a well-kept secret until Grant McOmie outed it on Oregon Field Guide. It is ripe for vandalism. There are others, such as locations of elaborate petroglyphs and pictographs which should not be common knowledge because, unfortunately, they will then be subject to vandalism as well.

Those examples are definitely experiential issues, not environmental. Don't get me wrong--I don't want to see those things vandalized--but we preserve them so we can enjoy them, not for any benefit to the forest squirrels or climate. It makes little sense to preserve things for human experience by...keeping humans from experiencing them.

[retired jerry]

That would be more obvious to keep secret the location of historical things like petroglyphs

[pcg]

There are some locations, however, that are subject to environmental, not just experiential, destruction. The location of the valley containing many balanced rocks was a well-kept secret until Grant McOmie outed it on Oregon Field Guide. It is ripe for vandalism. There are others, such as locations of elaborate petroglyphs and pictographs which should not be common knowledge because, unfortunately, they will then be subject to vandalism as well.

Those examples are definitely experiential issues, not environmental. Don't get me wrong--I don't want to see those things vandalized--but we preserve them so we can enjoy them, not for any benefit to the forest squirrels or climate. It makes little sense to preserve things for human experience by...keeping humans from experiencing them.

Good point.
Presents a real quandary. Do we fence them off, which is experiential damage, to protect them from both physical and experiential damage?

I like the fact that there are thousand of wonderful places on earth that I will never experience. It would be a boring place otherwise. There is nothing other than physical ability and skill to keep anyone from going out and exploring and finding wonderful surprises in doing so. Must we publicize and give directions to the best prizes so that it is easier and many more can experience them, thus forever altering the experience itself? It is nice for some people that Yosemite Valley and the Grand Canyon are becoming so easily accessible. Oh wait... the Yosemite Valley and GC experience of 100 years ago is gone, just like the Oneonta Gorge experience of 30 years ago is gone. What will happen to the grand experience of solitude and the joy of discovery if we don't hold some things back instead of encouraging visitation by publishing photos and giving directions to the public on a silver platter?

[Bosterson]

If this movement is successful, the natural next step will be the passing of contraband information only by PM in this and other forums. It's not a big jump from there to an organized private group. Then it's institutionalized elitism.

That's a bit hyperbolic. "Contraband" discussions is how information about special outdoor places has always been transmitted - that is, up until the age of broad sharing on the internet. And organized private groups already exist (hello, the Mazamas) and have always existed.

You've listed many reasons why you would be opposed to an embargo against sharing information, but does that mean you are in favor of it? Do you feel an obligation to do it? If so, why?

Presents a real quandary.
...It is nice for some people that Yosemite Valley and the Grand Canyon are becoming so easily accessible. Oh wait... the Yosemite Valley and GC experience of 100 years ago is gone...

I was in Yosemite at the beginning of September and it was absolutely a zoo, more than I ever remember the Valley being. Maybe it was cause it was post-holiday weekend, or maybe because there are simply more people in California (especially rich tourists - now that Silicon Valley has taken over the world) than when I was there as a kid. It was pretty terrible though. I will stay out of the Valley next time I'm there, at least during high season.

However, one way to frame your question is to stop thinking about this as individual people's "right" to have (easy) access to nature (because, in that case, shouldn't we put an escalator to the top of Everest, complete with air pressurization, so that ordinary folks can see it?), but rather ask if increasing access and usage of the outdoors is having a net positive effect for future conservation. What this means is: if Yosemite is basically like an outdoor version of Disneyland, and zillions of people flood into it every year, is that experience increasing the general public's belief in conservation and respect for nature? Or is it causing them to think that nature should be "tamed" and paved and filled with restaurants? Do more people now think that they should stand opposed to timber sales and natural resource extraction, or do they direct their energy at "collecting" a curated list of outdoor selfies for Instagram, trampling all the flowers en route?

I don't think anyone has a "right" to have the outdoors made accessible to them, personally. The outdoors is. Those of us who access it perhaps have a responsibility to manage how we "share" it (in both the literal and figurative sense) with others.

[texasbb]

If this movement is successful, the natural next step will be the passing of contraband information only by PM in this and other forums. It's not a big jump from there to an organized private group. Then it's institutionalized elitism.

That's a bit hyperbolic. "Contraband" discussions is how information about special outdoor places has always been transmitted - that is, up until the age of broad sharing on the internet. And organized private groups already exist (hello, the Mazamas) and have always existed.

To my knowledge, they don't exist for the purpose of hiding information from the less worthy people. (Of all the logical fallacies out there, none ends up being right more often than the "slippery slope," IME. )

You've listed many reasons why you would be opposed to an embargo against sharing information, but does that mean you are in favor of it? Do you feel an obligation to do it? If so, why?

Of course not. I don't think I've even hinted at anything like that. I too view the destruction of my solitude as "harm," even though that solitude, by definition, requires most others to stay away. The right answer here is not obvious.

But quite apart from organized efforts being (or becoming) elitist, I have serious doubts that they'll do any good and even some fears that they'll do "harm." Organized attempts to squelch information are doomed in this digital age, and there are plenty of anecdotes suggesting those attempts can accelerate and amplify the very message you wanted silenced. Forbidden fruit, Streisand Effect, etc.

I see it more and more on this and other similar forums--someone will mention one of those unmentionable places and is immediately met with shushing and scolding. A place I would have never thought about again suddenly makes it to the front of my curiosity queue...

[miah66]

None of this will matter at all any more when public lands become private and National Forests and Parks are owned by millionaires and billionaires and off limits to any private exploration. I'm not being hyperbolic. It's a genuine possibility.

[texasbb]

None of this will matter at all any more when public lands become private and National Forests and Parks are owned by millionaires and billionaires and off limits to any private exploration. I'm not being hyperbolic. It's a genuine possibility.

Ironic that what I've highlighted is close to what many are calling for here. In this case, of course, it would be a different elite that would be allowed to visit, but the unwashed masses would certainly be unable to stomp the grass for their selfies. Yes, I fully understand that the new elite might build a hotel over the pretty parts, and I too would find that tragic. I would far prefer the masses snapping their pictures, intruding on my solitude, and lobbying for open wildernesses.

[Aimless]

close to what many are calling for here

Uh, no. I've read your perspective with interest up to this, texasbb, but the gulf between asking individuals to pledge not to post photos of their hikes to FB or Instagram and advocating for banning the public from public lands is not "close". There is an enormous chasm dividing these two propositions.