The Quiet Pledge: What to do about overcrowding

[Bosterson]

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.

Indeed, there is a large difference between legally prohibiting people from going somewhere and simply choosing (as a private individual) not to tell them about it...

You're right about the Streisand Effect, and certainly admonishing strangers for talking about public lands is a bit out of line. Like Karl says, data wants to be free. But I'm not sure what the "slippery slope" you're referring to is - like, if we decide not to share (some of) our adventures with the public, soon we'll be... what? Bringing back eugenics? I'm at a loss.

As a side note, let's say that I feel comfortable walking off trail and relying on my sense of direction. Other people want to put up flagging every 20 ft so they don't get lost. I say that this both degrades the environment (it leaves trash) and ruins my experience (the "pristine" woods are now festooned with ribbons). I then pledge not to use flagging, and admonish people who do because I think it's harmful. Does this make me elitist and smack of anti-populism, somehow oppressing the "unwashed masses?" Or is this perhaps a matter of one's opinion, but certainly a valid topic for debate where, at the very least, choosing/pledging not to use the flagging is a legitimate response to the situation?

And if it's the latter, then how is that different for calling for people not to post selfies all over Instagram, or refusing to divulge secret areas you discover (or only telling them to your friends)?

[texasbb]

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.

Indeed, there is a large difference between legally prohibiting people from going somewhere and simply choosing (as a private individual) not to tell them about it...

Of course, and that's sort of the point of my irony comment. Both are strategies to keep the hordes of selfie snapping, switchback cutting, graffiti flinging masses from going to places many of us would like to stay pristine or at least sparsely populated. Privatization could work very well for that (but of course we lose the whole reason we wanted to preserve the places).

If you or I or any private individual chooses to keep quiet about a place, that's perfectly alright with me. But I interpret this thread to be about extending that beyond the private individual to crowd-sourced pressure on others to do the same. And that's the slippery slope I'm referring to--first it's public encouragement, then it's public shaming for those who disagree, then it's small private groups taking their discussions somewhere else (members-only forum?), but of course word gets around and all the selfie baggers will be that much more determined. That may be a stretch, but then I did use a smiley.

I don't mean to be provocative here and in fact find it odd that I'm even engaging this. I too hate flagging, and cairns for that matter. I love solitude, hate crowds, pout when I see signs of humans in the wilderness. I grew up on 60 wooded acres (private) and have a hard time getting comfortable without that elbow room. But I don't think promoting an us/them situation is helpful.

Edit: Oh, and I don't even have any social media accounts. OH.org is as social as I get.

[Bosterson]

If you or I or any private individual chooses to keep quiet about a place, that's perfectly alright with me. But I interpret this thread to be about extending that beyond the private individual to crowd-sourced pressure on others to do the same. And that's the slippery slope I'm referring to--first it's public encouragement, then it's public shaming for those who disagree, then it's small private groups taking their discussions somewhere else (members-only forum?), but of course word gets around and all the selfie baggers will be that much more determined....

I also find this discussion odd (I have no idea who the OP is, and seriously, a "pledge?" I hope no one is taking that seriously...), but mainly because your position is sort of inexplicable. In your slippery slope above, wouldn't you think public shaming would be the most serious and harmful end product? (Certainly, we do live in an era of public shaming, and it's an awful thing. Yet another issue to blame on social media!) If private people decide to not share information or only share amongst a small group, how is that different from how things were in the pre-internet era, and what does that have to do with "crowd-sourced pressure on others," unless it's the pressure to not share, in which case we're full circle, because it's not clear why not sharing is "bad" unless sharing itself is "good" and you think everyone should share? (And again, how would this be different from someone telling people not to use flagging?)

Anyway, as I previously noted, the real solution is for everyone to stop using social media entirely, which I will definitely begin peer pressuring everyone to do, as, obviously, Facebook is Skynet, and after it finishes draining all of us of advertising data, it will begin using our bodies for energy, just like in that documentary the Matrix.

[Aimless]

extending that beyond the private individual to crowd-sourced pressure on others to do the same

Not to put too fine a point on it, but this is how society has always worked to establish its norms and standards. It isn't always pretty, but the same could be said about a great many things that humans everywhere do.

As long as the crowd-sourced pressure to conform to the suggested norm doesn't extend to more serious sanctions, such as ostracism, blacklisting, imprisonment or execution, but rather limits itself to strenuously frowning upon the person who fails to fall into line, then one may freely choose not to bow to the pressure. I've even known people who make their non-conformity and bucking of the norms a point of pride, even to where they brag about it. They didn't seem too concerned that it might prove fatal to their happiness.

[texasbb]

Anyway, as I previously noted, the real solution is for everyone to stop using social media entirely, which I will definitely begin peer pressuring everyone to do, as, obviously, Facebook is Skynet, and after it finishes draining all of us of advertising data, it will begin using our bodies for energy, just like in that documentary the Matrix.

At least we agree on something.

[Koda]

hats off to all of us that have taken the "silent pledge" to not post new places on social media. Im a proponent of that, encourage it, and completely disagree with the idea it smaks of elitism because in no way am I discouraging anyone or suggesting anyone in general not be allowed to go off trail or explore the lesser know places. Public lands are open to everyone and always should be.

My motto is "leave no trace virtually". Hikers and all outdoor recreationalists have a long standing ethic of LNT principals but to adapt to modern technology and impacts we need to add LNT virtually to those ethics. I actually emailed the LNT organization to add that to the list but never heard back. Please email them.

Other thoughts we've all likely considered: Charge fees for access and/or parking, require permits with quotas, build more trails, and designate more areas as wilderness. None of these ideas are perfect or desirable. But we are in great need of some creative thinking and discussion as we see around 100 people move to the Portland area every day, social media are accelerating the visibility of our region globally, and the restoration of the Gorge Scenic Highway Trail creates a world-class destination that will bring in large numbers of international tourists, each looking for an idealized nature experience that sadly, is no longer possible.

actually designating more areas as designated wilderness is a great idea to me, by design helps curb the flow of overuse.


The idea floats around that new places need protection and public awareness helps get protection. I dont think that social media is the place for that kind of public awareness. Social media is a majority of users not activists, If anyone finds a special place they think should be protected they should contact groups like Oregon Wild, BARK or FOTG or some organization like that.

[chrisca]

How about the trail to McNeil Point Shelter or going up from there?

Or the trail to Barret Spur?

The only thing that's saved McNeil is that parking at Top Spur is limited, and other ways in take a lot more drive time. Limiting parking is one way to address overcrowding and while frustrating, it's effective. While I hate what's been done at Dog Mountain, it has reduced trail use. What steams me about the Forest Service is that they limit parking, but then refuse to build other trails to spread out the impact.

[chrisca]

hats off to all of us that have taken the "silent pledge" to not post new places on social media. ...

My motto is "leave no trace virtually". Hikers and all outdoor recreationalists have a long standing ethic of LNT principals but to adapt to modern technology and impacts we need to add LNT virtually to those ethics. I actually emailed the LNT organization to add that to the list but never heard back. Please email them.

Leave No Trace Virtually is a great insight. Love it.

[chrisca]

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. ...
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.

It's one thing to tell a friend or acquaintance about a hike and I'm not against that. It's something completely different to post it online, where it lives forever and is searchable by Google. I don't think such a pledge is elitism, any more than Leave No Trace is elitist. It's a personal philosophy about enjoying and protecting nature. I'm not proposing a law or any system of shaming here. I understand the idea of wanting to share experience and grant you that. I do hope we can all think more about the consequences of sharing these experiences when they enter the online world, something that has only been a reality for the last 20 years or so.

I am curious if you have an alternative suggestion. Not to bait, but to spur further thinking to see where it heads.

[Charley]

After the GOP takeover of virtually all levels of government in our nation, I fear that the greatest threat to many of our wild places is not too many visitors, but too few visitors. I mean this both in a small sense (Bundy gang) and larger sense (the GOP push to privatize Federal Lands).

Why was the Malheur Wildlife Refuge so easy for the Bundy gang to take over? Because no one was there. Had they tried to take over Oneonta Gorge, the immediate results would likely have precluded a drawn out siege. Same with Timberline Lodge. Eyes on the ground mean safety.

Given that the GOP platform calls for the Federal Government to transfer "certain" Federal lands to the states (many of which are interested in selling these lands off to the highest bidder), I think it's in the best interest of out-of-the-way wild places to get as much coverage as possible. For instance, here's a photo from the Malheur Wildlife Refuge that I took this summer:

If Bundy had his way, this would be closed forever to you and me, and would be the private playground of millionaires or, worse, drilled to oblivion to sate our desire for natural gas.

Without citizens who love these places, who would call their Senator or Congress person when the land goes on the chopping block? I'm reminded of Ansel Adams, who schlepped photos of National Parks and other wild areas around the Congress, trying to get our elected leaders to save these areas. I'm not as good as he, nor as important, but I do feel that my own efforts are in Adams' tradition.

More information on the GOP platform here:
http://www.snopes.com/2016/07/16/gop-pl ... nal-parks/