Yes, I think so. I remember hearing that Oregon State Parks had to talk to Travel Oregon about cooling off on this campaign, because Smith has gotten so busy. If the Park can't manage or absorb that much more visitation, we probably shouldn't be sending people to it from out of state.
I agree that things should continue to exist for their own sake, and especially wilderness (and Wilderness). However, without incentive structures that favor conservation (and/or preservation), many wild areas are at great risk for resource extraction or rural sprawl.Water wrote: ↑August 4th, 2022, 12:23 pmThis is largely what Scott Silver of Wilderness Wild wrote and spoke on when he was fighting the Fee Demo. Things have pivoted from the extraction/resource economy to the 'outdoors economy', even in common language used by environmental organizations as a counterbalance to resource economy. You know, because nothing could simply exist for it's own sake, without needing to serve a bottom line for someone somewhere.. and certainly not just plain Wilderness!
I wish all politicians and bureaucrats valued wild places like I do, but many just don't. In that case, we need arguments that will win in terms of policy. "Conservation brings tourist dollars to your community" has actually been a strong argument in recent years.
The result might involve some compromises (increased access has its own ecological impacts), but is far preferable to the powerful incentive structures created by the mining, logging, and sprawl industries.