- Joined
- Feb 28, 2007
- Messages
- 9,786
Once again Rock, thanks for your balanced post on this subject. I decided I would take a break for a few days. Interestingly enough I found myself in rather odd spot between this thread and another thread going on in BUSA where I appear to be stretched to two different view points. On the one hand, I really do have great and abiding respect for the environment. I spent 10 years post secondary education and another 15 years of career in the field of environmental science and will continue another 25 years on this topic. I know that some issues in my fields of expertise are incredibly polarizing with the audience of these boards and I usually avoid them because I don't come here for political debates. At the same time, whenever I encounter people who honestly believe that mankind cannot harm the environment whether that be local or on national and global scales, these individuals truly frighten me. I love the fact that the modern world has built in restrictions and agencies like U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, U.S. EPA, State Dept. Environmental Quality, Forestry Service, U.S. Geological Survey etc. who do a tremendous amount of work maintaining our parks and green spaces and regulating environmental discharges, policing poaching etc. I view these agencies with respect and while I sometimes disagree with bureaucratic creep (which occurs in any policy-producing organization) I understand why they exist and the mandate they attempt to uphold. Several of my graduate students have gone on to work in these agencies and their Canadian equivalents.
At the other end of the spectrum, I am far more in favor of conservation rather than preservation. I believe that natural environments should be seen by the local community as a resource in order for it to be truly protected. Unused parks and reserves eventually fall prey to some more black and white economic interest and unless the local stakeholders can mount a credible defense you will have lost that resource. Suddenly that little green space where your kids like to mountain bike becomes a Walmart parking lot. I've seen that happen so many times in my life. Perhaps the community really does want Walmart instead of a fallow field with a few trees and trails that aren't paying the tax dollars, but it is pretty rare that you see an open debate and deliberation in the local municipal government (every Councillor seems to have a brother-in-law who is a developer). Anyhow, this provides the segway into my earlier post that I like to see resources used.
I also recognize that there are different rule sets depending on the parks. Rick has remarked often about Nat'l Parks in Canada (we have Point Pelee near us) and in these parks its literally a criminal offence to put a stone in your pocket and carry it off. Likewise any harvesting of plants is punishable by extremely severe penalties. As such, I avoid these places. They are essentially a place that you can walk down a groomed path, look, but don't touch and don't forget to pay $12 for your entry fee. This resource doesn't hold much interest for me and I simply won't go there.
On the other hand, the Prov. Parks are much more flexible in their designation. Parks very tremendously on what is and what isn't permitted and frankly it is hard to get the actual rules. Some parks have designated camp sites, others don't but don't explicitly not-allow camping a few of them are backcountry parks. Generally speaking if you ask a park ranger permission to do anything but walk and look, they will probably disuay you. On the other hand, they can't issue a criminal offense for cutting a sapling but can escort you off the premises and ask you not to come back. In making this decision, the ranger will use their experience and discretion to evaluate if what you are doing is being destructive or not. Most times they will just tell you what you are doing wrong, ask you to stop doing that and move on. When you are on Crown Land proper (non-private, government land), there is essentially no restrictions aside from criminally negligent behavior, unregulated harvesting of resources for commercial sale (but private use on site is generally okay), and littering or poaching. In these areas, the use your common sense metric works well. When you are on your own land, who cares. Its your land. You want to take out all the trees? I have no right to stop you and if the trees were that important than there would be a conservation lean already on your property when you bought it.
In most of my activities, I actually really do practice LNT activities. However, I do like to harvest edible plants in some cases or practice some bushcraft skills. On edible plant harvests there are rarely any actual regulations (outside the Nat'l parks) and I try to use traditional/Conservation rules of thumb, e.g. take no more than 1/3 of a patch when you encounter it. Do I really worry about cutting out a little 0.5" sapling that is annoyingly poking into my hammock on an otherwise well cleared site? Not really (at least in my areas). I get just as alarmed when folks start making statements like, nobody should have fires, nobody should cut living trees, nobody should..... If those rules ever got to play, we'd pretty soon find ourselves back in the Nat'l Park scenario which holds no interest for me.
I firmly believe that people can use common sense and adopt hybrid methods that blend traditional and modern to facilitate low impact. I guess, I'd prefer more appropriate title like LMT (Leave minimal trace) because that minimal is a reality that every one has to face and it gives flexibility and discretion. Like Rock says, most of the public don't have the self-discipline to be allowed access without rules. I have a certain faith that the majority of users who regularly post in W&SS tend to set up a certain modicum of self-discipline and restraint. I don't see much point in getting at each others throats on minutia of differences in practices and personal rules especially when rules change in place and time and across groups. I sincerely doubt the folks who strew beer cans, water bottles, diapers etc are active on this site.
At the other end of the spectrum, I am far more in favor of conservation rather than preservation. I believe that natural environments should be seen by the local community as a resource in order for it to be truly protected. Unused parks and reserves eventually fall prey to some more black and white economic interest and unless the local stakeholders can mount a credible defense you will have lost that resource. Suddenly that little green space where your kids like to mountain bike becomes a Walmart parking lot. I've seen that happen so many times in my life. Perhaps the community really does want Walmart instead of a fallow field with a few trees and trails that aren't paying the tax dollars, but it is pretty rare that you see an open debate and deliberation in the local municipal government (every Councillor seems to have a brother-in-law who is a developer). Anyhow, this provides the segway into my earlier post that I like to see resources used.
I also recognize that there are different rule sets depending on the parks. Rick has remarked often about Nat'l Parks in Canada (we have Point Pelee near us) and in these parks its literally a criminal offence to put a stone in your pocket and carry it off. Likewise any harvesting of plants is punishable by extremely severe penalties. As such, I avoid these places. They are essentially a place that you can walk down a groomed path, look, but don't touch and don't forget to pay $12 for your entry fee. This resource doesn't hold much interest for me and I simply won't go there.
On the other hand, the Prov. Parks are much more flexible in their designation. Parks very tremendously on what is and what isn't permitted and frankly it is hard to get the actual rules. Some parks have designated camp sites, others don't but don't explicitly not-allow camping a few of them are backcountry parks. Generally speaking if you ask a park ranger permission to do anything but walk and look, they will probably disuay you. On the other hand, they can't issue a criminal offense for cutting a sapling but can escort you off the premises and ask you not to come back. In making this decision, the ranger will use their experience and discretion to evaluate if what you are doing is being destructive or not. Most times they will just tell you what you are doing wrong, ask you to stop doing that and move on. When you are on Crown Land proper (non-private, government land), there is essentially no restrictions aside from criminally negligent behavior, unregulated harvesting of resources for commercial sale (but private use on site is generally okay), and littering or poaching. In these areas, the use your common sense metric works well. When you are on your own land, who cares. Its your land. You want to take out all the trees? I have no right to stop you and if the trees were that important than there would be a conservation lean already on your property when you bought it.
In most of my activities, I actually really do practice LNT activities. However, I do like to harvest edible plants in some cases or practice some bushcraft skills. On edible plant harvests there are rarely any actual regulations (outside the Nat'l parks) and I try to use traditional/Conservation rules of thumb, e.g. take no more than 1/3 of a patch when you encounter it. Do I really worry about cutting out a little 0.5" sapling that is annoyingly poking into my hammock on an otherwise well cleared site? Not really (at least in my areas). I get just as alarmed when folks start making statements like, nobody should have fires, nobody should cut living trees, nobody should..... If those rules ever got to play, we'd pretty soon find ourselves back in the Nat'l Park scenario which holds no interest for me.
I firmly believe that people can use common sense and adopt hybrid methods that blend traditional and modern to facilitate low impact. I guess, I'd prefer more appropriate title like LMT (Leave minimal trace) because that minimal is a reality that every one has to face and it gives flexibility and discretion. Like Rock says, most of the public don't have the self-discipline to be allowed access without rules. I have a certain faith that the majority of users who regularly post in W&SS tend to set up a certain modicum of self-discipline and restraint. I don't see much point in getting at each others throats on minutia of differences in practices and personal rules especially when rules change in place and time and across groups. I sincerely doubt the folks who strew beer cans, water bottles, diapers etc are active on this site.
