Historical destruction or reclaimation?

[bigreen505]

One of the comments in the Martinez Canyon thread got me thinking about my last trip near the Monetzuma/Deer Creek area.

On the second night my sister and I returned to camp to find a rather large group of 15 or so with probably 10 trucks parked on the subalpine tundra (little flowers and plants just below tree line) with a large fire burning. Having walked by there several times the previous day I know for a fact there was no fire circle there, the area was pristine before they came. All this bothered me. They had music cranking and were pretty drunk, but that didn't bother me all that much since they were very nice people, though usually I would be beyond annoyed.

Anyway, we thought we would be nice and say hi to our temporary neighbors. I noticed that the wood they were burning was large planks, 6' long or longer 2"x10" boards. I had to ask where they got the wood thinking perhaps Home Depot. It turns out they come up there several times a year, summer and winter, and pull wood off the old mine buildings. There are several mines in the area. I was horrified by the response, but thought better than trying to reason with 15 drunk people, most either scientists or engineers of one sort or another.

To me this was a glaring example of redneck ecological and historical destruction and the reason mines and ghost towns are disappearing. Not only is it disrespectful to the land, but the history of the state and the legacy of the miners as well.

My sister, however, had a very different take on the situation. Her feelings were that these particular mines, like many that litter the state, have no real historical significance and that ultimately these people using the mine ruins as a private firewood stash are actually helping the mountain heal, reclaim the damage that was done to it (or at least the obvious visual scarring) and return to a pristine state; albeit with a few holes in it.

What is your take? As far as I know it is perfectly legal to bring your own firewood or harvest dead wood from the ground, but I have no idea about pulling apart old buildings.

[Brian McVickers]

My initial reaction is that is appalling
Then part of me understands your sister’s reasoning
But I still think it is appalling and wrong.
Who is to say that it is a historic mine or not.
The fact of the matter is that any mine remnants like that are a part of history
And a pleasure to see. It represents what happened in that area and tells a story however insignificant some may think that story is.

[Ursidae69]

You know, different people will have different opinions on things like this, but the bottom line is that many of these places, if they occur on public land, are protected by the National Historic Preservation Act (http://www.cr.nps.gov/local-law/FHPL_HistPrsrvt.pdf) or other local/state level laws or regulations.

In my opinion, which means squat, I think many of the older mines need to be cleaned up since many are superfund sites.

[flyingwil]

In my opinion, which means squat, I think many of the older mines need to be cleaned up since many are superfund sites.

What is a superfund site?

I think it is completely wrong. If my truck broke down, and I left it to come back later and have all the wheels off, I would be pissed! Just like if I owned the mine, and came back and someone burned all my wood, I would be pissed.

I love seeing the ruins, and such, but to see that things have been stolen off or altered, annoys me. But that is just me. I do understand your sisters point of view, but still do not agree with removing the wood with out permission.

[Ursidae69]

What is a superfund site?

I think it is completely wrong. If my truck broke down, and I left it to come back later and have all the wheels off, I would be pissed! Just like if I owned the mine, and came back and someone burned all my wood, I would be pissed.

I love seeing the ruins, and such, but to see that things have been stolen off or altered, annoys me. But that is just me. I do understand your sisters point of view, but still do not agree with removing the wood with out permission.

Superfund sites are hazardous waste areas designated by the EPA. Here is a link (http://www.epa.gov/superfund/).

For the record, I'd not damage an old mine site either, I enjoy the history, but some are pretty dirty due to the mining processes, like leeching the minearals out with different acids.

[bigreen505]

Thanks for the replies, the more the merrier. For the record, these are not Superfund size mines, these are little holes in the ground that were mined for a couple years and then people moved on. Some of them have a few houses/buildings remaining, which is where these people are taking the wood. One of my favorites, Grizzly mine on top of Kelso (well, starts at the top and comes out the bottom), has the remains of a sauna.

Although for you Colorado folk reading, it looks like the little mine on Argentine pass road (the one where the parking lot used to be before the road gets rocky, way past the turn off for Argentine) looks like it got Superfunded, which while possibly necessary, is also very sad. Now the parking lot looks like a tailings pile and there is no sign of the mine or surrounding buildings besides one little shack by Peru creek. Sorry, I digress.

I spoke with a landscape photographer who works at one of the local pro labs today and he was pretty outraged. To him, a passionate seeker of pristine beauty, the mines are part of Colorado history and are now a part of the mountain and a part of the landscape.

[EDIT]The mines I'm talking about are like Upper and Lower Radical (i.e. Radical Hill) and others like that.

[Jonathan Hanson]

What a great, thought-provoking thread.

My reaction is that, while I'd be all for the dismantling and restoration of certain defunct mining sites, the process should be one of study and thought and debate, not a precipitate need for marshmallow-roasting fuel. That's just vandalism.

[datrupr]

Now, this is only my opinion, but personally I lvoe to go and explore old mine sites and ghost towns, and I have to say that it really pisses me off to no end when I see vandalism of these sites. I read your first post, Bill and thought it was very commendable that you chose to do nothing, but I would have wanted to take one of the planks they "scavenged" off of what I would call a historical site and beat them to a bloody pulp with it. Even if I thought that they were nice people in the beginning, after they disclosed that information to me I would have changed my mind to thinking that they have no regard toward history or other people in general. If these buildings are so much in taked that they can steal fire wood for the night off of them then they should be left alone for others to enjoy IMO.

[calamaridog]

The way I look at what they did is this: Where were they supposed to camp and park? Where should they have gotten their firewood from? What are the laws and rules for the area they were in?

I'm guessing they were not following the "rules".

It is funny though how vandalism from a few hundred years ago is considered historic:D

[bigreen505]

The way I look at what they did is this: Where were they supposed to camp and park? Where should they have gotten their firewood from? What are the laws and rules for the area they were in?

I'm guessing they were not following the "rules".

It is funny though how vandalism from a few hundred years ago is considered historic:D

Four established camp sites in the area, three of them are obvious, one is not. The spot they wanted was taken, so they made a new one. Firewood was available and plentiful within about 15-20 steps. We were able to gather enough wood in 15 min. to last us for two days. However, ours was a bit smaller, like a tenth.

[calamaridog]

Four established camp sites in the area, three of them are obvious, one is not. The spot they wanted was taken, so they made a new one. Firewood was available and plentiful within about 15-20 steps. We were able to gather enough wood in 15 min. to last us for two days. However, ours was a bit smaller, like a tenth.

So basically they are a$$holes:violent-smiley-031:

Still an interesting topic however due to the various responses.

[Ursidae69]

It is funny though how vandalism from a few hundred years ago is considered historic:D

Great point. I work with archaeologists and often joke with them that the petroglyphs around here are no different than folks nowadays carving their name into a tree or spray painting rocks. ;)

[DaveInDenver]

I dunno about at the Federal level, but here in Colorado it is against state law to collect artifacts at places designated historical. Not all mines are designated as such, but there are several historic mining districts, like the areas around Leadville or Lake City. These being National Historic Mining Districts would have Federal penalties involved. In general the stuff left by miners is lumped with the native tribes as being protected from removal and destruction. If you own the mineral or property rights, then the remains are more or less yours to do with what you want. Otherwise, you gotta leave it alone. But even if you own the historical thing, you might not even be able to doing anything with it. The City of Blackhawk wanted to move the Lace House back in the late 1990s and the Colorado Historical Society sued and won to keep them from moving the building from it's location.

Personally, I don't have a problem with mining remains. For the most part abandoned mines aren't going to be around long until nature reclaims them naturally anyway. It's as much a part of the landscape and history of places like Colorado as the mountains themselves. If it weren't for these tough dudes prospecting all over the place, the roads and trails we drive, ride and ski wouldn't be there for the most part.



Great point. I work with archaeologists and often joke with them that the petroglyphs around here are no different than folks nowadays carving their name into a tree or spray painting rocks.

This is a valid point. But I suppose a better analogy might be comparing petroglyphs to modern day newspapers rather than graffiti. In any event I very much hate when people ruin artifacts. Has anyone seen Newspaper Rock lately? It's gotten so bad that it's getting tough to even see the original rock art. That's just sad.

[calamaridog]

Great point. I work with archaeologists and often joke with them that the petroglyphs around here are no different than folks nowadays carving their name into a tree or spray painting rocks. ;)

In a sense this is very true but if everyone does it we are in trouble since there are now billions of people:yikes:

I bet they love that arguement:p

[Brian894x4]

As someone who has spent countless hours searching and recording the mining history of this part of the country, I can't imagine anything that would upset me more than to see this history destroyed.

Most mining artifacts are as much as 100 or more years old. They are clearly a part of our American history and should be preserved as much as humanly possible. These people wouldn't think of walking into a museum and pulling the planks off of an old wagon or artifact to burn, yet they think nothing of our history that remains in the wilderness? Its pure ignorance that should not be tolerated in my opinion. And the damage goes beyond destroying historical sites. It's a large reason that we are now facing one new gated off area after another.

The artifacts that remain where they were abandoned in the woods have incredible and significant historical value, sometimes more than any museum piece, because they offer so much more to those studying the history as they remain in their natural state.

I can't tell you how many times I've returned to historical sites only to find things vandalized, stolen or destroyed. I've even found myself reluctant to post what I've found on my website or post maps or give specific directions, because I'm afraid thieves and vandals will find it and destroy it. It's really depressing to think about.

As for the reclamation of mines and superfund sites, I've visited many cleaned up mines and what I've found is that the buildings and artifacts rarely have to be destroyed. Many mines can be closed off for safety, without blowing them shut. Seapage and waste can be collected in newly built ponds to prevent drainage into the local water systems and there are ways to protect our history and the environment without destroying one or the other.

Mines are relatively rare compared to the vast landscape that surrounds them. There is very little environmental gain in completely removing all traces of them, compared to the history that can never ever be recovered once it is lost.

I don’t blame you for not confronting 15 drunks. Nor would I despite the insane anger I would have felt had I run into the same situation. I would have probably written down as many license plates as I could have, however, and immediately turned them into the local land owners or Forest Service. Nothing may have happened, but then again, I’ve heard stories of the Federal Government taking the theft and destruction of historical sites more serious than you might think.

Sometimes in my quest to find and record these historical sites, I feel like I'm in a mad dash race against time, the environmentalists who want to destroy these sites, the weather as it takes it final toll, and even the government or private land owners who destroy sites in attempt to limit liability, and now...of course...the ignorant who simply want firewood or think that a piece of mining history would look cool in their backyard for a few years, until they get bored with it and it decide to toss it in the garbage.

Pretty soon the only thing we're going to have left are pictures. If these idiots get their way, it will be even sooner.

[JPFreek1]

I have read through all the responses that have been posted on this topic and I noticed that there hasn't been much talk about the tundra that was destroyed by these people who were irresponsible about their camping 'adventure'. I would strongly suggest that when someone sees another person, or group of persons, blatantly destroying public land that they contact a ranger or park service. As adventurers, we have a responsibilty to use the lands we visit with as little impact as possible. Imagine if everyone were to go out and use these lands in whatever way they see fit. We wouldn't have those lands to enjoy and, more than likely, the efforts of groups such as Tread Lightly, United Four Wheel Drive Associations, Blue Coalition, and others would have no basis for advocating land use.

I would encourage everyone and anyone who sees this sort of misuse to do as I suggested and contact the appropriate 'authority' who can handle the situation in a way that makes people realize that preserving land today will ensure their use tomorrow.

Frank

[calamaridog]

Frank,

I agree totally about reporting this stuff. Damage to a "fragile" meadow may outlast old wooden structures and such (but I don't know that for sure).

[rgsiii]

To me this was a glaring example of redneck ecological and historical destruction and the reason mines and ghost towns are disappearing. Not only is it disrespectful to the land, but the history of the state and the legacy of the miners as well.

My sister, however, had a very different take on the situation. Her feelings were that these particular mines, like many that litter the state, have no real historical significance and that ultimately these people using the mine ruins as a private firewood stash are actually helping the mountain heal, reclaim the damage that was done to it (or at least the obvious visual scarring) and return to a pristine state; albeit with a few holes in it.

What is your take? As far as I know it is perfectly legal to bring your own firewood or harvest dead wood from the ground, but I have no idea about pulling apart old buildings.

I would be on your side in the discussion. It is just vandalism and the destruction of our history.

If your sister's argument was followed, other damage should be removed--the trails and passes. I don't think it really is the direction most people would follow.

I think that in places like this a minimal impact approach should be used to whatever is there of historic significance. This would include mining sites, ghost towns or American Indian sites.

[devinsixtyseven]

i know this is an older thread, but it's one that imho bears constant reflection when in the backcountry.

canyonlands national park contains many, many excellent examples of areas that are, or were, in dispute with regards to type and frequency of access, damage to historical sites, and what might appear on the surface to be a double standard.

kirk cabin, in the southernmost tip of canyonlands national park, was originally built in the late 1800s by a man who was technically a "squatter"...he moved in, saw a good place to winter the herd, built a cabin, and took a wagon back and forth between moab and the southernmost end of salt creek wash. his cabin and equipment, along with cliff dwellings, rock art, and even older rock art, make up three civilizations' worth of culture in the wash between peekaboo spring and cathedral point. the previous culture to inhabit the area actually "vandalized" (?...a culturally subjective term, i suppose) the much, much older rock art, and both primitive cultures' marks can be seen on the canyon walls...undoubtedly along with marks from both the ranch days and modern culture.

by our modern assessment, ALL of the human evidence in the canyon might be "vandalism" and destruction of the ecosystem...surely neither the Ancients nor the Kirk inhabitants made sure to stay only on established trails, and certainly did not think twice about erecting permanent structures or allowing their animals free reign over the land. by the assessment of someone's sister mentioned above in this thread, everything from the cliff dwellings to the ranch cabin should be removed to allow nature to reclaim the land...which at first glance to some people might seem like the fair and proper thing to do, and perhaps she is not the first to voice that opinion, it's possible the second culture to inhabit the wash landscape thought the same regarding the previous culture's rock art. we, with our modern culture and technology, run a much greater risk of spoiling the land, therefore we should minimize our impact and remove any prior human impact. OR the flip side, the ancients and ranchers made their way across the landscape, therefore we should be able to do the same as we see fit for our own means, whether exploration for development, resource extraction or recreation.

while both approaches duck the "double standard" of allowing historic sites to stand while restricting modern access and development, both approaches are completely childish and entirely miss the point of preservation and limited access.

the remnants of two primitive cultures and ranching/mining operations in the area give a brief glimpse in to the daily life, culture, and beliefs of people who actually lived in the area, vs. people who were just passing through and carved their name on a rock. it is, like someone else mentioned above, an open-air museum with no tour guide, velvet rope, or glass case to spoil the experience. anthropological evidence of any culture is significant, whether thousands or hundreds of years old...it is of great use to us as their lifestyle or point of view may help us lay out resource use now and in the future. just think, perhaps hundreds of years from now, scientists will find evidence in the southwest's current population centers of permanent aquifer damage due to rampant, inappropriate water use, and structure their water use more appropriate to their climate (frankly it'd be nice if they did so now, but they couldnt play golf in the desert anymore). in contrast, tourist graffiti and other marks of people just passing through for the view contain little or no cultural significance, except perhaps as examples of the disrespectful, wasteful and careless side of our culture. It is NOT a double standard, not at all...one of these things is significant, the other is not only insignificant but potentially negatively significant to future discoverers. destroying these fragile remnants of human history is no less damaging (and possibly more so) than careless tracks and graffiti.

personally, after learning the history (ancient, recent past and modern), seeing the photographs (satellite, courtesy google earth), and reading historical accounts from the area, i'm glad the salt creek wash was closed to vehicles and remains a restricted access, permit area. wheels aren't really appropriate in the wash, and with the easy access a vehicle provides i can see the cultural remnants quickly being reduced to campfire ash and coffee table conversation pieces. limited, difficult access ensures that only the most determined and best prepared members of our culture will see these archeological treasures firsthand, and in my experience, those people tend to be the most respectful as regards natural and cultural treasures like the salt creek wash area.

-sean

[Ursidae69]

Nice post Sean.

[awalter]

. limited, difficult access ensures that only the most determined and best prepared members of our culture will see these archeological treasures firsthand, and in my experience, those people tend to be the most respectful as regards natural and cultural treasures like the salt creek wash area.

-sean

I read this sentence as an elitist, discriminatory statement. It spoiled the posting for me.

[Ursidae69]

I read this sentence as an elitist, discriminatory statement. It spoiled the posting for me.

Maybe, but it is the truth. Until funding is provided for real law enforcement, all these natural and historical treasures are being taken advantage of.

[devinsixtyseven]

I read this sentence as an elitist, discriminatory statement. It spoiled the posting for me.walter, i'm honestly sorry it did.

i guess i'm a bit of an elitist, or more likely just a cynic...i've found over my short years that the farther i get from the beaten path, the people i meet become increasingly sensible and respectful regardless of age or ability. it is a generalization, but it seems that the more difficult it is to achieve anything, the more appreciation people have for the results--in this case, leading to an increased chance of preserving human history for the benefit of future generations.

unfortunately, it's always been the easily accessed areas where i find trash, vandalism, and other undesirable human trace...from footprints to firepits, bicycle and vehicle tracks off the route. the "glass half full" part of me wishes these would be the areas with the best stewardship, in the best shape, since the level of traffic presents an even greater chance of taking care of the area.

last weekend, my girlfriend and i eagerly biked out to the "open air museum" northwest of moab, with the dinosaur bones exposed in the eroding strata, hoping to see the real thing in their natural environment. we were beyond disappointed--somewhere between hurt and angry--to find that every available fossil which could have been removed had either been taken or destroyed in the attempt. the area has an improved road leading to the site, with a graded parking lot. the exhibit was an experiment, and we were truly sad to see that it is failing. it is very unfortunate that something so exciting would need to be either closed off to all but the most dedicated observer, or else presented under glass and guard. an exhibit like the one northwest of moab requires only the highest standard from every single person who passes through--thousands may have seen it, but like mentioned on several other threads here, it only takes "one yahoo" to ruin it for everyone else.

in contrast, "harvest scene" is located in the depths of the maze district of canyonlands. it is one of the most difficult sights to see in the park...in any given season, without even considering the drive to the trailhead, a visitor risks heat, exposure, cold, flooding, injury, and misdirection to reach it. it remains in excellent shape.

i hope no-one takes my remark about determination or preparation as slanderous toward age or ability. when our group ventured in to the maze, we did so with a wide range of vehicles, trip preparation, age, and fitness. working together, we safely brought the entire group through the trip despite flood damage to trail markers, intense heat, vehicle malfunction, and a lack of forethought toward hydration by several people in the group. the traits that took us in and out of the maze in one piece were detailed preparation by most, and determination by all, to ensure that everyone was in good mental and physical health despite various potentially life-threatening setbacks.

even for someone unable to walk easily, there are ways to see these areas--scenic overflights, a bunch of good friends (i have both carried, and been carried by, other people in the backcountry at times), or their own determination. last weekend, we were *passed* on the amasa back trail (rated difficult) by a guy riding a hardtail with a prosthetic leg. i certainly do understand that as easy access diminishes, it increases the difficulty for anyone with a physical limitation to reach an area...there are a couple accounts of people who hiked the route i mentioned previously because the road had been closed, and the strain it put on them due to their physical limitations.

at hocking hills, in ohio, there are paved wheelchair accessable routes to several features, but they do not continue farther down the trail. they probably could, but there would be some difficult tradeoffs to consider.

where do you stop the pavement? it's difficult to find that one person who's going to mess it up for the thousands of responsible users, just like it's impossible to completely secure anything--whether a piece of software, a locked door or an airport. the best security is often simply obscurity, and while nothing is foolproof, obscurity at least lowers the number of fools who will pass. the downside to this approach on public lands is that it does limit access to people who are physically unable to make the journey under their own power, but that's not at all what i intended to convey with my exclusory statement, and i apologize if anyone took it as such.

-sean

[bigreen505]

I can definitely see Al's point and I agree at some level, but Sean's right too. It is kind of like a car alarm. It doesn't make it impossible to steal your car, but it is more difficult and often that is enough to convince the would be offenders to move on to an easier target. This is also the case here. If someone is hell bent on destroying or vandalizing an area, for whatever reason they are going to do so. But if they are just out make a mess, start a bonfire, paint rocks, etc. they are more likely to just find an easier target. The easier it is, particularly if it is somewhat remote with very easy access (like the places in my original post) it is an easier target.

Al, remember that we are not talking about conservationists run amok here, we are generally talking about our society's lowest common denominator, just with off-road capable vehicles. Unfortunately, and to some degree I think this is Al's point, this is a case of throwing out the baby with the bath water. In attempts to prevent further damage to the area by closing it to all vehicles, you also keep many other respectful people from the area as well. I think it was Ansel Adams who said if it is more than 500 feet from the car, it is not photogenic, and he was quite the conservationist.

[awalter]

My thoughts are the 4x4 community, the backpacking community , the mountain bike community, the rock climbing community are all a slice from our society & contain the full spectrum of the good to the bad. It is true that the more exposed an area is to human contact, the higher the chance of abuse. if there are natural barriers that lessen human contact so be it. I don't think any one group has a better class of people within it. I don't want to give up trying to educate people in how to use these resources properly.

I must say some of the things I did years ago (as a jerk), I would be ashamed of today, but that was also a part of my education.

There will always be jerks in our society, that we need to educate. I don't think we need any artificial barriers that would prevent us from educating & converting the jerks of the world, so that they also can enjoy our resources.

I feel more comfortable substituting a--hole for jerk.

[bigreen505]

Thanks Al, those are excellent points. It also brings the thread full circle to what was going through my head as I began to understand what was happening -- how do you go about educating people?

[Scott Brady]

I must say some of the things I did years ago (as a jerk), I would be ashamed of today, but that was also a part of my education.


Me too...

I wish I could take back some of my stupid and selfish actions from years past.

[TACODOC]

Me too...

I wish I could take back some of my stupid and selfish actions from years past.

Dont we all...

This is a very thought provoking thread :lurk:

[awalter]

I am not sold on the concept that if it is difficult to reach, those that do will be more resposible to our environment. Look at the abuse the Himilayas have taken for those hikers, trekkers & mountaineers that have visited the area over the last 20 years. The tons of abandoned gear & waste is appalling.

Granted, the commercialism of a Himilayan adventure has probably been a key factor.

Bill,
I don't have a solution, but I don't want to just give in. I'm still hopeful through education, forums such as Expo Portal & others we can make a difference.

[Ursidae69]

My thoughts are the 4x4 community, the backpacking community , the mountain bike community, the rock climbing community are all a slice from our society & contain the full spectrum of the good to the bad. It is true that the more exposed an area is to human contact, the higher the chance of abuse. if there are natural barriers that lessen human contact so be it. I don't think any one group has a better class of people within it. I don't want to give up trying to educate people in how to use these resources properly.


Great points Al. All these segments of society all use public land. Let's not overlook other uses of public land like mining, ranching, oil, & natural gas. These uses can have both sustainable use as well as abuse on public lands.

Like you, I have hope forums like this one can raise awareness and educate on these type issues. I hope all the user groups of public lands have similar discussions.

[bigreen505]

Chuck, perhaps that is true on a low level. The problem with ExPo and forums like it, are they attract like-minded people. It is like having a conference or seminar series on business ethics -- the people who come and who are interested tend to have pretty impecable ethics. The people who need it are not interested.

And Al, you are right about the trash. It got me thinking about some of the more remote, out of the way, hike-to camping spots that I have been to and found beer cans and bottles, shells, broken glass, etc. And in most cases I left it all there because I did not come prepared to haul out someone else's trash. With the truck I always have a few extra bags.

It seems like we need some sort of trail ethics and ettiquite seminars. They would need to be sponsored so they are basically free. Presented by Tread Lightly, some conflict resolution people (how do you talk to people on the trail when you see them doing bad stuff), a couple environmental groups so there is buy-in from that community and they feel included.

One thing I hear over and over in the photographic community is the best environmentalists (biologists, naturalists, etc.) make the best nature photographers because they understand what they are shooting more than the average person who just sees a flower. I think it holds true for the off-road crowd too. It seems that if people really understood the history and ecology of the areas they traveled in, they would have a deeper appreciation and respect beyond "tearing up the trails with my buddies," but deep down I know that is pretty naieve.

[Ursidae69]

Chuck, perhaps that is true on a low level. The problem with ExPo and forums like it, are they attract like-minded people. It is like having a conference or seminar series on business ethics -- the people who come and who are interested tend to have pretty impecable ethics. The people who need it are not interested.


I agree to some extent, but at the same time, most of the members here are members on other forums. The trips on this forum are discussed on many other forums and the principles we are trying to impart will hopefully spread.



It seems like we need some sort of trail ethics and ettiquite seminars. They would need to be sponsored so they are basically free. Presented by Tread Lightly, some conflict resolution people (how do you talk to people on the trail when you see them doing bad stuff), a couple environmental groups so there is buy-in from that community and they feel included.


I love this idea. Trail seminars! They could be customized to user groups, trucks, ATVs, mountain bikers, hikers, you name it. Maybe Tread Lightly! does this already? I've never seen them advertised before if they do.

[devinsixtyseven]

I love this idea. Trail seminars! They could be customized to user groups, trucks, ATVs, mountain bikers, hikers, you name it. Maybe Tread Lightly! does this already? I've never seen them advertised before if they do.that's a great idea. didn't you guys (collective you) have something similar at this year's expedition trophy?

something like that, geared toward multi-use, might go a long way toward building respect between users and encouraging good stewardship of public lands. while the cynical part of me thinks any group involving an environmental preservation group and anyone with an OHV has the potential to be a marriage made in hell, it also has the potential to show each group that they are working for a common purpose and have a lot to offer and teach the other group. might need those conflict resolution people at first, to keep everyone from yelling at each other :gunt:.

does anything like this exist in a more public setting? just making the effort might begin to change people's opinions toward the opposite end of their user spectrum. it's easier to get the people who need to hear it to listen if it has public exposure, as well as buy-in from a couple different groups...ie more people will take a trail ettiquette class seriously if it's supported by a preservation group as well as an offroad/mtb/adventure/etc group.

the community here at the expo IS different. it's like a hybrid of ttora and the sierra club, or something...and I doubt there are many other communities like it, though I know other communities have members with similar interests.

I think it's very important to keep in mind that for whatever reason, some people will never, ever change their tune despite all our best efforts...some people will never understand or care why it's so rude to steal, disturb or vandalize something. for others, it will never make sense why a person would want to drive or ride somewhere when they can take a perfectly good walk. we're all talking generalizations, and it's important to remember there will always be exceptions...whether it's the Amish guy who wants to try rock crawling, a guy from the NRA who supports wildlife conservation, or somebody from either group who absolutely refuses to even try to understand the other side of an issue.

-sean