Hacker News Reader

Comment by sandworm101 | Hacker News Reader

But allowing so many people to enjoy that beauty simultaneously works to destroy that beauty. So to protect you must either you take steps to dissuade people, or resort to some form of enforced quota system. When it comes to public resources I'd rather see dissuasion than quotas.

If machismo works to reduce the footfall on a trail, so be it. That's much better than a gated trailhead manned by a guard taking tickets. And its far better than paved sidewalks and concrete staircases replacing trails.

View on HN

> to protect you must either you take steps to dissuade people, or resort to some form of enforced quota system

This isn't true. You can channel people into the behaviors you want by making them easier; it's not an all-or-nothing "no matter what our environment is like, 3% of visitors will leave litter" situation. There are many things you could do to reduce environmental damage while accommodating more visitors:

- You could put handrails around the trails. People aren't supposed to leave them anyway.

- You could station trash cans along the trails. This makes it much easier to throw your trash in an appropriate place.

- You could establish fire pits in which it was officially OK to have fires.

- You could patrol the trails. This doesn't work well when hikers are rare, but it scales beautifully as they get more common. Or, you could have a stationary security presence in problem areas.

- You could blaze new trails.

Everything I've listed except trail patrols is something I've personally seen in some areas. (Full disclosure, I'm actually just assuming that new trails get blazed from time to time. I have, however, personally experienced trails being radically reworked between visits.)

> [machismo is] far better than paved sidewalks and concrete staircases replacing trails

Why?

Handrails don't keep off-trail hikers from hiking off trail. Trail etiquette keeps people on trail. Respect to nature keeps people on trail.

Garbage cans in the middle of nowhere still need to be emptied or else they become full and no longer serve the need. A lot of these places are remote. It might take several hours to empty one trash can. Our parks barely have enough resources to maintain as they are. We shouldn't need to pay someone to hike in and remove your trash. I don't think it is too much to ask that if you hiked in with 5 full snickers bars that you hike out with their wrappers. Your pack always gets lighter as you go so there really is no excuse for not coming out with all your trash.

I heard "Always carry out more than you brought in," and try to go with that in mind when I can manage a good hike.

> Handrails don't keep off-trail hikers from hiking off trail. Trail etiquette keeps people on trail. Respect to nature keeps people on trail.

Trail etiquette keeps people on trail, their own personal ethics keep people on trail, and handrails also keep people on trail. Don't kid yourself.

Are you familiar with the AT? It's over 2000 miles and much of it is fairly remote. Most of what you're suggesting is nonsensical for use on the AT.

- Handrails would be fairly useless as no one would be around to enforce the rules. Eventually they'd rust and fall into disrepair (visit just about any state park in Appalachia for examples).

- Trash cans need to be emptied. Logistically, how would that work? Also, they would fall into disrepair.

- There are large portions of the AT where a fire pit would be somewhat impractical due to limited space.

- Patrol 2000 miles?

- A new trail wouldn't be the AT anymore. There are already plenty of other trails in appalachia.

Again, patrolling a 2000-mile stretch isn't difficult at all. Whether it makes sense depends on the trail population, not the trail length. I can match your faux incredulity at "patrol 2000 miles?" with "walk 2000 miles?".

Equipment maintenance is logistically much like patrolling. It requires presence (though at a much lower level).

Handrails will still work without enforcement. They'll be less effective, but they'll still decrease the level of people going off-trail.

The difference is that people choose to walk 2,000 miles, but no one chooses to patrol 2,000 miles. (If they did, it would already be patrolled.)

So how are you going pay for the patrol force? Not to mention get them to and from their assigned section, feed them, handle their waste, keep them safe--and manage their impact on the resource, since they are there on top of all the existing hikers.

Handrails? Fire pits? Patrols walking trails?

That isn't wilderness. That's disneyworld. If you put a ladder up the nose (el Capitan) it isn't the nose anymore. It isn't wild. It isn't beautiful or majestic. It's just another theme park deserving of the hordes of fat impolite and irresponsible tourists it will attract.

All of these things reduce the natural experience and irreparably damage the wilderness that people are trying to preserve in the first place. There is simply no way to develop or improve trails without also reducing their natural attributes, usually permanently.

Just as an example, the trash has to get out of the trash cans somehow. Usually that means service roads.

If your goal is to "preserve" the wilderness, running a trail through it was an obvious mistake. That's not the goal and never has been.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com