Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
05-10-2019, 10:52 AM   #46
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
rogerstg's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Rhode Island
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,168
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
Must be some kind of urban generalization. My dogs are always off leash. They don't harm or chase wildlife, or cause any damage to the environment. I'm not sure what that has to do with anything?
The OP puts you (and me, btw) in the same group as the people that litter with lit cigarette butts and crap on the stream bank. Context.

QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
I guess "elitist" isn't a generalization in your world? You really need to think these things through.
Nope, it's a noun or adjective, while a generalization involves a statement. For example: Cow is not a generalization, but "Cows give milk" is a generalization. I hope this helps you to understand in "your world"

I'm unsubscribing from this thread now. It's become unproductive.

05-10-2019, 11:18 AM - 1 Like   #47
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
The Madshutter's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Tuscany, Italy
Posts: 1,255
Original Poster
Let's try and put this elite / elitist thing to rest.

First of all, let's take my controversial statement in full (bold added): "People that go to the outdoor just to park the car, walk to the iconic spot, take a selfie in front of it, go back to the car, drive to the next iconic spot generally have absolutely no understanding of nature and very little respect for it and its fragility. For many of them, they might as well keep sitting on their couch."

I never said that all "people that go to the outdoor just to park the car, walk to the iconic spot, take a selfie in front of it, go back to the car, drive to the next iconic spot have absolutely no understanding of nature and very little respect for it and its fragility.", but that they generally do, nor did I say that all of them might as well be sitting on the couch, but that many of them could and it would make no difference re: their appreciation for nature.

Now, when you describe a phenomenon you are bound to assign categories to groups of people and describe their behaviour. I described the general behaviour of a group of people, making it clear that I didn't intend to assign that behaviour to all of them all the time, but to many of them generally. Defining this approach to debate "elitist" would mean to negate social sciences at large. That said, you can agree with my statement or not, of course, and you are welcome to discuss the statement's trueness or falseness as long as you want, that's a total different thing. I believe what I said to be true, and I witnessed so many examples of it being true that I am going to stand behind it. One poster offered a counterexample, which is great, I am very happy to hear that there are exceptions and nature-lovers, respectful people even in the selfie crowd.

That said. Even if my statement were elitist, I am pretty sure that we can all agree that the existence of elites, as normhead perfectly put, has been fundamental in the development of civilisation. Personally, I would be honoured to be considered part of an elite of photographers, or part of an elite of environmental protectionists. Perhaps you don't, and would prefer to be part of a mediocre group of photographers instead, and that is absolutely fine by me. Personally, I am working very hard to improve and better myself every day, hoping that one day my work will be considered by the community and by my peers worth the definition of "elite". Perhaps I will never be considered part of an "elite" of landscape photographers, but at least, even if that will never happen, I will have tried, I will have given it my best effort and put my best energies into it, and I am pretty sure that I will be the better for that - elite or not - and that's what counts for me. To each his own.

Now, gentlemen, how about going back to the topic of this thread?

Best regards,

Vieri
05-10-2019, 12:53 PM   #48
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
MossyRocks's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Minnesota
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,978
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
I've seen trails torn up by ATV's in a couple of hours that had been in continuous use for a thousand years by the natives in the area and later by wilderness campers.
I hate ATV riders like that as they ruin it for those of us who follow the rules. While I use an ATV up at my lake property out on the public land I don't tear up the trails and actually have a much quieter muffler on it so as to not be super disruptive. However it seems that there are some people who just can't resist because they don't care. Two years ago I had almost finished filling the existing holes in the trails from decades of neglect on the public land but got new neighbors up there and they and their stupid kids who come up don't give a shit. After 1 summer of their abuse the holes were deeper and wider than ever and with heavy clay and pebble soil those holes never drain. These people also basically completely cleared almost their entire 3.5 acre plot of trees and then put in grass. They are from the rural area south of the twin cities but for some reason they moved to the wood to put in and take care of grass. I've thought about making some caltrops and tossing them in the puddles but am not that big of an *******.
05-10-2019, 12:56 PM   #49
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 40,442
QuoteOriginally posted by The Madshutter Quote
Let's try and put this elite / elitist thing to rest.

First of all, let's take my controversial statement in full (bold added): "People that go to the outdoor just to park the car, walk to the iconic spot, take a selfie in front of it, go back to the car, drive to the next iconic spot generally have absolutely no understanding of nature and very little respect for it and its fragility. For many of them, they might as well keep sitting on their couch."

I never said that all "people that go to the outdoor just to park the car, walk to the iconic spot, take a selfie in front of it, go back to the car, drive to the next iconic spot have absolutely no understanding of nature and very little respect for it and its fragility.", but that they generally do, nor did I say that all of them might as well be sitting on the couch, but that many of them could and it would make no difference re: their appreciation for nature.

Now, when you describe a phenomenon you are bound to assign categories to groups of people and describe their behaviour. I described the general behaviour of a group of people, making it clear that I didn't intend to assign that behaviour to all of them all the time, but to many of them generally. Defining this approach to debate "elitist" would mean to negate social sciences at large. That said, you can agree with my statement or not, of course, and you are welcome to discuss the statement's trueness or falseness as long as you want, that's a total different thing. I believe what I said to be true, and I witnessed so many examples of it being true that I am going to stand behind it. One poster offered a counterexample, which is great, I am very happy to hear that there are exceptions and nature-lovers, respectful people even in the selfie crowd.

That said. Even if my statement were elitist, I am pretty sure that we can all agree that the existence of elites, as normhead perfectly put, has been fundamental in the development of civilisation. Personally, I would be honoured to be considered part of an elite of photographers, or part of an elite of environmental protectionists. Perhaps you don't, and would prefer to be part of a mediocre group of photographers instead, and that is absolutely fine by me. Personally, I am working very hard to improve and better myself every day, hoping that one day my work will be considered by the community and by my peers worth the definition of "elite". Perhaps I will never be considered part of an "elite" of landscape photographers, but at least, even if that will never happen, I will have tried, I will have given it my best effort and put my best energies into it, and I am pretty sure that I will be the better for that - elite or not - and that's what counts for me. To each his own.

Now, gentlemen, how about going back to the topic of this thread?

Best regards,

Vieri
Awesome idea.

05-10-2019, 03:16 PM - 1 Like   #50
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
monochrome's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Working From Home
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 26,276
QuoteOriginally posted by MossyRocks Quote
I hate ATV riders like that as they ruin it for those of us who follow the rules. While I use an ATV up at my lake property out on the public land I don't tear up the trails and actually have a much quieter muffler on it so as to not be super disruptive. However it seems that there are some people who just can't resist because they don't care. Two years ago I had almost finished filling the existing holes in the trails from decades of neglect on the public land but got new neighbors up there and they and their stupid kids who come up don't give a shit. After 1 summer of their abuse the holes were deeper and wider than ever and with heavy clay and pebble soil those holes never drain. These people also basically completely cleared almost their entire 3.5 acre plot of trees and then put in grass. They are from the rural area south of the twin cities but for some reason they moved to the wood to put in and take care of grass. I've thought about making some caltrops and tossing them in the puddles but am not that big of an *******.
Ya know, last weekend I went to the Botanical Garden to shoot the last of the Azaleas. Of course the place was mobbed - we haven’t had many sunny days this spring. I swear if a single person in The Garden wasn’t taking pictures with a phone he or she had a camera. Yet there was nothing but smiles, winks, “nice camera” comments, waiting to avoid photobombing and waiting to let the walkers pass. No one clips blooms or walks where it would harm something. Visitors respect the institution, the place, the other people and the experience.

Maybe it’s a midwestern thing but this is the norm here. Common courtesy, self-awareness, use of trash cans, picking up trash that ‘got away’, taking care of what we have so we have it tomorrow, voting special tax levies so the Zoo, Botanical Garden, Parks, Art Museum, Arboretum and a number of other venues are free to residents . . . . .

What’s so controversial about this?

Last edited by monochrome; 05-10-2019 at 03:28 PM.
05-11-2019, 12:09 PM   #51
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
The Madshutter's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Tuscany, Italy
Posts: 1,255
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by monochrome Quote
Ya know, last weekend I went to the Botanical Garden to shoot the last of the Azaleas. Of course the place was mobbed - we haven’t had many sunny days this spring. I swear if a single person in The Garden wasn’t taking pictures with a phone he or she had a camera. Yet there was nothing but smiles, winks, “nice camera” comments, waiting to avoid photobombing and waiting to let the walkers pass. No one clips blooms or walks where it would harm something. Visitors respect the institution, the place, the other people and the experience.

Maybe it’s a midwestern thing but this is the norm here. Common courtesy, self-awareness, use of trash cans, picking up trash that ‘got away’, taking care of what we have so we have it tomorrow, voting special tax levies so the Zoo, Botanical Garden, Parks, Art Museum, Arboretum and a number of other venues are free to residents . . . . .

What’s so controversial about this?
That's great news, I am very happy to hear that Best regards,

Vieri
05-13-2019, 10:11 PM   #52
Otis Memorial Pentaxian
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 42,007
QuoteOriginally posted by The Madshutter Quote
Indeed Steve, many of us have opinions and that's fine, however this is my thread and I am interested in a discussion on the ideas I put out there. Therefore, if someone wants to take part in this discussion, it is not only polite but necessary that he or she reads what I am trying to discuss, isn't it? Otherwise, it becomes at best a huge lost of time, since I have to keep repeating things I already wrote in the article, and at worst completely useless Of course, if you or others are not interested in this discussion you can just ignore it, and if you are interested in discussing something else, you are free to start your own thread.
Thread ownership is an interesting concept. OK, here is some discussion of the content at the linked site.
  • Excellent rules for workshops. It is good that your's are conducted that way.
  • Laudable explicit support for a structured environmental ethic.
  • (no need to comment)
  • (no need to comment)
  • Gorgeous photos!
  • I appreciate why an equivalent post here would not work.
In case any are interested, here are links to the Nature First and Leave No Trace affiliate sites...
Nature First - The Alliance for Responsible Nature Photography

Protect the Outdoors - Leave No Trace Center for Outdoor Ethics
Nature First is directly related to photography and is worth exploring, particularly their "Principles" page (LINK). Most of the points on that page have been touched on in the various comments on this thread, but are well stated there. I am was impressed that PhotoCascadia (a group that is more or less local to me) is one of their affiliates. If one supports the aims/goals of the organization, membership might be a good idea, particularly if a working nature photography pro.


Steve

(...trying to stay on topic...)


Last edited by stevebrot; 05-13-2019 at 10:54 PM. Reason: Clarity and focus
05-14-2019, 12:20 AM   #53
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
The Madshutter's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Tuscany, Italy
Posts: 1,255
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by stevebrot Quote
Thread ownership is an interesting concept. OK, here is some discussion of the content at the linked site.
  • Excellent rules for workshops. It is good that your's are conducted that way.
  • Laudable explicit support for a structured environmental ethic.
  • (no need to comment)
  • (no need to comment)
  • Gorgeous photos!
  • I appreciate why an equivalent post here would not work.
In case any are interested, here are links to the Nature First and Leave No Trace affiliate sites...
Nature First - The Alliance for Responsible Nature Photography

Protect the Outdoors - Leave No Trace Center for Outdoor Ethics
Nature First is directly related to photography and is worth exploring, particularly their "Principles" page (LINK). Most of the points on that page have been touched on in the various comments on this thread, but are well stated there. I am was impressed that PhotoCascadia (a group that is more or less local to me) is one of their affiliates. If one supports the aims/goals of the organization, membership might be a good idea, particularly if a working nature photography pro.


Steve

(...trying to stay on topic...)
Hello Steve,

thank you for your reply. Thread ownership might be an interesting concept, as is staying on topic, which - as you well know - was the point I was trying to make, I wasn't trying to own 0s and 1s in cyberspace

Back to the topic, I am glad you agree with my ideas about supporting a structured environmental ethic, which was the whole idea of my article. I am also happy you enjoyed the photos, thank you. Thank you for sharing here Nature First & Leave no Trace, which I think are doing a great job in the right direction.

One thing that I noticed in the thread here, is how - perhaps due to the majority of people being from the US - all the talk have been very US-centric. This confirmed me something I always believed, which is that when it comes to the environment perhaps looking a bit farther than our local would help, generally speaking. The World is one when it comes to the environment, and distances become immediately much smaller in terms of "a disaster in XX country will not have any effect on me", or "spoiling the environment in country XX will not change my lifestyle" or something like that.

Please note that I am not saying this against US people here, on the contrary, it definitely goes both ways: if you go to Leave No Trace International partner list here: International Partners - Leave No Trace Center for Outdoor Ethics you'll notice how there are ONLY 18 other partners all over the World besides myself. The rationale is probably "why would I pay to support environment in the US if I live in XX?", but that feels a bit short-sighted to me.

About parks. I think that the US National Park system is great and is doing a pretty good job educating park visitors; however, i.e, in Italy there are many National / Regional Parks but they aren't as good as the ones in the US; i.e, if you go to the Isle of Skye in Scotland, despite the huge crowds (and the large number of photographers!), there is nothing of that sort. Same for Iceland: some areas are National Parks, but when you get there there somewhere there are educational support, visitor centres and the like, somewhere there is nothing. And so on. What I mean here is, some of the photographic "must go" destinations are in structured NP of sorts, many are not, and protecting the environment in the former is much easier than it is in the latter, where we should probably be much more active an individuals, by following and promoting good environmental principles ourselves without waiting for a Park / Ranger / Someone to tell us what to do.

Best regards,

Vieri
05-14-2019, 07:18 PM   #54
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 40,442
With all due respect, this i like preaching "Don't play with matches" while your house is burning down. It's good thing to do. Don't play with matches is good advice, but you still need building code with fire regulations, and fire department. If you stop there, you'll have a nice clean barren ecosystem.
05-15-2019, 12:10 AM   #55
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
The Madshutter's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Tuscany, Italy
Posts: 1,255
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
With all due respect, this i like preaching "Don't play with matches" while your house is burning down. It's good thing to do. Don't play with matches is good advice, but you still need building code with fire regulations, and fire department. If you stop there, you'll have a nice clean barren ecosystem.
Norm, it is not clear to me to which of the posts / comments above yours you are referring to. Care to elaborate, perhaps? Thank you!

Best regards,

Vieri
05-15-2019, 06:23 AM   #56
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 40,442
I was reading the article.... you posted and other Leave NO Trace literature.
05-15-2019, 06:55 AM   #57
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
The Madshutter's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Tuscany, Italy
Posts: 1,255
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
I was reading the article.... you posted and other Leave NO Trace literature.
I see, thank you for that. Well, to stay in your parallelism:

- Individuals should never play with matches; if nobody did, the risk of fires and the need for fire brigades and fire regulation would be smaller to begin with; so, as individuals, we can teach other individuals to stay away from matches;
- Organised groups can promote "never play with matches" policies, reaching far more people than single individuals could;
- That said, individuals should pressure politicians to pass fire regulations, create / fund fire brigades, create fire-free parks (national parks, out of parallelism) and the like; individuals definitely can do that, but also in this case, I believe that organised groups of individuals definitely have more pressure-power than single individuals;

Hope this calcify my position

Best regards,

Vieri
05-15-2019, 07:09 AM - 1 Like   #58
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 40,442
QuoteOriginally posted by The Madshutter Quote
create fire-free parks (national parks, out of parallelism)
The goal of fire free parks is certainly my biggest objection. That depends entirely on the park. And the production of one use fossil fuel containers that have to be manufactured disposed of is certainly problematic. Where I camp. camp fires are big part of the experience. The goal of using burning fossil fuels instead of wood, sustainable as opposed to unsustainable fuels is something for my environment, that simply isn't ever going to have my support.

Almost everyone in my town sells firewood to campers to augment their incomes. Both my favourite eco organizations have campaigns that discourage logging in Algonquin Park. It's 7000 sq. km park, and the local economies depend on the well managed wood supply. As well the network of logging roads provide access for emergency crews and medical evacuations. So, I'm extremely sensitive to folks who want to make rules for where I live that don't let me make rules for where they live.

Last edited by normhead; 05-15-2019 at 07:53 AM.
05-15-2019, 07:51 AM - 2 Likes   #59
Pentaxian
photoptimist's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2016
Photos: Albums
Posts: 5,113
The "fire-free" concept also raises the controversial issue of fire suppression in forest management.

Humans may think forest fires are "bad" and burned areas are "ugly," but fire plays an essential and multifaceted role in many ecosystems. Some of the problems the US is facing with very large-scale forest fires stems from a naive and regrettable decades-long policy fo fire suppression.

In some cases, preventing "human impact" creates a more serious problem.
05-15-2019, 07:58 AM   #60
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 40,442
QuoteOriginally posted by photoptimist Quote
The "fire-free" concept also raises the controversial issue of fire suppression in forest management.

Humans may think forest fires are "bad" and burned areas are "ugly," but fire plays an essential and multifaceted role in many ecosystems. Some of the problems the US is facing with very large-scale forest fires stems from a naive and regrettable decades-long policy fo fire suppression.

In some cases, preventing "human impact" creates a more serious problem.
The record on the big pines shows the for thousands of years, the natives in this area burned portions of the park to provide feed for deer. Fire suppression has been a complete disaster. Every dry summer somewhere in Ontario has a major forest fires, which are getting to be bigger and bigger all the time. The forest behind my house is so full of dry deadfall, an out of control fire would almost certain damage my house.

The historical record shows a long history of the forest regenerating itself through fire. Then a bunch of folks come along and decide fire isn't a natural thing. From my perspective it's completely bizarre. Many native plants only occur as first growth after big fire. It would seem to be the goal of "conservationists" to eradicate these plants.

There was a controlled burn at the old airfield in Algonquin a few years ago. Now every summer there are 20 bears there feasting on the first growth blueberries. So this is not theoretical. There is less for wildlife to eat because of fire management. It affects the whole ecosystem. It's a travesty to call these managed forests a natural environment, just because of the reduction in the number of wildlife present.

Paul (the native we bought our house from) tells me, after the last clear cut behind my house you could drive to Hardtack lake, 7km from my house and see 150 deer along the way. Now, we see one or two every three for four years.

Instead of being able to augment their income hunting, now we have forest managed for loggers. For the locals, it is taking money out of their wallets so we can have a PC correctly managed forest, which doesn't even work out all that well for the loggers. Urban ideals of what wilderness should be have been implemented at the expense fo the locals, and completely without compensation of any sort.

Folks like myself are always caught in the middle. We want the southerners to control the hoards of urban tourists that come this way in the summer, but we don't need them making the kinds of policy decisions they've imposed on the environment.

And we certainly don't need outsiders telling us we can't pull dry brush that is sooner or later going to be tinder for a huge fire out of the bush to make campfires on sites that have been thoroughly prepared by park staff, including digging 7 feet under them and removing any tree roots, and back filling with sand.

Urbanites think their back yard gardens are natural and the way all nature should be as far as I can tell.

Last edited by normhead; 05-15-2019 at 08:21 AM.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
article, blog, boat, car, cats, dogs, drive, engine, ground, iconic, landscape, motorhome, nature, people, photographers, photography, post, protection, protection and landscape, rv, streams, titan, travel, wildlife, yukon
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Environmental Portrait Advice Blacknight659 Photographic Technique 8 11-18-2015 08:28 AM
Environmental portraits - removing color clutter rrstuff Digital Processing, Software, and Printing 20 03-24-2015 11:02 AM
Cutting through haze and other such environmental conditions jpzk Photographic Technique 12 12-13-2010 08:17 PM
Environmental & Standard Portrait paulyrichard Post Your Photos! 13 05-02-2009 12:35 PM
A Child's Perspective of the World Environmental Crisis benjikan General Talk 6 06-29-2008 02:23 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:54 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top