[MossyRocks]

Lots of good points. After years of subscribing to passive "leave no trace" practices, I now carry a repurposed polypropylene shopping bag in order to remove "trace" left by others. Folded like a paper tabletop football, the bag weighs almost nothing and can't be felt in a pocket. I think it's important to be proactive.

I'm not the only one who does that then. It seems like no matter where I go I end up using it and more often than not can fill at least one.

[photoptimist]

And now people are loving the parks to death...It doesn't help that they are underfunded...

Although I agree that the parks are underfunded, the whole "loving the parks to death" meme is simply false.

I've been to quite a few popular parks (Yosemite, Yellowstone, Grand Canyon, Rainier, Volcanos, and a bunch of others) and the human impact is very concentrated to a minuscule fraction of the park. For better or worse, the average park visitor is too unfit to go more than a few hundred yards from their car. The fitter minority who do hike tend to be a bit more conscientious. Finally, most of these parks are so far off-trail that they are virtually untouched. Thus the bulk of the damage is limited to the roadways and a few of the shorter trails that go to the more accessible "must see" locations.

No doubt one can take pictures of human impact in these parks but a random snapshot of a random spot in the park (99% of which is very far from any trail) would find little evidence of humanity.

[Wheatfield]

Although I agree that the parks are underfunded, the whole "loving the parks to death" meme is simply false.

I've been to quite a few popular parks (Yosemite, Yellowstone, Grand Canyon, Rainier, Volcanos, and a bunch of others) and the human impact is very concentrated to a minuscule fraction of the park. For better or worse, the average park visitor is too unfit to go more than a few hundred yards from their car. The fitter minority who do hike tend to be a bit more conscientious. Finally, most of these parks are so far off-trail that they are virtually untouched. Thus the bulk of the damage is limited to the roadways and a few of the shorter trails that go to the more accessible "must see" locations.

No doubt one can take pictures of human impact in these parks but a random snapshot of a random spot in the park (99% of which is very far from any trail) would find little evidence of humanity.

We visited Yellowstone many years ago and did some hiking. What we found was that 500 meters from the parking lot had weeded out almost everyone, and by the time we were a kilometre from the parking lot we pretty much had the place to ourselves. We met the occasional German, that was about it.

[boriscleto]

Although I agree that the parks are underfunded, the whole "loving the parks to death" meme is simply false.

I've been to quite a few popular parks (Yosemite, Yellowstone, Grand Canyon, Rainier, Volcanos, and a bunch of others) and the human impact is very concentrated to a minuscule fraction of the park. For better or worse, the average park visitor is too unfit to go more than a few hundred yards from their car. The fitter minority who do hike tend to be a bit more conscientious. Finally, most of these parks are so far off-trail that they are virtually untouched. Thus the bulk of the damage is limited to the roadways and a few of the shorter trails that go to the more accessible "must see" locations.

No doubt one can take pictures of human impact in these parks but a random snapshot of a random spot in the park (99% of which is very far from any trail) would find little evidence of humanity.

In NY we don't have any national parks, so I have no first hand experience. But we do have the Adirondack Park. The NY DEC is desperate to ease the pressure on the most popular trail, they are mainly cracking down on illegal parking...

When mountaintops are no place to be alone: Being 'loved to death' in the Adirondacks - newyorkupstate.com

It's just as bad, if not worse, in the Catskills which are that much closer to NYC...

[normhead]

We visited Yellowstone many years ago and did some hiking. What we found was that 500 meters from the parking lot had weeded out almost everyone, and by the time we were a kilometre from the parking lot we pretty much had the place to ourselves. We met the occasional German, that was about it.

Those Germans's are every where. What's with that?

Tess is half German and I'm 1/4. I think we both got the German exploration gene. Roughly half the people we've guided in the park were German.

[AggieDad]

I applaud you for speaking out in your blog. It certainly is difficult to argue with your lists for good environmental citizenship. I think everyone can be in agreement. In fact, most of us have probably seen the majority of these tenents since we were Cub Scouts.

But these are essentially the easy things. What environmental husbandry do we all practice that is beyond these obvious on-site good practices?

Allow me to use myself as an example. While I consider myself a good environmental citizen, I may well be the very antithesis of the environmental man. Not intentionally, but through an evolutionary process of sorts. And yet, enigmatically, much of it comes from my pursuit of enjoying nature.

I drive a huge, full-length GMC Yukon – essentially the largest production car (not truck) on the market. I originally bought the Yukon to tow my boat, a 19-foot outboard with a 115 hp engine. So right off the bat, my carbon-footprint in entirely too big. Paradoxically, I have the boat so I can enjoy nature, exploring the coves and nooks of lake shorelines, looking for wading birds, osprey and eagles. And though I have a far more efficient Chevrolet Captiva in the garage, the Yukon is my car of choice – even around town – as I am 76 years old and the Yukon is big and comfortable.

On the other hand, the Yukon is now 11 years old and the boat 12 years old. So not buying something new every 4 or 5 years might count for something.

I love to travel and experience the natural beauty of our country. But travel increases anyone's carbon footprint and degrades the environment. Another conundrum. I compound this by traveling in a motorhome powered by an 8.1-liter engine – I started small, but each RV seems to be bigger than the previous one. Also, I pull the garage-bound Captiva along behind the motorhome, so even while the RV is idle I am still out there burning fossil fuels. God, I am a carbon-footprint monster.

But maybe it's not all bad. I am retired, so while all you other folks are out there sitting alone in traffic (who really likes to carpool?) creating smog, I am home being energy efficient. I don't use a patio grill, eliminating whatever smoke and fumes they generate. I recycle. And I refuse to fly anymore, so maybe there is something in my favor. Although I admit, not much.

This is not meant to be flippant. It is meant to demonstrate that while we all work to be careful when in nature, we often forget the damage we are causing on an everyday basis.

[timb64]

Biggest environmental impact is reproducing,as I've no children I give myself a free pass for all the travelling and photo trips I like!

[normhead]

Biggest environmental impact is reproducing,as I've no children I give myself a free pass for all the travelling and photo trips I like!

Over population is the environmental issue no one wants to tackle. Every religious organization seems to have it's equivalent of "go forth and multiply." Doctrines left over from a time when we were the endangered species.

I don't use a patio grill,

You seriously don't want to say that over in 'Why I won't buy a K-3", you'll be excommunicated.

[Wheatfield]

I applaud you for speaking out in your blog. It certainly is difficult to argue with your lists for good environmental citizenship. I think everyone can be in agreement. In fact, most of us have probably seen the majority of these tenents since we were Cub Scouts.

But these are essentially the easy things. What environmental husbandry do we all practice that is beyond these obvious on-site good practices?

Allow me to use myself as an example. While I consider myself a good environmental citizen, I may well be the very antithesis of the environmental man. Not intentionally, but through an evolutionary process of sorts. And yet, enigmatically, much of it comes from my pursuit of enjoying nature.

I drive a huge, full-length GMC Yukon – essentially the largest production car (not truck) on the market. I originally bought the Yukon to tow my boat, a 19-foot outboard with a 115 hp engine. So right off the bat, my carbon-footprint in entirely too big. Paradoxically, I have the boat so I can enjoy nature, exploring the coves and nooks of lake shorelines, looking for wading birds, osprey and eagles. And though I have a far more efficient Chevrolet Captiva in the garage, the Yukon is my car of choice – even around town – as I am 76 years old and the Yukon is big and comfortable.

On the other hand, the Yukon is now 11 years old and the boat 12 years old. So not buying something new every 4 or 5 years might count for something.

I love to travel and experience the natural beauty of our country. But travel increases anyone's carbon footprint and degrades the environment. Another conundrum. I compound this by traveling in a motorhome powered by an 8.1-liter engine – I started small, but each RV seems to be bigger than the previous one. Also, I pull the garage-bound Captiva along behind the motorhome, so even while the RV is idle I am still out there burning fossil fuels. God, I am a carbon-footprint monster.

But maybe it's not all bad. I am retired, so while all you other folks are out there sitting alone in traffic (who really likes to carpool?) creating smog, I am home being energy efficient. I don't use a patio grill, eliminating whatever smoke and fumes they generate. I recycle. And I refuse to fly anymore, so maybe there is something in my favor. Although I admit, not much.

This is not meant to be flippant. It is meant to demonstrate that while we all work to be careful when in nature, we often forget the damage we are causing on an everyday basis.

HeHeHe. That’s kind of close to my story. I don’t drive a Yukon, choosing a full sized diesel powered Nissan Titan as my trailer hauler. It is also my daily driver. Fortunately, I live in a smallish city, and I am reasonably close to work. The round trip is about 13km. I don’t have a boat, but the lakes nearby are not especially nice for exploring, so no loss there.
My wife has a nice, economical sport cute, but I prefer my truck for outings.
I’m not a profligate waster in that I rarely drive to no destination just for the pleasure of the activity, but I am not driving something small enough to park in the box of my Titan, either.
And I never intend to.

---------- Post added 05-09-19 at 06:00 PM ----------

Biggest environmental impact is reproducing,as I've no children I give myself a free pass for all the travelling and photo trips I like!

^^^^^^This^^^^^^^
I went with dogs instead of kids. There are numerous advantages to them.

[luftfluss]

I'm not the only one who does that then. It seems like no matter where I go I end up using it and more often than not can fill at least one.

My wife enjoys fishing - me, not so much. So while she's fishing, I ramble around with my camera and a handful of those little shopping bags and wind up with a few decent photos and a few full bags. And occasionally even some fresh-caught fish for dinner

But it's always disconcerting to see that, besides the usual junk of bottles and trash, the fishing lines, lures, bait containers, etc. that is left behind. Like photographers, fishermen (and women) should know better.

[stevebrot]

Thank you for your answers - I am not sure everyone actually read the linked article before answering, though

Many of us have opinions and perhaps not so many of us are likely to click through to read your blog. There is a certain friendliness to read it in the actual post.

Now, my thoughts...

Within a half-day's drive of my home, there are at least a dozen iconic landscape subjects and several hundred "emerging" locations exposed through geotag or by detailed accounts of aspiring bloggers and adventure guides. At some locations (e.g. Thor's Well, Wizard's Hat, and others on the Oregon Coast) one has to wait one's turn to get the shot and even then, some excited noob may stumble across the perfect untrammeled sand into the intended frame to set up their kit. In other areas, the land and vegetation itself pays the price in the form of erosion and trampling and "weed removal".

Is there a case for keeping some locations a carefully guarded secret? My tendency is to say yes. Is there a case for selective sharing? Again, yes. Should selective sharing be accompanied by an agreement that the location not be widely shared on social media or geotagged? Is there a case for geotagging where the location is easily attained on paved road, is not environmentally sensitive or hazardous? Again, yes. Is there a case for tripod-wielding crowds at iconic locations? Need I ask?

A few years ago, I encountered a group of about a dozen folk doing a whirlwind photo tour of Oregon. Each participant paid several thousand dollars to be taken to several "secret" locations along with all the iconic ones, shown where to put one's tripod, how to take the shot, and, in the evening, how to process the shot to perfection. The one fellow I chatted with did not have the strength and stamina to get to one of the "secrets" (my photo from that day HERE). He was crestfallen. It was the dream trip of a lifetime and he had purchased gear special for the trip. I felt sorry for him, but knew that many more wonderful things were coming and was able to add that bit of encouragement. If one follows the link a few sentences back, they will notice that I included the name of the place as well as a few location hints. It is on a well-known and popular trail and there is almost always someone taking photos there, though usually not too many. The gating factor is a steep 1500' (500m) climb.

OK, all is well, except that I frequently wonder what it would be like if instead of one group, one morning a week in the non-winter months, there were three or four groups, most mornings spring through fall. There are locations in the high desert of Eastern Oregon that require four-wheel drive vehicles to get there and which are offered by some high-end photo guides. What would be the result if the impact and traffic at those places were to quadruple? I dunno.


Steve

[stevebrot]

Ansel Adams was a hundred years ago.

Ummmm, not true. He lived and photographed recently enough to have used digital cameras.


Steve

[normhead]

OK, all is well, except that I frequently wonder what it would be like if instead of one group, one morning a week in the non-winter months, there were three or four groups, most mornings spring through fall. There are locations in the high desert of Eastern Oregon that require four-wheel drive vehicles to get there and which are offered by some high-end photo guides. What would be the result if the impact and traffic at those places were to quadruple? I dunno.

Motorized travel presents a whole new set of problems. A lot of lobbying has gone into trying to get ATV's and 4x4s banned form Ontarios wild places. I'd be happy to see motorized traffic banned from any sensitive ecology. 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.

[clackers]

LIked your essay, Vieri!

I think a modern approach to conservation is to not be elitist … keep everyone out except a few users who know the right officials, etc.

It's to encourage as many city dwellers to visit as possible at least a prominent part of a park so they develop an appreciation for nature and become conservationists at least with their hearts and even better with their wallets and votes.

Photographers have a big part to play in this, since the more pictures and videos, the better. Even selfies remind people on their phones that there's more to life than their loungeroom, workplace and nearest shopping mall.

[The Madshutter]

Unfortunatly your site is blocked at work by the proxy so I haven't been able to read it. I would assume that it focuses on the added draw that happens when someone takes great photo, it gets noticed, and then the general public overwhelms the area trying to either take their own or get the perfect selfie. In this case I've come to the conclusion that there are a fair amount of people who just don't care and are more than happy to foul things up. The best thing for this situation is to not let them know where it is and better education. Monochrome has the right idea here and as I am currently active in scouts as a leader and many years ago as a scout myself the leave no trace is the most basic thing and would do wonders if more people followed it. Some of the lack of caring is lack of education and maybe we need more of the old style Crying Indian PSAs

Among that group of people who don't care are the ones who are absolutely clueless and the ones who are actively destructive. These are the people you hear about who end up dying in the hot springs/mud pots at yellostone that are well off trails because they wanted to go for a dip or get gored/trampled by bison because they wanted to pet one. These are also the same people that the Dutch are having problems with that trample farmers' tulip fields as they attempt to get their perfect selfie. They will ignore all the signs, paths, fences, trash cans, etc and just do what ever they want because they can. I don't think anything will help with those people other than keeping locations unknown or letting nature finish them off.

If the premise was damage cause by simply going to and wandering about on proper trails, well I would have done that anyway with or without a camera so that doesn't make a difference in things.

What Monochrome said is exactly what I say in the article, as is your comment about people not caring and the need for education

I'm not the only one who does that then. It seems like no matter where I go I end up using it and more often than not can fill at least one.

That is a very good thing to do, which I try and do myself as well when I have a chance - not always possible though.

I applaud you for speaking out in your blog. It certainly is difficult to argue with your lists for good environmental citizenship. I think everyone can be in agreement. In fact, most of us have probably seen the majority of these tenents since we were Cub Scouts.

But these are essentially the easy things. What environmental husbandry do we all practice that is beyond these obvious on-site good practices?

Allow me to use myself as an example. While I consider myself a good environmental citizen, I may well be the very antithesis of the environmental man. Not intentionally, but through an evolutionary process of sorts. And yet, enigmatically, much of it comes from my pursuit of enjoying nature.

I drive a huge, full-length GMC Yukon – essentially the largest production car (not truck) on the market. I originally bought the Yukon to tow my boat, a 19-foot outboard with a 115 hp engine. So right off the bat, my carbon-footprint in entirely too big. Paradoxically, I have the boat so I can enjoy nature, exploring the coves and nooks of lake shorelines, looking for wading birds, osprey and eagles. And though I have a far more efficient Chevrolet Captiva in the garage, the Yukon is my car of choice – even around town – as I am 76 years old and the Yukon is big and comfortable.

On the other hand, the Yukon is now 11 years old and the boat 12 years old. So not buying something new every 4 or 5 years might count for something.

I love to travel and experience the natural beauty of our country. But travel increases anyone's carbon footprint and degrades the environment. Another conundrum. I compound this by traveling in a motorhome powered by an 8.1-liter engine – I started small, but each RV seems to be bigger than the previous one. Also, I pull the garage-bound Captiva along behind the motorhome, so even while the RV is idle I am still out there burning fossil fuels. God, I am a carbon-footprint monster.

But maybe it's not all bad. I am retired, so while all you other folks are out there sitting alone in traffic (who really likes to carpool?) creating smog, I am home being energy efficient. I don't use a patio grill, eliminating whatever smoke and fumes they generate. I recycle. And I refuse to fly anymore, so maybe there is something in my favor. Although I admit, not much.

This is not meant to be flippant. It is meant to demonstrate that while we all work to be careful when in nature, we often forget the damage we are causing on an everyday basis.

AggieDad, thank you for your comment and for candidly sharing, I find your story interesting, not flippant at all. My article deals only with the "in the field" kind of damage, the one directly imposed on the nature by people going there. Of course, the whole environmental issue is way more complex than that, which I also say in the article. For that, and for education at large, the best we can do is support organisation with the necessary reach.

Over population is the environmental issue no one wants to tackle. Every religious organization seems to have it's equivalent of "go forth and multiply." Doctrines left over from a time when we were the endangered species.

That is very true, but I couldn't even go there in my article without risking to stir up a storm that would have moved the focus away from what was important to me in the article

...

But it's always disconcerting to see that, besides the usual junk of bottles and trash, the fishing lines, lures, bait containers, etc. that is left behind. Like photographers, fishermen (and women) should know better.

Indeed. Again, education is key. And, policing when at all possible (not often, given the size of the outdoors and the number of rangers and stuff).

Many of us have opinions and perhaps not so many of us are likely to click through to read your blog. There is a certain friendliness to read it in the actual post.

Now, my thoughts...

Within a half-day's drive of my home, there are at least a dozen iconic landscape subjects and several hundred "emerging" locations exposed through geotag or by detailed accounts of aspiring bloggers and adventure guides. At some locations (e.g. Thor's Well, Wizard's Hat, and others on the Oregon Coast) one has to wait one's turn to get the shot and even then, some excited noob may stumble across the perfect untrammeled sand into the intended frame to set up their kit. In other areas, the land and vegetation itself pays the price in the form of erosion and trampling and "weed removal".

Is there a case for keeping some locations a carefully guarded secret? My tendency is to say yes. Is there a case for selective sharing? Again, yes. Should selective sharing be accompanied by an agreement that the location not be widely shared on social media or geotagged? Is there a case for geotagging where the location is easily attained on paved road, is not environmentally sensitive or hazardous? Again, yes. Is there a case for tripod-wielding crowds at iconic locations? Need I ask?

A few years ago, I encountered a group of about a dozen folk doing a whirlwind photo tour of Oregon. Each participant paid several thousand dollars to be taken to several "secret" locations along with all the iconic ones, shown where to put one's tripod, how to take the shot, and, in the evening, how to process the shot to perfection. The one fellow I chatted with did not have the strength and stamina to get to one of the "secrets" (my photo from that day HERE). He was crestfallen. It was the dream trip of a lifetime and he had purchased gear special for the trip. I felt sorry for him, but knew that many more wonderful things were coming and was able to add that bit of encouragement. If one follows the link a few sentences back, they will notice that I included the name of the place as well as a few location hints. It is on a well-known and popular trail and there is almost always someone taking photos there, though usually not too many. The gating factor is a steep 1500' (500m) climb.

OK, all is well, except that I frequently wonder what it would be like if instead of one group, one morning a week in the non-winter months, there were three or four groups, most mornings spring through fall. There are locations in the high desert of Eastern Oregon that require four-wheel drive vehicles to get there and which are offered by some high-end photo guides. What would be the result if the impact and traffic at those places were to quadruple? I dunno.


Steve

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.

That said, I agree with your selective sharing approach, but since that is not always feasible or possible, it will not solve the problem. I think we have a much better chance of success through educating and sensitising other photographers, and the public at large, on the issue. Again, this is something that we can do individually just up to a degree, in order to expand our reach I think we need to support and help organisations set to do so.

Ummmm, not true. He lived and photographed recently enough to have used digital cameras.

Steve

Indeed he has, but first of all "hundred years ago" is proverbial for "a long time ago", and most importantly my reference was to the "jump start of the environmental" part of his life referred by the poster I was answering to, which is way before digital cameras and about a proverbial - not literal - hundred years ago.

LIked your essay, Vieri!

I think a modern approach to conservation is to not be elitist … keep everyone out except a few users who know the right officials, etc.

It's to encourage as many city dwellers to visit as possible at least a prominent part of a park so they develop an appreciation for nature and become conservationists at least with their hearts and even better with their wallets and votes.

Photographers have a big part to play in this, since the more pictures and videos, the better. Even selfies remind people on their phones that there's more to life than their loungeroom, workplace and nearest shopping mall.

Thank you very much, glad you enjoyed the article I agree with you about the non-elitist approach, I never thought or said anything of that sort. I agree a little less about the selfie part of your message. 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 see such people all the time during my travels.

Best regards,

Vieri