Comments on: Accessibility,wildness,and politics

By: Leo

Leo — Tue, 19 Dec 2017 02:05:52 +0000

Oh so like Edward Abbey. Rather like what they did to his beloved Arches. Industrial tourism for people in sardine cans with wheels.

By: Jim Austin (Skyline)

Jim Austin (Skyline) — Mon, 18 Dec 2017 17:14:17 +0000

So long as there are ample places to get away — really get away — from the developmental mindset within a few hours drive for everyone, that balances the national and state lands where amenities make those more accessible and easier to navigate.

But we must be vigilant that these places continue to exist by making sure they continue to be protected. This requires political advocacy and activism.

By: Steve Farley

Steve Farley — Mon, 18 Dec 2017 16:19:16 +0000

I’ve thought about this myself Mags, there are many places not doable/accessible (for a number of reasons) to me and I’m pretty fit with good skill sets and adequate gear. I then ratchet my expectations down to areas that are accessible to what I can now do and cherish those previous memories forever. As you point out part of the experience is the aspect of getting somewhere remote and then enjoying the solitude of having gotten there with your own wits/physical skills.

BTW, who will pay for a 50-mile paved road to HITR and then maintain the blue grass etc.? A paved road in a park setting will not be the same experience the old LDS’ers experienced. There will still only be the visitor center dioramas left to tell the true story, not much different than what is now in the town of Escalante.

By: Not A Bear

Not A Bear — Sun, 17 Dec 2017 20:14:30 +0000

Couldn’t agree more. Imo, we’ve reached the point where we should start having *very* high hurdles for creating or “improving” roads in rural and wild areas. In fact, my preferred avenue for limiting access to wild places where overuse is putting undue burden on the natural ecology is to close the road that goes there to vehicular traffic. People can walk. Or bike. Those who are not able might be able to hire a pedicab.

The issue I see here is, what might be called, snapshot tourism. Drive to a park, take a picture, drive to your hotel – the beautiful wilderness acts and is seen as nothing more than a pretty picture. People don’t take the time to notice the subtle beauties that are surrounding them. They don’t feel the reward of having to work to find the dramatic view.

Rather than building more roads to encourage snapshot tourism, I’d be far more interested in spending our public dollars on education programs so people can feel the more remote wildernesses are accessible to them (and so they’ll access them in a responsible mannar, wag bag and all), or on providing programs to increase access to the working poor.

By: Paul Mags

Paul Mags — Fri, 15 Dec 2017 02:50:08 +0000

In reply to Lyle Gordon. Very informative. Thx for sharing.

By: Lyle Gordon

Lyle Gordon — Mon, 11 Dec 2017 23:27:18 +0000

This set of slides from the USFS on the Recreation Opportunity
Spectrum and development creep seems relevant. https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5412128.pdf It seems like there are designations to keep places more wild but development creep is a real phenomenon and tends to make places more accessible/developed.