More people outside = worse for the environment

Since the other thread got (prematurely) locked there was never a link to any studies. Insight? 

The other thread being locked worries me. 

IDK about the other thread either, thanks for continuing it. 

I've taken a lot of people outdoors on OB courses, mostly. 

I do regret sharing too much with others about certain climbing areas. Although certain things are inevitable.

I used to feel differently but having seen how things have changed at many of my beloved areas, climbing and otherwise, I am no longer interested in sharing the outdoors with unappreciative and careless abusers of public lands. Most Americans have a healthy respect for the environment. There are some notable exceptions for sure. However, in my experience many of these types are foreigners (I won't get more specific than that, but many other nationalities). I've begun to think there should be a limit on the percentage of foreign visitors to National Parks. Or, to put it in a more positive way, reserve a certain percentage of park entry slots (a majority, for sure) for American citizens. Just a thought. RMNP, Glacier and Arches already have put caps on park entry during peak visitation, Yosemite isn't far behind. 

Shouldn't foreign visitors also have to pay a premium to visit our national treasures? A mandatory education course wouldn't hurt either.

Stefan Jacobsenwrote:

The other thread being locked worries me. 

Why? OP probably didn’t hear what they wanted and locked it. I’m interested in the ”studies” and “data” that were referenced, but not linked. 

Since we're already deputizing civilians to enforce certain state laws through the courts, why not extend this to outdoor behavior? Shouldn't be too hard given that we Americans hate privacy. I should be able to upload a video of your jackassery to an app and split the hefty fine with the land management agency. Jackass can pay an extra fee to keep the footage out of the public domain.

Until then, can't we set up a public shaming forum where we link to footage of our fellow climbers ruining everyone else's day at the crag? Or has someone beat me to the idea?

Logan Petersonwrote:

Since we're already deputizing civilians to enforce certain state laws through the courts, why not extend this to outdoor behavior? Shouldn't be too hard given that we Americans hate privacy. I should be able to upload a video of your jackassery to an app and split the hefty fine with the land management agency. Jackass can pay an extra fee to keep the footage out of the public domain.

Until then, can't we set up a public shaming forum where we link to footage of our fellow climbers ruining everyone else's day at the crag? Or has someone beat me to the idea?

I don't like the destruction of the outdoors as much as anybody, but this take is hilarious. Why have big brother when you have big neighbor reporting your every move to the authorities and a scarlet letter shaming you in the public square.

People love to put themselves in chains.

Sounds like a social credit system. 

Let me know when you all are done jerking each other off over crowds, bolts, and freedom. I'll be part of the crowd actually climbing and enjoying themselves in the meantime.

Except you're here, wading around in the sludge, like the rest of us.

I Fwrote:

Let me know when you all are done jerking each other off over crowds, bolts, and freedom. I'll be part of the crowd actually climbing and enjoying themselves in the meantime.

Love these types of comments. Here you are with the rest of us. 

I Fwrote:

Let me know when you all are done jerking each other off over crowds, bolts, and freedom. I'll be part of the crowd actually climbing and enjoying themselves in the meantime.

Lol.  What you actually said is “I’m not climbing either, so I came to the forum to jerk myself off in front of you”.

There are ways put forth an opinion without totally undercutting all credibility 

"Are we...you.. the outdoor users who are doing all these things? I don't think many would openly admit that they are the negligent, selfish, roiling masses from whom the outdoors needs protection."

Will C wrote:

Who exactly is this thread (and the other one) for? I see complaints of crowds, bolts, cigarette butts, actual human shit, driving off road or trail, leaving beer cans, unbrushed tick marks, etc. Are we...you.. the outdoor users who are doing all these things? I don't think many would openly admit that they are the negligent, selfish, roiling masses from whom the outdoors needs protection.

The general 'vibe' here is that 'Well, I always leave no trace unlike those gumbies.' So why the thread? If the MP forum users aren't the ones to complain about, who is this thread for? The supposed perps aren't here, they're not going to see this.

Also humorous that the guy whos surname is Marx is the one arguing against more government involvement and surveillance.

Well I, for one, am stuck with family where there is no climbing, so this is as close to climbing as I’ll get for a week…..but I am also genuinely interested in the studies and data that were starting to be reference in the previous thread that got locked for absolutely zero reason.

Additionally, your comment qualifies you as a person that “this thread is for”….

Will C wrote:

Who exactly is this thread (and the other one) for? I see complaints of crowds, bolts, cigarette butts, actual human shit, driving off road or trail, leaving beer cans, unbrushed tick marks, etc. Are we...you.. the outdoor users who are doing all these things? I don't think many would openly admit that they are the negligent, selfish, roiling masses from whom the outdoors needs protection…..

To answer your question, the thread isn’t “for” anyone in particular…or against anyone in particular either.     It just asks the question; “are more people involved in outdoor activities a net gain for the environment or a net loss”.   And also asks for real any data (if there is) to bolster a position one way or another

Prevailing opinion seems to be on the “net loss” side of the ledger  

For me, two reasons in general…

1.  People don’t need to have a direct connection or stake to “care” or try to influence things.  They just need the concept in their heads, like the grain of sand to initiate the pearl.  Example is all the people who care about whales, yet >99% have never seen one in person and they don’t dive or boat in “whale country” and will never see one
2.  The greater the numbers, the larger and more diverse and widespread the impact.  It’s just a math/statistics thing.  Not really a holier than thou position.  We all leave an impact, be we   Expert/cognescenti  or ignorant noob, and it’s a difficult position to argue that more out there trampling and impacting adds real benefit to the trampled and impacted.   In the end, they (nature) doesn’t so much feel the love as they feel the boot.   Ask a whale if they want more divers and boats going out to “love and experience” them   

Mark Pilatewrote:

   In the end, they (nature) doesn’t so much feel the love as they feel the boot.   Ask a whale if they want more divers and boats going out to “love and experience” them   

Tourists just like to experience "quaint" small coastal towns with 40,000 of their friends and neighbors at one time around here, then they complain about the slow service and crowded sidewalks. 

We humans are a special bunch.

Many people who go outside appreciate the environment and work to protect it through user fees, voting, donating, raising public awareness, etc. So as long as people are low impact outside it's probably better for the environment. Trails and bolts have infinitesimally less impact than a mining operation that outdoor users may fight against.

It's kind of like zoos. Some people say all zoos should be closed and animals only belong in nature. But a zoo with good habitat for the animals provides a lot of good. A reservoir of genes for endangered animals, education and motivation to protect wild animals and habitat, etc.

Gloweringwrote:

Many people who go outside appreciate the environment and work to protect it through user fees, voting, donating, raising public awareness, etc. 

Paying a state park entrance fee is hardly “work(ing) to protect” the environment. As far the rest of your examples, I am genuinely curious as to what percentage of users donate money towards organizations and coalitions that actually do work for the environment. This is partly why I resurrected this topic. I doubt the percentage is larger than 10%. 

Trails and bolts have infinitesimally less impact than a mining operation that outdoor users may fight against.

You’re missing the point…miners aren’t the “more people outside” we are talking about. Climbers, overlanders, and other people regularly recreating outside who are shitting in the woods, creating their own trails/campsites, and leaving trash behind are the “more people outside” we are talking about. 

It's kind of like zoos. Some people say all zoos should be closed and animals only belong in nature. But a zoo with good habitat for the animals provides a lot of good. A reservoir of genes for endangered animals, education and motivation to protect wild animals and habitat, etc.

I agree with your perspective of how zoos operate…however I disagree with this analogy. Having more zoos is not going to noticeably improve the biological diversity or success of our ecosystems the majority of the time. Additionally, in your zoo analogy, you are assuming every new zoo that would be built would be providing some sort of positive action/contribution towards its purpose. This is certainly not the case with new outdoor users. 

Paying park entrance fees justifies paying for the rangers, etc. National Parks are better protected than BLM lands which have much looser regulation and no fees. As I said "So long as people are low impact" that doesn't include people shitting in the woods incorrectly, creating their own trails/campsites and leaving trash. I didn't see the original post so if this thread is only talking about people who trash the environment obviously those people are worse for the environment.

Probably on average having more people outside is worse for the environment and I've seen that over my lifetime in some locations, but it's people who aren't low impact causing the problems. If the amount of people outside doubles, the amount of people causing the problems also probably doubles. It's not the total number of people, it's the total number of trashy people.

due to lack of knowledge of what was being done Glen Canyon was drowned... 

We all hate people in the outdoors and will justify our selfishness every way we can but I can't help but think if more people had been in Glen Canyon it never would have become the disgusting puddle it is today.

Re. the title of the thread. If you only think of "the environment" as "the outdoors" then perhaps. But people who aren't outdoors are SOMEWHERE. And they're affecting the environment no matter what. I'd argue that a person hiking or riding a bike, even if they're obnoxiously leaving candy wrappers behind, is doing less damage to the actual ENVIRONMENT than someone driving a muscle car down the road or sitting in a big house with all the lights and TVs on and a heater going. 

Andrew Ricewrote:

Re. the title of the thread. If you only think of "the environment" as "the outdoors" then perhaps.

I’m not sure it’s relevant whether anyone “thinks” this. The question is, quite literally; is having more people outside, recreating better or worse for the environment? 

 But people who aren't outdoors are SOMEWHERE. And they're affecting the environment no matter what. 

I'd argue that a person hiking or riding a bike, even if they're obnoxiously leaving candy wrappers behind, is doing less damage to the actual ENVIRONMENT than someone driving a muscle car down the road or sitting in a big house with all the lights and TVs on and a heater going. 

Nobody is arguing that because that has literally nothing to do with the question being asked. It ain’t that deep, of course burning fossil fuels is bad for the environment. That has zero relevance to whether or not there are more people being outside lol