[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

camp impacts vary, was Re[2]: [at-l] hiking,dogs,bootleggers



     I don't exactly mean to start another thread, but I am not convinced 
     that concentrating impact on a smaller area (a'la Smokies) is better 
     than distributed siting (a'la Shenandoah, if they still do that), in 
     terms of either minimizing total impact on the environment OR 
     maximising the apparent "wilderness" experience of the forest user. I 
     carry this uncertainty because I have seen truly remarkable site 
     recovery (especially when assisted by maintainers) at sites with 
     minimum impacts which I have NOT seen at heavily impacted sites (which 
     were eventually closed and had to remain closed for 3+ years).
     That said, I have to note that a site's natural recovery ability is 
     very much a function of it's immediate growing season and soil 
     fertility, which in the Whites, well, OK, is a little, um, let's say 
     *challenged.* Ultimately, when push comes to shove, I'd have to bow to 
     your "hands on" knowledge, bluestreak, as having the best 
     information...but from 900 miles away, I'm just not 100% convinced.
     
     Sloetoe
     ("Yule" Gibbons in another life.)
     
     Oops. Almost forgot to disagree on other point: "Pig-campers" tend to 
     be very lazy, and not only camp nearer to roads, nearer to trails if 
     they *do* hike, etc., etc., BUT ALSO tend to *NOT* want to *work* to 
     create a site from scratch. They'll harden the easiest site they can 
     pick out (which is perhaps what OrangeBug has said), but if a stretch 
     of trail denies them easy pickings as far as finding a campsite, 
     they'll quite going to that trail as "too hard." (Well, that's my 
     story, anyway, and I'm sticking to it.) If you obliterate their 
     campsites (over a couple of seasons) bluestreak, they'll eventually 
     choose somewhere's else. Obliterate. YOU will be fulfilling *their* 
     LNT duties.
     
     (Getting really philosophical, now that the coffee is hitting.) And 
     just imagine what they might think when they eventually come across an 
     LNT brochure somewhere.
           "Hey, 'Turn over and distribute/replace fire ring rocks. 
           Scatter and bury ashes and coals..." That's just what 
           happened in the Whites at that campsite last year! That 
           wasn't vandalism, it was 'Leave No Trace.' Whoa... Cool!"
     
     Sloetoe
     (who truly hates the piggies, but knows that "There, but for the 
     Grace of God, go I!)


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: [at-l] hiking,dogs,bootleggers
Author:  " bluestreak" <bluestreak@mailcity.com> at ima
Date:    8/2/99 3:51 PM


That is the strongest argument for leaving them in place.There would be a 
smaller impact on the area as a whole.
---
     
the bluestreak
New Hampshire
     
 If these owners had 
>not found a camping spot, they would have made one. Obviously, LNT is no 
>OrangeBug
>Atlanta, GA
>
     
     
Get your FREE Email at http://mailcity.lycos.com
Get your PERSONALIZED START PAGE at http://my.lycos.com
* From the Appalachian Trail Mailing List |  http://www.backcountry.net  *
* From the Appalachian Trail Mailing List |  http://www.backcountry.net  *

==============================================================================