Thrice, i have to say firstly you are quite right and commend you for your actions.
What beggars belief, and is not unsurprisingly in the world we live in is firstly the ignorance of some replies, trying to validate and justify such actions, and then even try and take the moral high ground.
Thieves are of the view that when they can break into your home, you are at fault, not them, for allowing them the opportunity.
I see no difference to those that absolutely must have an image and will get it at any cost. it's a kind of madness that is unable to function within society rules because there is a way to justify it to themselves and therefore allow continuation of said behaviour.
having said that, I'm in favour of extermination of parasites....
You can all blame this on the creation of the digital camera!! Nobody gives a damn anymore about what they are destroying to get that one shot that is different than anybody else’s. You can also blame all the of the numerous reckless photo tour, guides, workshops and the instructors that lead them that don’t care about what they destroy in the process of leading these groups. I’ll give you one example. Take Rowena Crest in Oregon during the spring. I’ve seen other photographers trample all over the lupine and bolsoom root flowers without the care in the world with what they were doing. Hell I’ve seen other photographers fight over a square foot of space to get one ‘special’ shot. It is all disgusting in my opinion!!
ckcarr wrote:
A felony? Walking with dogs, or crossing a fence line, or on cryptobiotic soil a felony? I doubt it.
Felony versus misdemeanor gets into a bit of semantics. Trail closure violations in the nation parks are covered under 18 U.S. Code § 1865 - National Park Service and may include jail time. The bottom line is we are all responsibly for knowing the regulations.
Setting a good example by obeying the trail signage is the best way for us as users of the public lands encourage others to do the same.
photomandave wrote:
You can all blame this on the creation of the digital camera!! Nobody gives a damn anymore about what they are destroying to get that one shot that is different than anybody else’s. You can also blame all the of the numerous reckless photo tour, guides, workshops and the instructors that lead them that don’t care about what they destroy in the process of leading these groups. I’ll give you one example. Take Rowena Crest in Oregon during the spring. I’ve seen other photographers trample all over the lupine and bolsoom root flowers without the care in the world with what they were doing. Hell I’ve seen other photographers fight over a square foot of space to get one ‘special’ shot. It is all disgusting in my opinion!! ...Show more →
everything good has been ruined in Oregon to be honest, and the same behavior is going on most everywhere, especially in the West.
I can echo your frustration about seeing careless photographers unnecessarily trampling on the vegetation and eroding the landscape just for the sake of a photo.
Unfortunately, being into landscape photography doesn’t necessarily come along with caring about the environment, let alone about being a nature conservationist.
In fact, nature photography is inherently not very eco-friendly as it gets people to move to more or less distant and remote locations, usually using motorized vehicles that generate pollution and green-house gas (GHG) emissions. Besides, the industry of digital photography — just like any electronics industries — is very polluting. Rare-earth elements required for batteries and circuit boards, and all the nasty chemicals used for their extraction, have a disastrous environmental impact. And I’m not even talking about all the GHG emitted during the manufacturing process of cameras and lenses. There's also all the extra gear that often accompany any outdoor enthusiast like PFC-impregnated garments which release hazardous compounds into nature, and the list goes on…
That being said, I have to agree with GregWCIL here. Crossing the barrier to trample on the vegetation is definitely wrong and I obviously do not encourage it. However, it’s a lesser concern compared to the harm caused by all the pollution and GHG produced when travelling around the world. As opposed to a localized trampling, GHG emissions and climate change directly threaten entire ecosystems and species at a global scale, even in regions with no human presence.
And despite your apparent good will to limit your impact on the environment, buying yourself a clean conscience by being involved into carbon-neutral programs doesn’t stop your GHG emissions. Carbon neutrality shouldn’t be used as an excuse for polluting or getting out of changing your lifestyle.
thrice wrote:
when I can afford to I will buy an electric vehicle.
I encourage you to inform yourself on the reality behind electric cars before doing anything. They’re not as clean as you might think, and can even have a more deleterious effect on the environment than conventional cars in some cases. I invite you to have a look at this publication for more information on the subject.
Silverfire wrote:
Flying in an airplane does not have an obvious and measurable direct effect upon any particular plant life
As a biologist studying the effect of human activities on biodiversity in mountains, I can tell you that it's factually untrue. There're numerous studies showing clear evidences of a shift in the distribution and abundance of plant species in various ecosystems over the last 30 years, as a response to climate change. This shift in distribution is a major threat for many plant species, especially in mountainous and polar ecosystems as these species cannot continuously shift toward higher elevations/latitudes due to physical barriers, such as the top of mountain or oceans.
You forgot the part about the fact that the fossil record shows continual similar climate shifting throughout time, and without airplanes even existing. But maybe those flying dinosaurs has something to do with it.
It is just a time scale issue in regard to he damage done by photographers trampling plants and spoiling the area. This happens in real time, and is unacceptable. If one or two do it, the environment will easily deal with it, and recover quickly. If a lot of people do it almost every day, then no way can the environment defend against the attack.
This is analogous to the whole climate change debate. Climate change politics is a substitute for the real issue which is population. It is impossible to make a popular political case for drastically reducing the population of people to a level that the planet can keep up with. You know what you will be labeled if you propose such things. It is also easier to monetize the problem of climate control. Politicians, scientist, companies can all make a lot of money with the climate change approach. Can we all say carbon credits, bullet trains, a long list of ways. How do you do that with population control? Especially in debt driven economies that require an ever larger base to keep servicing that debt.
It is good when someone monetizes the solution to problems. That is what Doctors do when they treat a health problem. It is not good when you monetize the problem itself, as this requires that the problem persists. This is what the current environmental movement is doing by ignoring the base population problem.
Still, guys do us all a favor, and keep to the trails.
1bwana1 wrote:
make a profit with that as the problem statement.
Our economic system is built on unlimited growth and credit, but people seem to forget that unrestricted growth is called cancer, which usually kills. Take mass tourism for example. We are loving our natural places to death in the name of profit. Unethical behavior of people as described by the original poster is just one of the negative side effects of this development.
1bwana1 wrote:
You forgot the part about the fact that the fossil record shows continual similar climate shifting throughout time, and without airplanes even existing. But maybe those flying dinosaurs has something to do with it.
Except that we are not dealing with a slow and moderate natural climate change due to variations in Earth’s orbit but an strong and abrupt human-induced climate change. And yes, taking airplanes has a direct impact on it.
1bwana1 wrote:
Climate change politics is a substitute for the real issue which is population.
Most biologists agree that Human demography is a major ecological issue/threat and is usually considered as the number 1 cause of the erosion of biodiversity and ressource depletion. This is a concern that has been addressed by scientists for decades.
That being said, climate change is currently not a direct consequence of overpopulation. In fact, it’s only a small fraction of Human population that’s responsible for most of green-house gas emissions. Climate change is mostly due to a destructive, unsustainable economic system and way of life of some countries/populations, nothing else.
Although CO2 emissions per capita in China have been continually rising since the beginning of the XXI century, they are still more than 2 times lower than that of the US or Canada for example.
As for the CO2 emissions per capita in India, their are way below the world’s average.
More details here.
I don't know how we got onto discussing co2 emissions around the world...but climbing over a fenced off area that is protecting delicate plants just to get a photo is simply selfish and ignorant and these people need to be called out and shamed.
I visit the Canadian Rockies quite often and one of my favourite locations is Lake Ohara. It is a controlled area with a limited amount of permits per day. During the bus trip into the area the ranger talks about the importance to stay on the designated trails and not to trample the extremely delicate and fragile plants in the area...but the talk obviously does not make it through some people's thick skulls as I always see people, many times photographers off the trails destroying this environment. I always challenge these people and the typical responses I get is that they are careful and aren't hurting anything or they are only one person so it should not damage much.
I wish there were stiff fines like that for feeding bears which might get it through this ME generation that they are not above everyone else.
The deliberate disregard of the damage they are causing along with people throwing out their garbage rather than packing it back are two things that really bother me.
