telemark skiingbackcountry skiingPacific NorthwestWashington and Oregonweather linksThe Yuki AwardsMt. Rainier and Mt. Adams
Turns All Year
www.turns-all-year.com
  Help | Search | Login | Register
Turns All Year Trip Reports
Backcountry Skiing and Snowboarding

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
02/19/18, 03:30 AM

Become a TAY Sponsor!
 
Trip Reports Sponsor
American Alpine Institute
American Alpine Institute
Turns All Year Trip Reports
(1) Viewing these pages constitutes your acceptance of the Terms of Use.
(2) Disclaimer: the accuracy of information here is unknown, use at your own risk.
(3) Trip Report monthly boards: only actual trip report starts a new thread.
(4) Keep it civil and constructive - that is the norm here.
 
FOAC Snow
Info Exchange


NWAC Avalanche
Forecast
+  Turns All Year Trip Reports
|-+  Hot Air
| |-+  Random Tracks: posts that don't fit elsewhere
| | |-+  The commercialization of nature
:
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3  All | Go Down Print
Author Topic: The commercialization of nature  (Read 3279 times)
Heli-Free North Cascades
Member
Offline

Posts: 663


The commercialization of nature
« on: 01/13/18, 08:46 PM »

Since this subject is dear to my heart, I thought that I would post this reference.

I have seen the influence and actions of the commercial guide Outfitters in my area, and it's appalling.

I've come to see the helicopter that invades and inhabits our mountains every year as an assault on our natural world.

With the ideals and values of commercialism that it represents and promotes, I view it as an assault on life itself.

Does the concept of commercialism have a place in our wild places?



http://encyclopedia.uia.org/en/problem/136792

"Individuals or societies are becoming more and more dominated by acquisitiveness and valuing all things in terms of prices in the market."

http://encyclopedia.uia.org/en/problem/140459

"For the indigenous peoples of the world, nature is an extension of society itself, and the creatures that share life with them are manifestations of past and future generations of their own flesh and blood. Nature is not, therefore, a commodity to be bought, sold, patented or preserved apart from society, precisely because nature is what defines humanity. The earth is their mother and cannot be compromised, sold or monopolized."

Is commercialism our new value system that defines us as what it means to be human?
« Last Edit: 01/13/18, 09:02 PM by Heli-Free North Cascades » Logged

two sets of principles. They are the principles of power and privilege and the principles of truth and justice. If you pursue truth and justice it will always mean a diminution of power and privilege. If you pursue power and privilege, it will always be at the expense of truth and justice
C Hedges
bfree32
Member
Offline

Posts: 151


Re: The commercialization of nature
« Reply #1 on: 01/13/18, 09:58 PM »

Go find somewhere else to whine. Your endless drivel is contributing to the demise of TAY.
Logged
Andrew Carey
Member
Offline

Posts: 1422


Re: The commercialization of nature
« Reply #2 on: 01/14/18, 07:21 AM »

Go find somewhere else to whine. Your endless drivel is contributing to the demise of TAY.

A nice contribution to civil discussion on a topic that affects us all.
Logged

... want your own private skintrack? Better move to the yukon dude. (B'ham Allen, 2011).
...USA: government of the people by corporate proxies for business.

Andy Carey, Nisqually Park, 3500 feet below Paradise
andyski
Member
Offline

Posts: 459


Re: The commercialization of nature
« Reply #3 on: 01/14/18, 04:56 PM »

Let's not pretend this is about anything deeper than a few NIMBYs protecting their ski stash. There's no principle here, just naked, shallow self interest, no matter how much babble about safety and commercial taint you try to spray paint on it.

Of course, businesses do the same thing: go on about "supporting the community" when it benefits their bottom line.

That doesn't make either any more honest or right. Fight fire with fire, I suppose.

The OP has been very transparent for years: he doesn't want any more people (a few select people aside) in his zone. He throws a bunch of trolly nonsense at the wall that people here can't seem to ignore about guides and safety and commercialism and tree cutting, but all of it is in service on one single goal: preserving his ski spot.

It's no bigger or smaller than just that.

There's another group who seems to only be here to complain about consistent opening of the road to Paradise. There was another with the same agenda, but for Hurricane Ridge, but that's seemed to fade a bit.

Sure, there's chatter about accountability and such, but it's crystal clear that the real issue is as simple as getting their road plowed and opened because they bought property near it.

Those people seem to have no qualms enlisting "commercial interests" like local business and others to their cause, which makes sense.

When commercial and civil interests overlap, why not leverage it? I wonder what the OP thinks of that. If businesses in Port Angeles and Ashford/Eatonville are on the side of opening roads you CAN'T snowmobile on and provide access to ski touring, is that inherently bad? It brings more people, including lots of guide services, into those places, right?

It's a commercial interest.

What do you say A Carey? You want your road opened more consistently based on the bulk of your posting here. I have to assume local businesses, some of which are guide businesses, share your goal. Does it bother you to align with "commercial interests?" I see that big-ass REI van up in the lot all the time.

I know there's lots of chatter about favoritism and cozy relationships between the NPS and some of those commercial interests, but isn't what you really care about just getting your road plowed?

None of the above means the OP isn't right about some of it (the tree cutting was real bad, more people in the backcountry DOES present safety concerns, employees and customers of commercial services would benefit from transparency of the safety record of various outdoors outfits, I'm sure there are commercial interests the NFS/government ARE too cozy with), but it does mean his agenda doesn't mesh with those of a lot of other backcountry skiers and that this site is taken up with a whole lot of bile about things that are beside the point.

The OP doesn't want more access to backcountry skiing in his preferred zone. He's using the various subjects listed above to make it appear as though there's a bigger purpose, but I doubt many are fooled. His screen name and behavior here says it all.

I disagree, but I get it. It's not a crazy position. I wish there were fewer people in my preferred ski zones as well, but who am I to discourage access to the same stuff I enjoy? Just my POV.

Watching this site atrophy, it's plain to see why no non-commercial advocacy group has risen to represent the interests of backcountry skiers. Too many of us are elitists who don't want anyone else around, or one-issue-obsessed underemployed/retired people who don't care about anything beyond their extremely narrow interests.

It's a classic Lesser Seattle approach: If I make things inhospitable, more people won't come and I can keep things the way were when the city was half the size.

That's why CBA exists without any alternative. I personally would rather have them then nothing, because backcountry skiing is and SHOULD be at the very bottom of the government list of priorities. It's an inherently elitist endeavor. If private funding can be rallied to provide access to all, I'm fine with that.

Lesser Seattle is a failed fantasy. It hasn't worked for our infrastructure, and it won't work for our outdoor recreation.

You better believe more and more people will get sleds and places in the Methow with their AMZN bonuses and be in your face. No amount of anti-business venom will stop that.

I'm also deeply troubled by the degree to which government and elected officials have abdicated their responsibility to civic rule to corporations. Look no further than recent tax policy. However, I won't pretend I can wish away something that embedded. I'll work within it.

Seems like there are two options:
1. Take a principled stand that corporate interests shouldn't be represented in public policy and reject it outright - vote against it, refuse to engage with it. Don't lie down, even when it might get you what you want. Seek to ban all of it from "public" lands - no logging, no guiding, no vendor services, no helis, no private plowing - nothing.
2. Use corporate interest, and any other leverage you have, to get what you want, public good or not. If you want more access to backcountry skiing or your road plowed, and you can enlist guide services, local businesses and ski areas (who want your lazy ass out of their parking lot) and whoever else might be influential.

What are YOUR principles? What is it that's REALLY important to you? Are you just here to preserve your ski status quo, or do you have your fellow man/woman in mind, even if they're a rich newbie or some other class of recreator that isn't your mode?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The moderator(s) of this site have decided to allow the OP and others to violate the terms of use on a fairly routine basis.

Here are the guidelines:
Be civil and respectful, avoid personal attacks - that is the norm here;
Alternate viewpoints are welcome: debate the viewpoint, not the person;
This is a skiing forum: please keep your posts related to skiing;

And this:
Libelous, malicious or attacking posts will not be tolerated, and may be be deleted without warning.
Your TAY account may also be deleted without warning if you continue to make libelous, malicious, or attacking posts.
Excessive or highly repetitive "ranting" or "venting" post will not be tolerated and may be deleted without notice.
As a member of this community you agree to post relevant topics.
As much as possible, your topics should be backed by facts, photographs or URL's where additional information can be found.
Excessive posting on similar topics, or excessively "calling out" others in this community are actions that are likely to have your posts or your membership deleted.

It would take about 5 minutes to build a robust list of violations of this policy.

Your call TAY "community." Either it's game on and we get to go all TGR in here, letting the OP and others continue to go at it with personal attacks, innuendo, unsupported smears, etc., and let others insult him in return or it's courtesy class and you ban the OP and those that attack him.

Hurry up.

Also, an ignore function would be rad Smiley.
« Last Edit: 01/14/18, 05:03 PM by andyski » Logged
Andrew Carey
Member
Offline

Posts: 1422


Re: The commercialization of nature
« Reply #4 on: 01/14/18, 05:41 PM »

...

What do you say A Carey? You want your road opened more consistently based on the bulk of your posting here. I have to assume local businesses, some of which are guide businesses, share your goal. Does it bother you to align with "commercial interests?" I see that big-ass REI van up in the lot all the time.

...

Hurry up.

Also, an ignore function would be rad Smiley.

Perhaps you don't know I am one of the Directors (soon to be retired)  of the non-profit "Citizens Supporting the Upper Nisqually" that has about 350 local members.  One of our purposes is to keep the road (SR 706) to the entrance to MRNP open.  A bigger purpose is the sustainabiity of our community.  That includes our neighborhoods and the employers of the area--NPS, Copper Creek Inn, RMI, etc.  I and others have spent hundreds of hours meeting with county, State, and Federal  agencies and our elected representatives.

Am I anti-business?  What does that even mean?  Do I align with commercial interests?  No I align with general sustainability, which as technically defined in the published literature, includes economic, social, and environmental aspects of sustainbility.

BTW, I spent over 40 years in research and consulting working on general sustainability when it comes to natural resources, and published many papers in refereed journals.  But I haven't done that in over a decades.

I do volunteer on the MTTA ski patrol, the Mt. Tahoma Trails Association is yet another contribution to community sustainability that gets support from private citizens, State agencies, and local businesses, as well as REI.  Private citizens provide thousands of hours of volunteer work as well as paying dues and buying SnoPark Permits and Discover Passes.

I firmly believe public land management agencies exist to serve the public and I don't mind speaking out about it, but I bet you haven't seen me post about it here in several years.  When I did post I was concerned that the park be opened to all legitimate users just the way the Mazmas, Tacoma businesses, and the general mountain-loving community worked assiduously for over a decade to get the park established.  Prior to the park reducing access I posted many trip reports, starting with Telemarque.com, and continuing with Charles and TAY.

In some ways I am chagrined by the exploding use of MRNP, but in other ways somewhat reassured that the park will be here for my grandchildren.

AFAIC, IMHE, TAY started out as a community (I knew most of its members) and is no longer one.  Most recent posts seem to be by the lift-served community.  The FB TAY seems to be replacing this site.  I believe what was once a backcountry community with a sense of common purpose is now a just a bunch of disparate, argumentative, adversarial group of individuals, similar to what has happened to our society overall.

Finally, I'm too old to deal with the various conflicting opinions about and designs for the park and other federal lands; it is now up to you younger dudes to figure out what you want.  Good luck, be happy, don't worry.

As to an ignore function: there is a title and author for each post.

p.s.  Anonymity is great, isn't it; you can say what you and hide behind a funky name.  I prefer to be honest and open.  And if you think my only purpose here is to lobby to keep the park open in the winter:  I skied 70 days last winter (recovering from an injury) and hiked 40 days last summer in the park.  Yes, I did move here (just outside the gate) to ski and hike when I retired and I expected the National Park that I supported all my life to be open for people to use.  Signing off now, no more posts from me!
« Last Edit: 01/14/18, 05:59 PM by Andrew Carey » Logged

... want your own private skintrack? Better move to the yukon dude. (B'ham Allen, 2011).
...USA: government of the people by corporate proxies for business.

Andy Carey, Nisqually Park, 3500 feet below Paradise
andyski
Member
Offline

Posts: 459


Re: The commercialization of nature
« Reply #5 on: 01/14/18, 06:06 PM »

Perhaps you don't know I am one of the Directors (soon to be retired)  of the non-profit "Citizens Supporting the Upper Nisqually" that has about 350 local members.  One of our purposes is to keep the road (SR 706) to the entrance to MRNP open.  A bigger purpose is the sustainabiity of our community.  That includes our neighborhoods and the employers of the area--NPS, Copper Creek Inn, RMI, etc.  I and others have spent hundreds of hours meeting with county, State, and Federal  agencies and our elected representatives.

Am I anti-business?  What does that even mean?  Do I align with commercial interests?  No I align with general sustainability, which as technically defined in the published literature, includes economic, social, and environmental aspects of sustainbility.

Finally, I'm too old to deal with the various conflicting opinions about and designs for the park and other federal lands; it is now up to you younger dudes to figure out what you want.  Good luck, be happy, don't worry.

As to an ignore function: there is a title and author for each post.

Ah, a pragmatist like myself! That sounds like a long track record of excellent, and meritous work. Your approach is identical to the one I'd take myself, but you've taken more direct action than I have in support of that cause.

If I can summarize, you believe in bringing all groups to bear to support sustainability. You laud the Tacoma business community for its support of establishing the park, for example. I happen to agree with your POV entirely. It's takes all of us, regardless of motivation.

I also agree 100% with this: I believe what was once a backcountry community with a sense of common purpose is now a just a bunch of disparate, argumentative, adversarial group of individuals, similar to what has happened to our society overall.

Again, it's the OP who has called your approach in to question. I happen to think your approach is correct. He's called it "an assault on life itself."
Logged
Randy
Member
Offline

Posts: 1358


Re: The commercialization of nature
« Reply #6 on: 01/14/18, 07:14 PM »

The Methow valley's economy is largely built on the "commercialization of nature"  -- NCHS is just a tiny part of the recreational business around Twisp, Mazama and Winthrop.   The XC ski trail grooming machines and the construction of xc ski trails , various cabins and lodges, the ski-in huts and not to mention HWY-20 itself are all there to facilitate easier access to the outstanding natural beauty of the area to the teeming hordes from Pugetpopulous and beyond.

I guess it's gotten too crowded for  "Heli-Free North Cascades" taste -- Consider relocating to lower populated areas of MT, WY, BC or AB  -- Perhaps Dillon, MT would better suit your taste.

Logged
bfree32
Member
Offline

Posts: 151


Re: The commercialization of nature
« Reply #7 on: 01/14/18, 08:41 PM »

Great post andyski - exactly my thoughts as well but you took the time to eloquently type it out  Smiley

Andew - agreed the FB TAY group is replacing this site quickly. I find a much higher signal to noise ratio there, not to mention it is so much easier to use on a mobile device.
Logged
T. Eastman
Member
Offline

Posts: 440


Re: The commercialization of nature
« Reply #8 on: 01/15/18, 08:57 AM »

Great to have moved back East, tons of good BC skiing, lots of good skiers, and almost none of the resource conflict that dominates the North Cascades.

Learn to get along...
Logged
runcle
Member
Offline

Posts: 299


Re: The commercialization of nature
« Reply #9 on: 01/15/18, 10:55 AM »


Thanks for being a part of TAY Andrew!

“The raven chides blackness."
« Last Edit: 01/15/18, 10:59 AM by runcle » Logged
Heli-Free North Cascades
Member
Offline

Posts: 663


Re: The commercialization of nature
« Reply #10 on: 01/15/18, 11:13 AM »

Let's not pretend this is about anything deeper than a few NIMBYs protecting their ski stash. There's no principle here, just naked, shallow self interest, no matter how much babble about safety and commercial taint you try to spray paint on it.

Of course, businesses do the same thing: go on about "supporting the community" when it benefits their bottom line.

That doesn't make either any more honest or right. Fight fire with fire, I suppose.

The OP has been very transparent for years: he doesn't want any more people (a few select people aside) in his zone. He throws a bunch of trolly nonsense at the wall that people here can't seem to ignore about guides and safety and commercialism and tree cutting, but all of it is in service on one single goal: preserving his ski spot.

It's no bigger or smaller than just that.

There's another group who seems to only be here to complain about consistent opening of the road to Paradise. There was another with the same agenda, but for Hurricane Ridge, but that's seemed to fade a bit.

Sure, there's chatter about accountability and such, but it's crystal clear that the real issue is as simple as getting their road plowed and opened because they bought property near it.

Those people seem to have no qualms enlisting "commercial interests" like local business and others to their cause, which makes sense.

When commercial and civil interests overlap, why not leverage it? I wonder what the OP thinks of that. If businesses in Port Angeles and Ashford/Eatonville are on the side of opening roads you CAN'T snowmobile on and provide access to ski touring, is that inherently bad? It brings more people, including lots of guide services, into those places, right?

It's a commercial interest.

What do you say A Carey? You want your road opened more consistently based on the bulk of your posting here. I have to assume local businesses, some of which are guide businesses, share your goal. Does it bother you to align with "commercial interests?" I see that big-ass REI van up in the lot all the time.

I know there's lots of chatter about favoritism and cozy relationships between the NPS and some of those commercial interests, but isn't what you really care about just getting your road plowed?

None of the above means the OP isn't right about some of it (the tree cutting was real bad, more people in the backcountry DOES present safety concerns, employees and customers of commercial services would benefit from transparency of the safety record of various outdoors outfits, I'm sure there are commercial interests the NFS/government ARE too cozy with), but it does mean his agenda doesn't mesh with those of a lot of other backcountry skiers and that this site is taken up with a whole lot of bile about things that are beside the point.

The OP doesn't want more access to backcountry skiing in his preferred zone. He's using the various subjects listed above to make it appear as though there's a bigger purpose, but I doubt many are fooled. His screen name and behavior here says it all.

I disagree, but I get it. It's not a crazy position. I wish there were fewer people in my preferred ski zones as well, but who am I to discourage access to the same stuff I enjoy? Just my POV.

Watching this site atrophy, it's plain to see why no non-commercial advocacy group has risen to represent the interests of backcountry skiers. Too many of us are elitists who don't want anyone else around, or one-issue-obsessed underemployed/retired people who don't care about anything beyond their extremely narrow interests.

It's a classic Lesser Seattle approach: If I make things inhospitable, more people won't come and I can keep things the way were when the city was half the size.

That's why CBA exists without any alternative. I personally would rather have them then nothing, because backcountry skiing is and SHOULD be at the very bottom of the government list of priorities. It's an inherently elitist endeavor. If private funding can be rallied to provide access to all, I'm fine with that.

Lesser Seattle is a failed fantasy. It hasn't worked for our infrastructure, and it won't work for our outdoor recreation.

You better believe more and more people will get sleds and places in the Methow with their AMZN bonuses and be in your face. No amount of anti-business venom will stop that.

I'm also deeply troubled by the degree to which government and elected officials have abdicated their responsibility to civic rule to corporations. Look no further than recent tax policy. However, I won't pretend I can wish away something that embedded. I'll work within it.

Seems like there are two options:
1. Take a principled stand that corporate interests shouldn't be represented in public policy and reject it outright - vote against it, refuse to engage with it. Don't lie down, even when it might get you what you want. Seek to ban all of it from "public" lands - no logging, no guiding, no vendor services, no helis, no private plowing - nothing.
2. Use corporate interest, and any other leverage you have, to get what you want, public good or not. If you want more access to backcountry skiing or your road plowed, and you can enlist guide services, local businesses and ski areas (who want your lazy ass out of their parking lot) and whoever else might be influential.

What are YOUR principles? What is it that's REALLY important to you? Are you just here to preserve your ski status quo, or do you have your fellow man/woman in mind, even if they're a rich newbie or some other class of recreator that isn't your mode?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The moderator(s) of this site have decided to allow the OP and others to violate the terms of use on a fairly routine basis.

Here are the guidelines:
Be civil and respectful, avoid personal attacks - that is the norm here;
Alternate viewpoints are welcome: debate the viewpoint, not the person;
This is a skiing forum: please keep your posts related to skiing;

And this:
Libelous, malicious or attacking posts will not be tolerated, and may be be deleted without warning.
Your TAY account may also be deleted without warning if you continue to make libelous, malicious, or attacking posts.
Excessive or highly repetitive "ranting" or "venting" post will not be tolerated and may be deleted without notice.
As a member of this community you agree to post relevant topics.
As much as possible, your topics should be backed by facts, photographs or URL's where additional information can be found.
Excessive posting on similar topics, or excessively "calling out" others in this community are actions that are likely to have your posts or your membership deleted.

It would take about 5 minutes to build a robust list of violations of this policy.

Your call TAY "community." Either it's game on and we get to go all TGR in here, letting the OP and others continue to go at it with personal attacks, innuendo, unsupported smears, etc., and let others insult him in return or it's courtesy class and you ban the OP and those that attack him.

Hurry up.

Also, an ignore function would be rad Smiley.
Wow that's quite an attack on me and others, that straw man that you created that's supposed to represent who I am could not be further from the truth.

But I would not ban you because you have such a strong illusion that fits in with your worldview, ie bias.

 I'm not against sustainable business,  such as the Methow Trails Association. ( and besides I have a lifetime trail pass  Smiley)

I'm against values that are represented by the ideal of commercialism in places where nature and people's right to peaceful enjoyment of nature should be the primary concern.

 Why should wealthy people have the right to disturb the peaceful enjoyment of nature and place me and my loved ones at increased risk of harm by using a helicopter to access the same Terrain that human-powered skiers have been accessing long before the helicopter arrived here. Not to mention that the law is supposed to protect me when motorized access conflicts with human power.

And let's face it, if not for the motorized access of the helicopter, that area would have been protected a long time ago as a Wilderness designation. That land is special and deserves Wilderness designation.

 To me that's commercialization of nature for the benefit of the wealthy who have the power and the money to exert their influence over our wild places.

 let me give you another example between the values of community and sustainable businesses versus the values of commercialism.

Many years ago twisp had a lumber mill that was run by community members. With proper Forest management, that Mill could have survived for years and been a sustainable resource to to the community.

 The antilogging groups moved in and kicked the loggers out of the forest. The mill closed and that Community Assest has been lost.  Logging is making a comeback because of the fire threat and local logs are being shipped to the west side or the further east.

Now the forests are burning and all the housing communities that were built within the forest are scrambling to find loggers.

So contrast  what could have been a sustainable business with what happened in California to the redwoods. Commercialism values moved in for a quick profit and mowed down the California Redwoods to the point where only 10% of those trees remain.

And now even those are in Jeopardy because people want to photograph themselves standing next to, and even climbing, the Redwoods and that is having an effect on the trees health.

That's an example where commercialism values have entered the values of the general population.

It becomes all about what can I profit from either for money or to boost my ego to gain an illusionary social status.

In our area, the local Backcountry skiers go out of our way to show people who are new to the area the safe routes that we have established  over many years to what you call powder stashes.

 We pass that information on Free of monetary reimbursement and collectively have given thousands of free guided tours where we Mentor safe Mountain Travel, where group decisions are the deciding factor in terrain selection and safe practice protocols are adhered to.

Our hope is that that information continues to be passed along for the benefit and safety of all concerned.

 That is an example of a community value that is sustainable.

 Or you can come in here, poach our skin tracks and post your experience on Facebook or even Tay  for instant ego gratification or for sale if you were one of those guide Outfitters who benefited from the local knowledge that was here when you arrived.

If you are a commercial business you can even change the name of 'pika peak' to 'poster peak'.

The former name has historical significance because Fred Beckey named it after talking to the miners that were here in the area and where having their shoes eaten by the local pikas.

The latter name was a new name given to that Peak by a group of guides  who had their picture taken at the top of that Peak and made a poster out of it.

 Which set of values do you prefer, honoring and respecting what was here before you arrived or changing nature to reflect your own image.

I study history,  I know how the values of commercialism screwed over the native populations. That ideal continues to this day.

I also happen to agree with the values  the First Nation people hold for our Mother Earth.

It's the only planet we have and we need it to sustain us all, and I mean all life. Because life is precious to be valued Above All Else.


"If you think that moral reasoning is something we do to figure out truth, you’ll be constantly frustrated by how foolish, biased, and illogical people become when they disagree with you. But if you think about moral reasoning as a skill we humans evolved to further our social agendas—to justify our own actions and to defend the teams we belong to—then things will make a lot more sense.
Jonathan Haidt"






« Last Edit: 01/15/18, 12:03 PM by Heli-Free North Cascades » Logged

two sets of principles. They are the principles of power and privilege and the principles of truth and justice. If you pursue truth and justice it will always mean a diminution of power and privilege. If you pursue power and privilege, it will always be at the expense of truth and justice
C Hedges
nwslide
5Member
Offline

Posts: 7


Re: The commercialization of nature
« Reply #11 on: 01/15/18, 11:57 AM »

I'm confused about where you draw the line in regards to commercial operations and motorized access.  It seems like you have some vendetta against the heli op.  Fine, I have had no interaction with them and don't have an opinion one way or the other. I don't personally see a huge difference between a trails association and the heli op though. Maybe if NCH organized as a non-profit it would be all good.

I'm not against sustainable business,  such as the Methow Trails Association. ( and besides I have a lifetime trail pass  Smiley)

And let's face it, if not for the motorized access of the helicopter, that area would have been protected a long time ago as a Wilderness designation. That land is special and deserves Wilderness designation.


Would you be willing to give up your sled access and the Methow trails for wilderness designation? Or would the wilderness area start right after the spot you park your sled?
Logged
flowing alpy
Member
Offline

Posts: 1257


Re: The commercialization of nature
« Reply #12 on: 01/15/18, 12:30 PM »

I’d be curious to see the national reaction to HellFreeNC if he brought this discussion to the TGR’s. I have a feeling he’d get flamed pretty hard by the hard chargin heli flyin dentist but have a sympathetic pole to lean on with the van life yhuuge ski tiny binding crew. I think I see and experience both sides but i don’t have the necessary tools to judge. I do know AndySki gets it so hopefully he will explain it to me irl.
Logged
Heli-Free North Cascades
Member
Offline

Posts: 663


Re: The commercialization of nature
« Reply #13 on: 01/15/18, 12:37 PM »

I'm confused about where you draw the line in regards to commercial operations and motorized access.  It seems like you have some vendetta against the heli op.  Fine, I have had no interaction with them and don't have an opinion one way or the other. I don't personally see a huge difference between a trails association and the heli op though. Maybe if NCH organized as a non-profit it would be all good.

Would you be willing to give up your sled access and the Methow trails for wilderness designation? Or would the wilderness area start right after the spot you park your sled?
The methow trails cross country trail system does not exist within an area that I would consider to hold wilderness value. The area has already been highly developed. Many of the trails pass through residential neighborhoods and exist in areas open to logging. In fact many of the trails are Old Logging roads.

It would make no difference if the helicopter ski operation where a nonprofit organization.

 The thing is still a risk to human-powered ski tours when the helicopter is operating in the same Terrain as human powered ski tours and produces ear damaging noise when in close proximity. Keep in mind that the military uses loud noise as a weapon.

There are also some NASA studies that suggest that loud noise interferes with the human decision making process, which as you know is vital for a ski tourer's risk analysis.

I've witnessed ski tourers who are not against the helicopter operation per say, grow very angry when the helicopter enters the same area that they are touring.

 My theory is the loud noise is factor. I'm sure you have heard the phrase "I can't hear myself think" when a noise distraction is present.

I only operate my sled on established roadways, including Highway 20.

Once I park my sled on the road, I access the mountains with human power similar to if you drove your car to a Wilderness trailhead and started walking.

Because you drove your car to a Wilderness Trailhead does not mean that you are accessing wilderness via motorized use. It would not be legal to use motors in a Wilderness Area.

Highway 20 itself would not be designated as Wilderness because it's a paved Road and a vital transportation corridor.



Logged

two sets of principles. They are the principles of power and privilege and the principles of truth and justice. If you pursue truth and justice it will always mean a diminution of power and privilege. If you pursue power and privilege, it will always be at the expense of truth and justice
C Hedges
Heli-Free North Cascades
Member
Offline

Posts: 663


Re: The commercialization of nature
« Reply #14 on: 01/15/18, 12:54 PM »

I’d be curious to see the national reaction to HellFreeNC if he brought this discussion to the TGR’s. I have a feeling he’d get flamed pretty hard by the hard chargin heli flyin dentist but have a sympathetic pole to lean on with the van life yhuuge ski tiny binding crew. I think I see and experience both sides but i don’t have the necessary tools to judge. I do know AndySki gets it so hopefully he will explain it to me irl.
I think I get flamed pretty hard here already. Smiley

 But I guess that's what happens when you go up against commercial interest in public land.
Logged

two sets of principles. They are the principles of power and privilege and the principles of truth and justice. If you pursue truth and justice it will always mean a diminution of power and privilege. If you pursue power and privilege, it will always be at the expense of truth and justice
C Hedges
Randy
Member
Offline

Posts: 1358


Re: The commercialization of nature
« Reply #15 on: 01/15/18, 01:13 PM »

...
Highway 20 itself would not be designated as Wilderness because it's a paved Road and a vital transportation corridor.


Nonsense.   Hwy-20 over Washington Pass is non-essential for the transportation of goods.  HWY-20 is a tourism route.     

Logged
flowing alpy
Member
Offline

Posts: 1257


Re: The commercialization of nature
« Reply #16 on: 01/15/18, 02:22 PM »

I think I get flamed pretty hard here already. Smiley
maybe by alpinezone standards Grin
Logged
Heli-Free North Cascades
Member
Offline

Posts: 663


Re: The commercialization of nature
« Reply #17 on: 01/15/18, 04:26 PM »

Nonsense.   Hwy-20 over Washington Pass is non-essential for the transportation of goods.  HWY-20 is a tourism route.     


from the wsdot website.

"6. Why not let the snow melt instead of plowing it?
The businesses in the Skagit and Methow valleys are heavily dependent on the North Cascades Highway for their livelihood. The gas tax money that we spend (under the mandate from the Legislature and Governor)  opening the highway is every bit as important as the money we spend rebuilding a floating bridge, buying new ferries or maintaining I-5"

I would say that Highway 20 qualifies as a vital Transportation corridor like I said.

And you realize that tourism generally require some sort of Transportation as in transportation corridor.

I wonder what the increase in Commerce to our Valley would be if Highway 20 to Early Winters was part of  the National Park.

I didn't like the idea when it was originally presented because of bias on my part.

It is clear to me that, that piece of public  land needs protections that are not currently being provided by Forest Service management.

I would draw the line at the Ridge Crest on either side of the highway from where the park leaves off at Maple pass all the way down to Early Winters.

That way we could allow for some designated Offroad snowmobile access and designated non-motorized skier access areas.

 But for that to happen the Helicopter Company would have to step aside, and do what's right for the local economy. Or maybe move its operations to some of the clear-cut, roaded, and historically motorized areas  consistent with past commercial operations.

The helicopter currently operates in an area designated as roadless.

Maybe a GoFundMe program to buy the helicopter permit and retire it would be the best thing for the land and our community.

And since I'm King of the moment, I would also keep the current Outfitter guide system for Backcountry skiing intact, however it would need to include an Advisory Board made up of
Guides and Backcountry skiers.


I believe I stated a long time ago that guide Services provide a valuable Service as far as education goes, however that education needs to be consistent with best practice safety protocols.

Also because most all BC ski guide Outfitter services operate according to principles of commercialism and do not rise to the level of professionalism, I would require complete honesty and transparency of operation on their part.

We somehow need to make guides part of an ethical backcountry community, free of conflict and hype with the goal of building a sustainable community.

  I would do away with guides acting as NWAC observational Personnel in the backcountry.

 Instead NWAC would hire Avalanche forecasters specific to that task. We need to rule out any conflict of interest bias that may negatively influence accurate reporting.

Every near-miss accident in the backcountry should include an accident analysis report, especially for the guide Outfitter services.

That is a professional standard of conduct.


Logged

two sets of principles. They are the principles of power and privilege and the principles of truth and justice. If you pursue truth and justice it will always mean a diminution of power and privilege. If you pursue power and privilege, it will always be at the expense of truth and justice
C Hedges
Micah
Administrator
Offline

Posts: 160


Re: The commercialization of nature
« Reply #18 on: 01/15/18, 04:46 PM »

We somehow need to make guides part of an ethical backcountry community, free of conflict and hype with the goal of building a sustainable community.

Someone might suggest you take your Haidt quote to heart, dude. I think HWY 20 should be permanently closed and decommissioned between Mazama and Diablo, but I understand that other people get a say in the management of public land.
Logged
Heli-Free North Cascades
Member
Offline

Posts: 663


Re: The commercialization of nature
« Reply #19 on: 01/15/18, 05:48 PM »

Someone might suggest you take your Haidt quote to heart, dude. I think HWY 20 should be permanently closed and decommissioned between Mazama and Diablo, but I understand that other people get a say in the management of public land.
I'm not understanding what you're trying to say. Could you elaborate?

Regarding  the management of public land,  first and foremost the law determines how public land will be managed.


http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=59104

"Richard   
Richard Nixon   



Executive Order 11644—Use of Off-Road Vehicles on the Public Lands
February 8, 1972

Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents
Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents

Font Size:
mediumlargemaximum

Print

Share

The American Presidency Project

Promote Your Page Too
An estimated 5 million off-road recreational vehicles— motorcycles, minibikes, trail bikes, snowmobiles, dune-buggies, all-terrain vehicles, and others—are in use in the United States today, and their popularity continues to increase rapidly. The widespread use of such vehicles on the public lands—often for legitimate purposes but also in frequent conflict with wise land and resource management practices, environmental values, and other types of recreational activity—has demonstrated the need for a unified Federal policy toward the use of such vehicles on the public lands.
Now, THEREFORE, by virtue of the authority vested in me as President of the United States by the Constitution of the United States and in furtherance of the purpose and policy of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321), it is hereby ordered as follows:

SECTION 1. Purpose. It is the purpose of this order to establish policies and provide for procedures that will ensure that the use of off-road vehicles on public lands will be controlled and directed so as to protect the resources of those lands, to promote the safety of all users of those lands, and to minimize conflicts among the various uses of those lands.

SEC. 2. Definitions. As used in this order, the term:

(1) "public lands" means (A) all lands under the custody and control of the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture, except Indian lands, (B) lands under the custody and control of the Tennessee Valley Authority that are situated in western Kentucky and Tennessee and are designated as "Land Between the Lakes," and (C) lands under the custody and control of the Secretary of Defense;

(2) "respective agency head" means the Secretary of the Interior, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Agriculture, and the Board of Directors of the Tennessee Valley Authority, with respect to public lands under the custody and control of each;

(3) "off-road vehicle" means any motorized vehicle designed for or capable of cross-country travel on or immediately over land, water, sand, snow, ice, marsh, swampland, or other natural terrain; except that such term excludes (A) any registered motorboat, (B) any military, fire, emergency, or law enforcement vehicle when used for emergency purposes, and (C) any vehicle whose use is expressly authorized by the respective agency head under a permit, lease, license, or contract; and

(4) "official use" means use by an employee, agent, or designated representative of the Federal Government or one of its contractors in the course of his employment, agency, or representation.

SEC. 3. Zones of Use. (a) Each respective agency head shall develop and issue regulations and administrative instructions, within six months of the date of this order, to provide for administrative designation of the specific areas and trails on public lands on which the use of off-road vehicles may be permitted, and areas in which the use of off-road vehicles may not be permitted, and set a date by which such designation of all public lands shall be completed. Those regulations shall direct that the designation of such areas and trails will be based upon the protection of the resources of the public lands, promotion of the safety of all users of those lands, and minimization of conflicts among the various uses of those lands. The regulations shall further require that the designation of such areas and trails shall be in accordance with the following

(1) Areas and trails shall be located to minimize damage to soil, watershed, vegetation, or other resources of the public lands.

(2) Areas and trails shall be located to minimize harassment of wildlife or significant disruption of wildlife habitats.

(3) Areas and trails shall be located to minimize conflicts between off-road vehicle use and other existing or proposed recreational uses of the same or neighboring public lands, and to ensure the compatibility of such uses with existing conditions in populated areas, taking into account noise and other factors.

(4) Areas and trails shall not be located in officially designated Wilderness Areas or Primitive Areas. Areas and trails shall be located in areas of the National Park system, Natural Areas, or National Wildlife Refuges and Game Ranges only if the respective agency head determines that off-road vehicle use in such locations will not adversely affect their natural, aesthetic, or scenic values.

(b) The respective agency head shall ensure adequate opportunity for public participation in the promulgation of such regulations and in the designation of areas and trails under this section.

(c) The limitations on off-road vehicle use imposed under this section shall not apply to official use.

SEC. 4. Operating Conditions. Each respective agency head shall develop and publish, within one year of the date of this order, regulations prescribing operating conditions for off-road vehicles on the public lands. These regulations shall be directed at protecting resource values, preserving public health, safety, and welfare, and minimizing use conflicts.

SEC. 5. Public Information. The respective agency head shall ensure that areas and trails where off-road vehicle use is permitted are well marked and shall provide for the publication and distribution of information, including maps, describing such areas and trails and explaining the conditions on vehicle use. He shall seek cooperation of relevant State agencies in the dissemination of this information.

SEC. 6. Enforcement. The respective agency head shall, where authorized by law, prescribe appropriate penalties for violation of regulations adopted pursuant to this order, and shall establish procedures for the enforcement of those regulations. To the extent permitted by law, he may enter into agreements with State_ or local governmental agencies for cooperative enforcement of laws and regulations relating to off-road vehicle use.

SEC. 7. Consultation. Before issuing the regulations or administrative instructions required by this order or designating areas or trails as required by this order and those regulations and administrative instructions, the Secretary of the Interior shall, as appropriate, consult with the Atomic Energy Commission.

SEC. 8. Monitoring of Effects and Review. (a) The respective agency head shall monitor the effects of the use of off-road vehicles on lands under their jurisdictions. On the basis of the information gathered, they shall from time to time amend or rescind designations of areas or other actions taken pursuant to this order as necessary to further the policy of this order.

(b) The Council on Environmental Quality shall maintain a continuing review of the implementation of this order.

RICHARD NIXON

The White House"
« Last Edit: 01/15/18, 05:59 PM by Heli-Free North Cascades » Logged

two sets of principles. They are the principles of power and privilege and the principles of truth and justice. If you pursue truth and justice it will always mean a diminution of power and privilege. If you pursue power and privilege, it will always be at the expense of truth and justice
C Hedges
Micah
Administrator
Offline

Posts: 160


Re: The commercialization of nature
« Reply #20 on: 01/15/18, 06:20 PM »

I'm not understanding what you're trying to say. Could you elaborate?

I'm suggesting that it appears that you use moral arguments to justify your own actions and to defend the teams that you belong to. It is therefore tempting to discount what you say as sour grapes instead of a reasonable position. You're opposed to mechanized access except the types you use. You think safety arguments should be the last word in determining how we ski except when ski areas use them to keep you out. I understand you have reasons for believing these things. The rest of us have reasons for believing what we believe, also.
Logged
Randy
Member
Offline

Posts: 1358


Re: The commercialization of nature
« Reply #21 on: 01/15/18, 06:42 PM »

 
I would say that Highway 20 qualifies as a vital Transportation corridor like I said.

And you realize that tourism generally require some sort of Transportation as in transportation corridor.

...


It's amazing that you agree with your own opinion.


HWY-20 is a transportation corridor for tourism.   It is vital to  the economy of the Methow valley. 

Nothing you have written contradicts that tourism is the raison d'etre of HWY-20 .   
Logged
Heli-Free North Cascades
Member
Offline

Posts: 663


Re: The commercialization of nature
« Reply #22 on: 01/15/18, 10:10 PM »

I'm suggesting that it appears that you use moral arguments to justify your own actions and to defend the teams that you belong to. It is therefore tempting to discount what you say as sour grapes instead of a reasonable position. You're opposed to mechanized access except the types you use. You think safety arguments should be the last word in determining how we ski except when ski areas use them to keep you out. I understand you have reasons for believing these things. The rest of us have reasons for believing what we believe, also.
oh for sure that is exactly what Jonathan Haidt describes as typical human behavior. I know that I am subject to the same biases as everyone else.

That's why I suggest that policy-based decisions be based on facts not on opinions.

The Loup Loup says that I can't use their leased public land when they're closed because the groomer may appear at any time and is a danger to me. Show me facts to support this. I've never been up there when the groomer's been operating.

The crystal Patrol says uphill skier traffic is a danger and in certain situations it certainly can be, like getting in the way of a patrolman throwing bombs. But show us facts to support that skinning up a run is anymore a hazard then someone standing in the middle of a run. That data should be easy to provide.

I say that having skier Avalanche triggers above you in avalanche terrain is a danger and I provided multiple incident facts here on TAY where that was proven to be the case and yet the forest service continues to allow guide Avalanche triggers to be landed above us via helicopter in avalanche Terrain.

And of course the latest similar incident was just documented on the NWAC observations page within the Alpental ski area.

I say that having a helicopter operating in close proximity to me is a danger to me and I provided the facts of that support that safety concern.

 Our local Helicopter Company has already crashed three of them. And then there's that very graphic video that another T A Y member provided on my heli-ski related crash thread. And I only posted incidents from Canada. So yeah that's a proven safety concern in my area. The facts support my opinion.

I say that loud noise can affect decision-making and there are NASA studies that support that claim, although I should dig up the link.

 So what I'm saying is, opinions are fine but they generally reflect the person's bias.

However opinions that are backed by facts should help mitigate that bias.

Anyway thanks for the clarification.

One thing I could find on turns all year to be particularly annoying is people who debate by building up a straw man argument and then argue against that straw man.
 
Andy's skis post is a perfect example of that. He tries to characterize me as someone who is only interested in my own self-interest of protecting powder stashes.

Yet many people with ther own bias issues who disagree with what I say will believe that sad story and you won't be able to convince them otherwise.

They will even miss misinterpret facts. But facts are facts.

I posted testimony from an individual who has witnessed members die on guided expeditions and he testifies that those deaths were never made public.

I've testified that a guide had reported to me not to reveal a near-miss Avalanche incident that occurred to a guide Outfitter owner, and told me not to reveal the incident because it was bad for business.

We know that many guides do not report their near-miss Avalanche incidents and yet they're paid to make analysis reports concerning recreational near miss-accidents. Also I believe a client has a right to know the safety history of the guide Outfitters that they wish to employ.

I believe those are actions that do not reflect professional behavior.

Those actions reflect values that are consistent with the world of commercialism where money determines moral reasoning.

 BTW, Psychological research, and I have posted the link in the past here, supports the notion that being held accountable for your actions results in better decision-making.

Isn't that a worthy goal?

And just so Andyski understands, so that he doesn't have to build another straw man, I side with the First Nation people and their beliefs that our planet is life itself worthy of protection and a value system that reflects a sustainable community based on caring and definitely not based on Greed.

An early bc ski mentor of mine used to have a truck bumper sticker that said "Greed Kills". He also advised me to steer clear of commercial guides because they were dangerous to be around.

 Now I know exactly what he meant.





 
« Last Edit: 01/15/18, 10:22 PM by Heli-Free North Cascades » Logged

two sets of principles. They are the principles of power and privilege and the principles of truth and justice. If you pursue truth and justice it will always mean a diminution of power and privilege. If you pursue power and privilege, it will always be at the expense of truth and justice
C Hedges
Heli-Free North Cascades
Member
Offline

Posts: 663


Re: The commercialization of nature
« Reply #23 on: 01/16/18, 09:02 AM »

It's amazing that you agree with your own opinion.


HWY-20 is a transportation corridor for tourism.   It is vital to  the economy of the Methow valley. 

Nothing you have written contradicts that tourism is the raison d'etre of HWY-20 .   
my opinion is subject to change. For example I used to not agree that the American Alps project, which would extend the North Cascades National Park, was a good idea and I stated as much  on turns all year.

But when I examined that opinion, I realized it was based on my own bias and supported my own self-interest.

Now I believe that the Wonderous Beauty in those mountains needs greater protections that only the National Park Service takes seriously.

 A friend of mine was up at rainy pass this fall and estimated that there were six hundred people on the maple Pass Trail trail to view the larches turning along with the rest of the color change Glory.

What do I do when I see six hundred people, or even 100 people  on the same trail? I used to go off Trail and bushwhack,  trying not to take the same route twice or even having two people not walk the same route.

I'm noticing now that a lot of people are placing plastic marker tapes off the trails (which I remove) so that everyone uses the same route.

Pretty soon there's social Trails all over the place and posted on the internet with GPS coordinates as if some great discovery was just made.

 I'm also noticing that the plastic taping is happening with ski routes along Highway 20.

 If you can't find your way back to Highway 20 from one of the ridge crests  without using plastic marker tape, then you might consider that maybe you shouldn't be there to begin with until you learn proper route finding techniques.

« Last Edit: 01/16/18, 09:09 AM by Heli-Free North Cascades » Logged

two sets of principles. They are the principles of power and privilege and the principles of truth and justice. If you pursue truth and justice it will always mean a diminution of power and privilege. If you pursue power and privilege, it will always be at the expense of truth and justice
C Hedges
Micah
Administrator
Offline

Posts: 160


Re: The commercialization of nature
« Reply #24 on: 01/16/18, 10:41 AM »

HFNC: Thanks for replying to my post.


That's why I suggest that policy-based decisions be based on facts not on opinions.


This is a laudable suggestion, but policy decisions depend on a lot of subjective and intangible judgements that are not facts. Among the things that are certainly subjective are the 'real' motivations of people we disagree with. Personally, I don't think we can really 'know' what motivates anyone else and likely not even ourselves. From what you wrote above, it seems like you reject Andyski's claim that you are motivated by narrow self-interest. Whether or not you are motivated by self-interest is not an objective question that can settled by performing a measurement. That question is at least partially subjective. You can go on believing you are not motivated by your self interest, and others can go on believing you are, and there is no way to settle the dispute with facts. From my POV (based only on your posts that I have read), it does seem like your ethos is fairly flexible around your actions and fairly inflexible regarding actions of people whose motivations you question. So I can see where Andyski was coming from.

There are facts that 'support' your views (e.g. there have been fatal avalanche accidents among guided skiers) and facts that 'support' people you disagree with (e.g. guides' clients routinely acknowledge the risk of skiing wild snow and almost always sign waivers so that there is written documentation of their acknowledgment). None of those facts settle questions about the legitimacy of heli-skiing or snowmobile skiing in the HWY 20 corridor.

I think a lot of us on this board feel that you dismiss our arguments in favor of commercial interests by claiming that our viewpoints are ignorant of 'the facts'. I'm here to suggest that the facts are less relevant to this debate than less tangible beliefs and that most of the people you argue with here are very knowledgable about the BC scene. They just come to different conclusions.

Your personal philosophy sounds very interesting to me, and I would love to discuss the ins and outs of it while skinning through the mountains. The mountains are important to lots of us, and the internet can be a hard place to be understood.
« Last Edit: 01/16/18, 10:49 AM by Micah » Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3  All | Go Up Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  



Login with username, password and session length

Thank you to our sponsors!
click to visit our sponsor: Feathered Friends
Feathered Friends
click to visit our sponsor: Marmot Mountain Works
Marmot Mountain Works
click to visit our sponsor: Second Ascent
Second Ascent
click to visit our sponsor: American Alpine Institute
American Alpine Institute
click to visit our sponsor: Pro Guiding Service
Pro Guiding Service
Contact turns-all-year.com

Turns All Year Trip Reports ©2001-2010 Turns All Year LLC. All Rights Reserved

The opinions expressed in posts are those of the poster and do not necessarily
reflect the opinions of Trip Reports administrators or Turns All Year LLC


Turns All Year Trip Reports | Powered by SMF 1.0.6.
© 2001-2005, Lewis Media. All Rights Reserved.