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, 03:38 AM

Become a TAY Sponsor!
 
Trip Reports Sponsor
Feathered Friends
Feathered Friends
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 3280 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
Jim Oker
Moderator
Offline

Posts: 1547


Re: The commercialization of nature
« Reply #25 on: 01/16/18, 11:42 AM »

Commercialism is of course hardly  new to humanity. One could  say it's gotten worse by looking at one set of facts; one could say it's gotten better by looking at another (e.g. though slavery is hardly eliminated despite being outlawed everywhere  on the planet, its incidence as a percent of overall population seems to have  dropped dramatically). My impression is  that the  outcomes of commercialism are more a reflection of a society's values than a driver of them, though I'm sure there's some influence  in  both directions. I'm generally  unmoved by fairly generic rants against "commercialism"  because I  see many ways in  which  thoughtfully  regulated commercialism is  better for most people than any alternative I've seen  play out at large  scale and among modern population densities. Does it pose problems, including some that  can't be fully eliminated even  with said "thoughtful  regulation?" Of course.  So  do the alternatives I've witnessed in  my lifetime.

Specifics matter. Helicopter noise? I supposed it could  cause  a momentary  lapse of reason, but my personal experience is just bracing for a moment as the copter (or low-flying jet on  training mission, which far outstrips the copters in  terms of shock to  the  system IME) passes. While there are times and places where I've found their incessant presence a bit annoying and I've  wished for them to  go away (camping on  Kalalau beach in winter,  anyone?), I find the "safety" argument here uncompelling, unless they are buzzing other parties in a dangerous way (which  the  FS would hopefully  put a stop to if shown clear evidence  which  is fortunately easy to  gather in the modern era in which  many of us have  video cameras of one sort or another  in a pocket).

Relative safety of guides? W/o data showing risk per skier day with and without guides for people  at the  same experience level, all I see is sharing of anecdotes that  tell me that  our sport has danger that can't be fully mitigated. I could find anecdotes about unguided parties that would tell  me the same thing. If they're doign avy control on slopes with other  parties potentially below them (which is a different issue than whether  the clients are getting  what  they  pay for safety-wise), that seems like the  heli buzzing which should be documented to a point where the  FS is forced to insist this stop.

Speaking of facts,  I wonder how many backcountry  recreationalists get in to experience the zones in  which NCH regularly  flies via leg power versus with heli-assist. I get that it sucks to have people with more money and horsepower behind them spoiling the experience for those  w/o those accelerants, like  a case of a skier and a high-marker getting to the bottom of the same tasty  basin  at the same moment. But are more or fewer people actually getting  to enjoy this terrain thanks to  the helis? Are there zones where they  can  be reasonably  avoided, or are rare to encounter? Or are they  dominating in  such a  way that people w/o money are being excluded from the areas or worse that fewer skiers are in those  zones in any given winter than  would otherwise be there?
« Last Edit: 01/16/18, 11:48 AM by Jim Oker » Logged
Heli-Free North Cascades
Member
Offline

Posts: 663


Re: The commercialization of nature
« Reply #26 on: 01/16/18, 02:43 PM »

HFNC: Thanks for replying to my post.

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.
everyone is motivated by self-interest.

 The only two altruistic acts I've probably ever done were helping to save people's lives by risking my own.

 I still feel stupid about  the second occurrence because it had me soaked in gasoline trying to save a guy who was trying to kill me, my wife and other people on the highway along with himself.

 Is Andyski a commercial guide and therefore benefits by making up stories about someone who disagrees with the commercial agenda for public land? I don't know let's ask him.

 Should I make up stories about him?

 Look at the assumptions he made about Andrew. And he wants to see everyone banded here who what, has an opposing point of view concerning the commercialization of the backcountry  and the Greed values that go along with it.


I don't know if you've looked around the planet lately but greed seems to be destroying the place.

The theoretical norm around here has always been to argue the point not the person. To me,  his argument seems to be more of a personal attack launched at me.

According to Andyski, I'm an unprincipled person who wants the powder all to myself.

Well the facts  don't support that position but he doesn't know the facts so how can that argument be presented as logical validity.

He Only knows some story that is made up in his own mind. Why? Is it an effort to discredit opposing point of views. Is that true let's ask him.



 I don't have any facts to support what motivates him, all's I know is that the opinion he presented concerning who I am is a false story. And most likely based on some sort of bias.

 But everyone's free to believe what they want to believe even if the facts don't support that belief.

People can believe that the planet is not heating up due to greenhouse gases. However the science does not support that opinion.

So in the 50 years or so there won't be any snow related issues to worry about.

But I'm pretty certain the values of commercialism will still dominate.

 Luckily, I won't be here to see the planet burn.

Oh wait that's already happening.







« Last Edit: 01/16/18, 02:47 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
Jim Oker
Moderator
Offline

Posts: 1547


Re: The commercialization of nature
« Reply #27 on: 01/16/18, 02:52 PM »

I'm with you on avoiding  trying to read minds (i.e. stating  the intentions of others  when  you  can't possibly know them for sure,  and are in  fact  quite likely  wrong). We all do it but it's rarely helpful in these discussions. It seems more cathartic than  anything. (this of course includes reading the  minds of people who start advocacy groups, run businesses, etc., but yeah  I do it sometimes too)

As for "the values of commercialism," I continue to  think that's a mistaken construction,  at least at the  first order. I think "commercialism" is  a fairly efficient way to reflect the values of people. Which I think tend to reflect a focus on both material things as well as on personal  experiences. I don't think these crop up merely  because of the  commercialized system that  we've invented over  time. These values showed up just  as surely in  the  Soviet Union  as in the US. I do, however, think there's some potential risk associated with allowing commercial activity on public lands, as there  is a high risk of what  economists call "externalities" - costs (or benefits) that accrue to  others not involved in the transactions. Which  IMO is a good principled reason  to apply thoughtful regulation to the commercial activity. The fact that  it's commercial is not, in and of itself, a compelling reason  to cease such  activity, at least for me.
« Last Edit: 01/16/18, 02:55 PM by Jim Oker » Logged
Heli-Free North Cascades
Member
Offline

Posts: 663


Re: The commercialization of nature
« Reply #28 on: 01/17/18, 02:08 PM »


Specifics matter. Helicopter noise? I supposed it could  cause  a momentary  lapse of reason,  evidence  which  is fortunately easy to  gather in the modern era in which  many of us have  video cameras of one sort or another  in a pocket).

Relative safety of guides? W/o data showing risk per skier day with and without guides for people  at the  same experience level, all I see is sharing of anecdotes that  tell me that  our sport has danger that can't be fully mitigated.



Jim, one way the Forest Service tryed to mitigate the impact of the helicopter ski operations on human power Ski touring groups is to require that the helicopter leave the area when is ski touring group is present.

 The helicopter ski operation has some discretion here as far as safety goes, however very often they do not leave the area and the noise is continuous and harmful.

They can always claim that they did not leave the area because of some safety concern, whatever that would be.

Because it's a small community, most Backcountry skiers will not report these types of encounters.

 And look what happened to me when I got involved in this issue during the multiple tree cutting incidents  of whitebark pine trees in order to create unauthorized Landing zones.

I was using the internet in my community center parking lot in Twisp and was approached by a Guide Outfitter owner and repeatedly warned to stay out of Mazama.

The incident was so terrifying to me that I immediately reported it to multiple police departments and a police Report was generated.

It's these types of incidents that I would term reflective of the values of commercialism. Money ideals are placed before Community Values.

  Those folks that support  any business that uses questionable tactics to enrich themselves, support the environment  in which this type of behavior is tolerated.

 Same as people who turned a blind eye to the Hollywood sexual harassment and criminal Behavior  that allowed that behavior to embed itself in the culture .

 So it's not the fact that these commercial enterprises exist, it's how they exist and what value system they operate under.

Andyski's post is a prime example of a questionable value system. Because he's not speaking truthful, his post amounts to the use of personal attack as an argument tactic.

Is that a value system we want to espouse within our communities?

And as to your point on commercial guide accidents vs private citizen ski groups accident analysis, we can never know those numbers because many near miss avalanche incidents are not disclosed by both groups.

However private ski touring groups are not soliciting money from  clients  and many are stepping up as they should. my entire Backcountry safety the record has been laid bare here on the pages of turns all year. The hope is that it would be some small benefit to the community.

Because guide groups are not disclosing all near miss Avalanche incidents, the appearance is that those groups are extremely safe, when in fact that may not be the case.

The perception I've been told by a guide is that disclosing near-miss accidents is  'bad for business'. That conversation was witnessed.

So here we're putting the value of money over what's best for the community. Of course you have to believe as I do that disclosing near Miss Avalanche incidents contributes to a knowledge base, serves to educate and serves the interest of Public Safety and the community as a whole.

 Putting the value of money over the best interest of a community is value that I would attribute to commercialism.  the tobacco industry is a prime example.

A commercial business could certainly choose to operate the other way around where Community service and Public Safety are of greater value to a community then the values that need to be generated in order to make money and serve self- interest.

There are lots of commercial businesses the operate in service to the community, especially in a small community where I live. It turns out what is best for their self interest also serves the interests of the community. That's the way it should be in every case, imo.


What value system would you choose? Honesty and integrity or intimidation and deceit?

Which value system is better for the community?

 Jim, in your other post I agree with you where you say that having a commercial business operate on public land is not bad per se and regulations need to be in place.

 These regulations need to insure  ensure that Commercial Business, which operates on public land, is operating in the best interest of Public Safety, the environment  as well as service to the community.

 How does not disclosing near-miss Avalanche incidents serve the interests of the community.

How does not adhering to the terms of a Guide Outfitter special use permit serve the interests of the community?

How does using intimidation tactics against those who choose to perform their civic duty serve the community?

How does supporting a company adheres to the values of commercialism serve the community?

Of course you have to believe what I'm saying here  and you're forgiven if your bias does not allow you to believe me,  but no need to attack me personally.

But I believe I am being truthful. I'm a witness and it happened to me.





« Last Edit: 01/17/18, 02:22 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
Jim Oker
Moderator
Offline

Posts: 1547


Re: The commercialization of nature
« Reply #29 on: 01/17/18, 08:25 PM »

I hope I haven't attacked you personally in this thread. That was certainly not my intent. I do still think you are somewhat wrong on cause and effect around commercialism and things like the threat you've described (again, I think commercialism is more reflective of peoples values that it is a cause of them)  but I can hold a different opinion there without needing to attack you.

It seems that much of the negative things you've described should theoretically be subject to enforcement action by the FS or local law enforcement but I know that these things aren't perfect and that clannishness for instance can help some locals get away with things. That's been true even in capitalism free societies, fwiw. Reporting of incidents including near misses send like a great notion but tough  to enforce. Not sure how hard I'd fight for turning that into law given the enforcement challenge ( hard to enforce laws don't seem to do a lot...) but I certainly wouldn't oppose such a law.
Logged
bfree32
Member
Offline

Posts: 151


Re: The commercialization of nature
« Reply #30 on: 01/17/18, 10:16 PM »

Noise affecting decision making? Come on...what are you going to think of next to support your elitist agenda? Yes the helicopters are quite loud when directly overhead, but two minutes later they are gone. Once sufficiently far away (it doesn't take long), it sounds just like a road, or gasp...a snowmobile. Maybe if you weren't so rude to the NCH guys you could pick up a radio and they would be happy to tell you where they are planning on flying next. But at this point they probably don't feel too bad for you, much like most of us don't have much sympathy after all of your ranting posts. Sorry to say, the increased population base and increased popularity of backcountry skiing means you need to learn how to share your sacred grounds. Don't like the heli or guide ops? Fine, don't ski with them. But they offer the opportunity to enjoy skiing some of the most beautiful public lands in the state to folks that may not have the skills or equipment to do so without them, and they are here to stay.

Of course you warmed up to the idea of extending the National Park instead of making it Wilderness once you realized it benefits you. No heli-skiing in a National Park, but you could still have your snowmobile. No snowmobiling (or roads, for that matter) in Wilderness. I still can't figure out why your form of motorized transport is acceptable but other peoples' isn't.

No, I am not in the industry, nor have I ever heli-skied or been on a guided trip. Yes, I've had a heli climb a hundred feet above me and drop a bunch of paying clients on top of the run I was planning on skiing. Loud? You betcha, especially a Huey loaded with 8 passengers and gear climbing at 7000 ft. But we knew they were coming from talking to the pilot on radio throughout the morning and didn't really care. They gang ski the middle of the slope anyways and leave the better stuff off to the side. I actually find it kind of amusing when touring up a run that others pay hundreds of dollars to ski.
Logged
altasnob
Member
Offline

Posts: 290


Re: The commercialization of nature
« Reply #31 on: 01/18/18, 07:55 AM »

Is there any heli skiing operations in the US who do operate in either a national park or a wilderness area? I assumed their permit areas may border a national park or wilderness but are not actually inside those forms of land designation. I could be wrong so am curious. Maybe in AK?
Logged
altasnob
Member
Offline

Posts: 290


Re: The commercialization of nature
« Reply #32 on: 01/18/18, 10:19 AM »

Here is an article on a proposal by Dick Cheney's daughter to allow heli skiing in a wilderness proposed area in Wyoming (not a full fledged wilderness yet). I assume that with roads and mechanized travel (like mountain bikes) banned from wilderness, that heli skiing is also banned. North Cascades Heli Skiing's permit area is all on national forest lands, not national park or wilderness (as far as I know). So making this land wilderness would prevent NCHS from flying there (and keep out snowmobiles).
Logged
gravitymk
Member
Offline

Posts: 490


Re: The commercialization of nature
« Reply #33 on: 01/18/18, 02:26 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.

X2 on both points
Logged
Stefan
Member
Offline

Posts: 130


Re: The commercialization of nature
« Reply #34 on: 01/18/18, 02:50 PM »

Is commercialism our new value system that defines us as what it means to be human?

Who gets to decide a value for society?
Logged
Randy
Member
Offline

Posts: 1358


Re: The commercialization of nature
« Reply #35 on: 01/18/18, 06:14 PM »

...
North Cascades Heli Skiing's permit area is all on national forest lands, not national park or wilderness (as far as I know). So making this land wilderness would prevent NCHS from flying there (and keep out snowmobiles).

I've always thought it was odd that Silver Star mountain and surrounding area doesn't have some sort of protected status.   The area certainly has scenic value worth protecting.
Logged
Heli-Free North Cascades
Member
Offline

Posts: 663


Re: The commercialization of nature
« Reply #36 on: 01/20/18, 08:42 AM »

I hope I haven't attacked you personally in this thread. That was certainly not my intent. I do still think you are somewhat wrong on cause and effect around commercialism and things like the threat you've described (again, I think commercialism is more reflective of peoples values that it is a cause of them)  but I can hold a different opinion there without needing to attack you.

It seems that much of the negative things you've described should theoretically be subject to enforcement action by the FS or local law enforcement but I know that these things aren't perfect and that clannishness for instance can help some locals get away with things. That's been true even in capitalism free societies, fwiw. Reporting of incidents including near misses send like a great notion but tough  to enforce. Not sure how hard I'd fight for turning that into law given the enforcement challenge ( hard to enforce laws don't seem to do a lot...) but I certainly wouldn't oppose such a law.
no Jim you have not attacked me personally, ever.

In 2002 and 2003 we went through an environmental assessment process that considered doubling the number of heli assisted skiers that NCHS, now NCH, could airlift into the backcountry.

The forest service designed and put into effect a number of mitigation measures that would supposedly reduce the impact that this motorized access to roadless areas would have upon human powered ski touring groups.

This process was required by law before a permit  could be issued that would change the scope and use of this heli operation.

One of those mitigation measures was to have the helicopter leave an area,safety permitting, where human-powered ski touring group are recreating. That one is hit or miss. Sometimes they fly away and sometimes they stay in the same area and rattle your brain for however long it takes them to track up every single line that you were about to ski.

I remember one blue bird ski tour in the Frisco mountain area where we were climbing a critical section through a waterfall and above a cliff band.

This happened in the winter of 2000 to 2003 I believe. Environmental assessment provisions were finalized, Backcountry skier appeal rejected, the heli operation doubled in size, and the mitigation measures were fully in effect.

We expended great effort and energy to get to this location. When the helicopter first arrives you sense and hear a vibration disturbance similar to what an avalanche sounds like.

When you're in a critical hazard area where even a small Avalanche can send you over a cliff and the helicopter pulls up,  your first thought is, we're screwed. You think there's an avalanche on your way and just for a moment you think " I screwed up  I'm dead."

With adrenaline coursing through your veins, you are now fully in fight or flight mode for survival. Then you realize it's just the helicopter.

So now you proceed with your tour hoping that the mitigation measures will kick in, the helicopter will spot you, and they will fly away to another location. Because after all it's so very easy for them to do.

So on that particular day we proceeded with our tour. The helicopter spotted us and we waved to our friends who were guiding the helicopter that day.

Well they didn't leave. Unbeknownst to us they had actually triggered a slab avalanche above us on a roll over that didn't run very far.

As we were climbing, the helicopter made multiple trips with multiple loads of clients and proceeded to track up every fall line ski line.

As we were climbing up we had multiple encounters with downhill skiers running through our group.

This was my first experience in wondering why people pay money to ski in a constant rattle of noise as the helicopter makes multiple trips in close proximity to your brain. It's like a video game where the skiers are gobbling up powder without realizing the beauty of nature they are surrounded by. They certainly don't have a clue the effect that their powder frenzy is having upon others.

So with all the lines tracked up and the  helicopter now gone, we were left in beautiful silence at the top of Frisco. What to do.

We decided to drop the backside of Frisco down into the National Park. This extended our tour quite a bit. On the return climb back up to Maple pass, one of the members of the group was starting to feel quite ill from the added exertion, but this time it turned out okay.

Was our decision making process compromised as a group? Had we considered that we didn't have enough water and food for an extended tour? Was someone's life put in Jeopardy because we altered our plans because the hideous powder hungry beast, that is the heli ski operation, had entered our area?

We did wind up skiing good powder down into the National Park, but we are all whipped and on the return to Highway 20  we packed on our snowmobiles and headed back over the Liberty Bell slide paths.

I was actually Towed behind a snowmobile from that point because I was not able to drive my machine over the Liberty Bell slide paths on  the outward bound Journey.

So we get back to the hwy 20 hairpin and a Shining Light appeared.

There was skier X with a hot pan full of bratwurst and beer.

So contrast the values of that day. One friend a heli guide, who later told us he was glad it was us because he knew we would not report him to the forest service,  not following the rules.


And another friend, in a total mode of giving.

Someone asked who decides society's values.

We do, each and everyone of us.

We learned our lesson that day. Stay out of the designated heli  runs or learn to  suffer the consequences.

For those of you from another area who think that the helicopters so great, picture  the area's that you currently tour in.

 Is the above scenario something that you would appreciate. Maybe you should  advocate to the forest service for a helicopter operation to start up in your area.

Then you can live with it for 30 years and tell me how much fun you're having.

When the Helicopter Company decided to extend their terrain by cutting whitebark pine trees in order to establish unauthorized helicopter landing zones, we had no choice but to take action.

The forest service actually asks Backcountry skiers to do citizen monitoring of Outfitter permit areas because the forest service doesn't have the resources to do their own monitoring.We see now that that policy just extends the conflict. Here we are doing our citizen Duty, paying the price through Outfitter intimidation and harassment.

The Helicopter Company had a chance to make it right.
They had a chance to step up and make our back country a better place.

They chose to lie to the FS instead, tried to cover their environmental destruction. When subsequent unauthorized cut sites were discovered after the first one, that lie became apparent even to the forest service and the NCH permit was placed on probation. Ultimately they were just slapped on the wrist, paid a small fee and received extended scope of operation not requiring environmental review.

During the probation period they were supposed to follow the rules for the forest service would take further action. NCH didn't follow the rules during their probation, because I've already documented a helicopter firmly planted in my face and endangering me, and another instance when they did not leave an area that ski tours were operating in. The forest service took no further action because of these rule violations, it was an empty threat.

We choose the value system for a society. If you Embrace ideals of commercialism, such as deceit and intimidation, they will embrace you.

You  become the values that you embrace. Choose Wisely.





« Last Edit: 01/20/18, 09:43 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
Jim Oker
Moderator
Offline

Posts: 1547


Re: The commercialization of nature
« Reply #37 on: 01/20/18, 09:15 AM »

If you think profit motive is required for  acts of deceit or for  taking advantage of other  humans or of nature, I'd suggest a closer reading of history.

Has anyone managed to get video documentation of multiple cases of ignoring of the  mitigation measures and shared that  with the  FS? (separate from  the photo documentation that I know was provided of the  tree cuts)
Logged
Heli-Free North Cascades
Member
Offline

Posts: 663


Re: The commercialization of nature
« Reply #38 on: 01/20/18, 10:06 AM »

If you think profit motive is required for  acts of deceit or for  taking advantage of other  humans or of nature, I'd suggest a closer reading of history.

Has anyone managed to get video documentation of multiple cases of ignoring of the  mitigation measures and shared that  with the  FS? (separate from  the photo documentation that I know was provided of the  tree cuts)
I do have a video that was taken during the permit probation. The helicopter had landed on highway 20 near Vardon Creek and it looked like there were two loads of heli skiers milling around. I slowly proceeded past the helicopter with my snowmobile, and stopped.

It was foggy that day and a guide approached me to explain the circumstances and said that they could not safely return to the base area and didn't have enough fuel to circle around and find a hole in the low fog layer.

The NCH snowcat pulled up and they proceeded to refuel the helicopter and one load of heli skiers was loaded into the snow cat to return to base camp. The other load took off and most likely headed back up to SilverStar for some more skiing.

The snow cat is not permitted on the highway, and refueling operations are not supposed to take place on the highway, and the helicopter is not supposed to land on the highway at that location.

However it may have been an emergency situation and my assumption was they would have reported it to the forest service themselves. In this case I gave NCH the benefit of the doubt.

As I mentioned before, it's a small community and most people don't truly desire to make waves. Many would rather come to me and  tell the stories at which point the story just becomes hearsay not subject to actions by the forest service.

I can't blame those people because after all, who wants to be subject  to intimidation or whatever pushback may come their way as a result of reporting to governmental land managers. Their names will not be protected under the Freedom of Information Act.

There are however members of the community who think that public safety issues and community value systems are important and are willing to speak out.

Some are even willing to relay  these experiences on turns all year with the knowledge that a few internet people will launch personal attacks subject to their own bias, self interest and value systems.

As a once professional psychologist, I understand the influence of bias and don't blame them, but I think the discussion and thought is worthy of our attention.

We are after all, innocent victims of circumstance and coincidence, and we are all at various levels (stages) of growth.

Edit(...)

« Last Edit: 01/20/18, 06:57 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 #39 on: 01/20/18, 06:49 PM »

 here's a quote from an opinion piece by KT Miller, formally  working in the heli-ski industry

https://www.adventure-journal.com/2015/08/opinion-the-hypocrisy-of-helicopter-skiing/

''It was especially ironic on April 22, 2014…Earth Day. A handful of fairly big players in the ski industry posted Instagrams about how much they loved the mountains and the earth…but the photos they posted came from helicopters. On top of which, some of those who posted heli-ski photos on Earth Day have also advocated for Protect Our Winter’s #ActOnClimate project and Climate Reality Project’s I am Pro Snow campaign."

"What I want to know now is when will we as a culture be willing to sacrifice our frivolous joys for the sake of the future? It’s great that the ski industry is talking the talk, but when will everyone, companies and athletes included, choose to walk the walk? And what’s the line? Is heli-skiing okay if you only do it a few time a year, but the rest of the year you act as an environmentally aware citizen? "

KT MILLER IS A SKIER, PHOTOGRAPHER, AND ENVIRONMENTALIST. SEE MORE OF HER WORK AT KTMILLER.PHOTO."
« Last Edit: 01/20/18, 07:00 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
Randy
Member
Offline

Posts: 1358


Re: The commercialization of nature
« Reply #40 on: 01/20/18, 07:33 PM »

...As a once professional psychologist, ...

This explains so much...
Logged
Heli-Free North Cascades
Member
Offline

Posts: 663


Re: The commercialization of nature
« Reply #41 on: 01/21/18, 10:12 AM »

This explains so much...
not quite accurate though.
 It should read  "as a professional practicing in the field of psychology".

Sorry you may have formed a judgment that was based inaccurate facts.

After that very short career I went into the construction industry and am producing about a ton of Honey every year.( okay caught me again, the bees actually produce the honey, I just grab it from the bees)

Helping people with problems cope, providing shelter and food, which ultimately benefits a community, yeah he must be some kind of ......(insert your favorite biased related judgement here).

And

"Facebook it to your mommy."

( that's my favorite Scotsman quote). Cheesy

« Last Edit: 01/21/18, 10:22 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
Skier of the Hood
Member
Offline

Posts: 178


Re: The commercialization of nature
« Reply #42 on: 01/21/18, 10:21 AM »

Hah KT Miller is my biggest fan!
#backcountryalpha

https://www.instagram.com/p/zOVqtqoM4Q/
Logged

"As we all know, the true driving force behind every early morning wake up is not necessarily safety, but the overpowering drive to be sitting on a patio by 1 pm, intoxicated, and spraying loudly about the morning's adventure."

-Andrew Wexler 2011
Heli-Free North Cascades
Member
Offline

Posts: 663


Re: The commercialization of nature
« Reply #43 on: 01/21/18, 10:26 AM »

Hah KT Miller is my biggest fan!
#backcountryalpha

https://www.instagram.com/p/zOVqtqoM4Q/
thanks for that link.

This quote is from the comment section. looks like KT knows how to spot a carpetbagger spoon feeding misinformation to the carpet Crawlers.

"ktmillerphotoThere are two much safer ways to approach the line via ridge lines right & left @jensanderson // I'm afraid there is a new guidebook out that advises folks to climb the route- which for this particular line doesn't make a lot of sense.."

Remember when Peter Gabriel sang "the carpet crawlers heed their callers" Cheesy
« Last Edit: 01/21/18, 10:31 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
Skier of the Hood
Member
Offline

Posts: 178


Re: The commercialization of nature
« Reply #44 on: 01/21/18, 10:34 AM »

Haha I guess I do enjoy crawling on carpets from time to time, especially after a month of almost no new snowfall (;
Logged

"As we all know, the true driving force behind every early morning wake up is not necessarily safety, but the overpowering drive to be sitting on a patio by 1 pm, intoxicated, and spraying loudly about the morning's adventure."

-Andrew Wexler 2011
Heli-Free North Cascades
Member
Offline

Posts: 663


Re: The commercialization of nature
« Reply #45 on: 01/21/18, 04:06 PM »

Haha I guess I do enjoy crawling on carpets from time to time, especially after a month of almost no new snowfall (;
oh I was just referring to KT's reference to guide books and how people blindly follow guide recommendations even though guide information is often misleading or hidden in the commercialism tower of power.

We watched in our area as many of our routes were poached and then were turned into a commercial product and watched as nature has  been subject to the values of commercialism.



 


* tower_of_hype_building.jpg (50.51 KB, 640x480 - viewed 410 times.)
« Last Edit: 01/21/18, 04:19 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
Jim Oker
Moderator
Offline

Posts: 1547


Re: The commercialization of nature
« Reply #46 on: 01/22/18, 08:53 AM »

In our areas we watch as nature becomes subject to the values of procreation and migration...
Logged
Heli-Free North Cascades
Member
Offline

Posts: 663


Re: The commercialization of nature
« Reply #47 on: 01/23/18, 01:12 PM »

Noise ratings for Astar helicopter.

Unweighted
98-99.9 dB overhead

97'-97.3 dB at 100m flyby

A Weighted
85.7-89 dB overhead

84.8-85.2 dB 100m flyby


Source: Forest Service Study on effects of heli- ski operations on golden eagles.

And here's a good read on noise and its effect on human hearing.

https://blogs.cdc.gov/niosh-science-blog/2016/02/08/noise/


"The EPA document also specified two other limits for speech interference and annoyance (55 dBA for outdoors activities and 45 dBA for indoor activities)*. The EPA limits were chosen to protect 96% of the general population from developing hearing loss as well as to protect “public health and welfare” (defined as personal comfort and well-being and absence of mental anguish and annoyance)."
« Last Edit: 01/23/18, 01:18 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 #48 on: 01/24/18, 03:09 PM »



Of course you warmed up to the idea of extending the National Park instead of making it Wilderness once you realized it benefits you. No heli-skiing in a National Park, but you could still have your snowmobile. No snowmobiling (or roads, for that matter) in Wilderness. I still can't figure out why your form of motorized transport is acceptable but other peoples' isn't.

my form of motorized transport is restricted to existing roadways, same as car.

One of my machines is so quiet you can hardly hear it coming. The other one is just a little louder. In other words not a noise impact. That of course is by choice.

I don't land my snowmobile on top of a Avy terrain alpine Ridgetop  and drop multiple loads of skiers down upon human powered Backcountry touring groups, track up every line in sight and then disappear to annoy and  place at increase risk of harm  to another human-powered group, with hearing damaging noise impacting human health.



No, I'm afraid it's long past time for NCH turn in their permit and do what's right for our community. They have proven not to be good stewards of the land, and their economic impact to the community is negligible.

National parks have a significant economics benefit to border communities and the land receives greater protection status. In other words the land is being relegated towards its highest best use.

Unless of course you think that commercialized motorized use of a pristine spectacular Mountain environment ( with the exception of the environmental destruction already imposed upon the land by NCH) is that lands highest best use.

Does this serve myself interest? Economically yes. More people will benefit economically from a National Park extension then from the current system of Land Management for that area.

Does this serve myself interest? As far as habitat preservation yes. I believe that all life forms on the planet should be preserved and their habitats protected and not exterminated due to human interference, with the exception of a few strains of bacteria.

Does this serve myself interest? Maybe not. It is possible that snowmobiles would be excluded by a national park extension  along Highway 20 depending upon how the borders would be drawn.




https://headwaterseconomics.org/public-lands/protected-lands/economic-impact-of-national-parks/



"Protected public lands such as national parks can play an important economic role for local communities. This interactive shows jobs and labor income created by visitor spending in gateway communities for every National Park Service unit."

"Visitation and spending directly related to nearby public lands such as national parks annually contribute billions to regional economies while creating hundreds of thousands of private sector jobs."

NCH, DO WHAT IS RIGHT FOR OUR COMMUMITY AND AN AREA OF LAND THAT REQUIRES WILDERNESS PROTECTION.

PLEASE STEP ASIDE AND LET PROGRESS HAPPEN
« Last Edit: 01/24/18, 03:16 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 #49 on: 01/28/18, 09:23 AM »

 here's a cartoon I drew up many years ago in response to finding out that commercial guide Outfitters do not like to discuss their near Miss Avalanche accidents because they are, quote: " bad for business". That quote was told to me by a helicopter ski guide when it was assumed that I was part of Club.



* bctoonride_1r.jpg (29.01 KB, 668x280 - viewed 118 times.)

* bctoonride2.jpg (85.66 KB, 1000x418 - viewed 118 times.)

* bctoonride3.jpg (87.63 KB, 1000x418 - viewed 117 times.)
« Last Edit: 01/28/18, 09:29 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
Heli-Free North Cascades
Member
Offline

Posts: 663


Re: The commercialization of nature
« Reply #50 on: 01/28/18, 09:24 AM »

Continued: while I continuously put forth this agenda here at t a y and received a lot of personal attacks from what I assumed were guide members and groupies, one of the members told me that I sounded like a broken record.

Just goes to show you how the pursuit of money  sets public land policy. Those that hold such a lease  will Resort to any means in order to hold on to the goose that laid the golden egg right in their laps, despite what's best for their community and the planet at Large.


* bctoonride4.jpg (69.09 KB, 1000x418 - viewed 429 times.)

* bctoonride_6_7.jpg (91.95 KB, 1000x418 - viewed 427 times.)

* bctoonride5.jpg (86.79 KB, 1000x418 - viewed 431 times.)
« Last Edit: 01/28/18, 09:37 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
Randy
Member
Offline

Posts: 1358


Re: The commercialization of nature
« Reply #51 on: 01/28/18, 01:08 PM »

From my knothole, If I was going to get worked up about safety records ,  near misses and bad outcomes not being publicly disclosed ,  I would put my energy into having the laws changed concerning doctors.

People in my family have suffered botched surgeries and only after the fact while working with other doctors to reduce the damage did we find out that among  other doctors it is well known that the original doctors have a poor track record.
Logged
Heli-Free North Cascades
Member
Offline

Posts: 663


Re: The commercialization of nature
« Reply #52 on: 01/28/18, 03:00 PM »

From my knothole, If I was going to get worked up about safety records ,  near misses and bad outcomes not being publicly disclosed ,  I would put my energy into having the laws changed concerning doctors.

People in my family have suffered botched surgeries and only after the fact while working with other doctors to reduce the damage did we find out that among  other doctors it is well known that the original doctors have a poor track record.
I know what you mean Randy. My dad suffered a stroke when his Airway closed down after throat surgery.

 But I don't know much about how the medical world works.

The natural world of mountain Terrain has been one of my life Pursuits and therefore I'm more familiar with that world.

I do know that holding commercial ski guides accountable for their actions in the backcountry affect the safe and peaceful enjoyment of the mountains  for myself, loved ones and friends. 

Accountability leads to better decision-making.

There seems to be little impetus on the part of the Forest Service to hold guide Outfitters accountable for negligent actions.

We now know that it's okay for a commercial guide to trigger an avalanche down on any touring group without being held accountable by the Forest Service. And that isn't right.


 Each near-miss accident should be subject to the same kind of scrutiny that is often seen when guides investigate recreational near-miss accidents and post the results on nwac.

So what are the ramifications when recreational accidents are highlighted and Commercial guide accidents are hidden?

Well for one, the appearance is that recreational groups are more prone to near-miss Avalanche accidents then guided groups.

Another reason would be that knowledge is hidden. I have seen some accident reports from professionals  such as NASA, NTSB and Ski Patrol personsonal where the knowledge and analysis of a near-miss accident is of great benefit in terms of Public Safety.

Imagine if members of the NTSB had a financial interest in one particular Airline and only reported near-miss incidents for all the other airlines. Which airline would you most likely choose to employ?

What would happen if one guide Outfitter company decides to disclose and analyze their near-miss accidents and all the rest of the guide Outfitters kept them hidden.

Which company would you be inclined to hire?

Would you hire the company that showed integrity and ethical Behavior or would you hire the company that apparently had zero near-miss Avalanche accidents?

Which company would you want as a member of your community?






« Last Edit: 01/28/18, 03:03 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
Heli-Free North Cascades
Member
Offline

Posts: 663


Re: The commercialization of nature
« Reply #53 on: 02/14/18, 12:13 PM »

"Well, I dreamed I saw the silver
Space ships flying
In the yellow haze of the sun,
There were children crying
And colors flying
All around the chosen ones.
All in a dream, all in a dream
The loading had begun.
They were flying Mother Nature's
Silver seed to a new home in the sun.
Flying Mother Nature's
Silver seed to a new home."

Neil Young
After the Gold Rush
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
oldschooldropout
5Member
Offline

Posts: 78


Re: The commercialization of nature
« Reply #54 on: 02/14/18, 06:44 PM »

I am at a loss for words. Might I recommend that to the OP.

Bruce
Logged
BillK
Member
Offline

Posts: 245


Re: The commercialization of nature
« Reply #55 on: 02/14/18, 09:01 PM »

"Well, I dreamed I saw the silver
Space ships flying
In the yellow haze of the sun,
There were children crying
And colors flying
All around the chosen ones.
All in a dream, all in a dream
The loading had begun.
They were flying Mother Nature's
Silver seed to a new home in the sun.
Flying Mother Nature's
Silver seed to a new home."

Neil Young
After the Gold Rush

Amen!. ... Finally something I can get behind
« Last Edit: 02/15/18, 10:10 AM by Micah » Logged
Heli-Free North Cascades
Member
Offline

Posts: 663


Re: The commercialization of nature
« Reply #56 on: 02/16/18, 08:11 AM »

I am at a loss for words. Might I recommend that to the OP.

Bruce
sorry, but your statement is a bit contradictory.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/georgemonbiot/2014/oct/01/george-monbiot-war-on-the-living-world-wildlife

"This is a moment at which anyone with the capacity for reflection should stop and wonder what we are doing."

"It's time to shout stop on this war on the living world

Our consumption is trashing a natural world infinitely more fascinating and intricate than the stuff we produce."

"The loss of wildlife is a loss of wonder and enchantment, of the magic with which the living world infects our lives."

Would you rather watch an eagle or a helicopter?

The damn thing in our area is starting to  hover around backcountry skiers like we are some sort of tourist attraction.

It's beyond annoying, it's dangerous.

There have been 15 fatal helicopter sightseeing crashes since 2003.

When our local helicopter crashes for the 4th time, I don't want to be anywhere near it.

I go to the mountains to experience the natural world.

 But the wealthy class gets what the wealthy class wants,   and they want to fly around our wilderness, making a nuisance of themselves.




« Last Edit: 02/16/18, 08:26 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
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.