Historical destruction or reclaimation?

[ox4mag]

Destruction of land

I have read through all the responses that have been posted on this topic and I noticed that there hasn't been much talk about the tundra that was destroyed by these people who were irresponsible about their camping 'adventure'. I would strongly suggest that when someone sees another person, or group of persons, blatantly destroying public land that they contact a ranger or park service. As adventurers, we have a responsibilty to use the lands we visit with as little impact as possible. Imagine if everyone were to go out and use these lands in whatever way they see fit. We wouldn't have those lands to enjoy and, more than likely, the efforts of groups such as Tread Lightly, United Four Wheel Drive Associations, Blue Coalition, and others would have no basis for advocating land use.

I would encourage everyone and anyone who sees this sort of misuse to do as I suggested and contact the appropriate 'authority' who can handle the situation in a way that makes people realize that preserving land today will ensure their use tomorrow.

Frank

 

[calamaridog]

Frank,

I agree totally about reporting this stuff. Damage to a "fragile" meadow may outlast old wooden structures and such (but I don't know that for sure).

 

[rgsiii]

To me this was a glaring example of redneck ecological and historical destruction and the reason mines and ghost towns are disappearing. Not only is it disrespectful to the land, but the history of the state and the legacy of the miners as well.

My sister, however, had a very different take on the situation. Her feelings were that these particular mines, like many that litter the state, have no real historical significance and that ultimately these people using the mine ruins as a private firewood stash are actually helping the mountain heal, reclaim the damage that was done to it (or at least the obvious visual scarring) and return to a pristine state; albeit with a few holes in it.

What is your take? As far as I know it is perfectly legal to bring your own firewood or harvest dead wood from the ground, but I have no idea about pulling apart old buildings.

I would be on your side in the discussion. It is just vandalism and the destruction of our history.

If your sister's argument was followed, other damage should be removed--the trails and passes. I don't think it really is the direction most people would follow.

I think that in places like this a minimal impact approach should be used to whatever is there of historic significance. This would include mining sites, ghost towns or American Indian sites.

 

[devinsixtyseven]

i know this is an older thread, but it's one that imho bears constant reflection when in the backcountry.

canyonlands national park contains many, many excellent examples of areas that are, or were, in dispute with regards to type and frequency of access, damage to historical sites, and what might appear on the surface to be a double standard.

kirk cabin, in the southernmost tip of canyonlands national park, was originally built in the late 1800s by a man who was technically a "squatter"...he moved in, saw a good place to winter the herd, built a cabin, and took a wagon back and forth between moab and the southernmost end of salt creek wash. his cabin and equipment, along with cliff dwellings, rock art, and even older rock art, make up three civilizations' worth of culture in the wash between peekaboo spring and cathedral point. the previous culture to inhabit the area actually "vandalized" (?...a culturally subjective term, i suppose) the much, much older rock art, and both primitive cultures' marks can be seen on the canyon walls...undoubtedly along with marks from both the ranch days and modern culture.

by our modern assessment, ALL of the human evidence in the canyon might be "vandalism" and destruction of the ecosystem...surely neither the Ancients nor the Kirk inhabitants made sure to stay only on established trails, and certainly did not think twice about erecting permanent structures or allowing their animals free reign over the land. by the assessment of someone's sister mentioned above in this thread, everything from the cliff dwellings to the ranch cabin should be removed to allow nature to reclaim the land...which at first glance to some people might seem like the fair and proper thing to do, and perhaps she is not the first to voice that opinion, it's possible the second culture to inhabit the wash landscape thought the same regarding the previous culture's rock art. we, with our modern culture and technology, run a much greater risk of spoiling the land, therefore we should minimize our impact and remove any prior human impact. OR the flip side, the ancients and ranchers made their way across the landscape, therefore we should be able to do the same as we see fit for our own means, whether exploration for development, resource extraction or recreation.

while both approaches duck the "double standard" of allowing historic sites to stand while restricting modern access and development, both approaches are completely childish and entirely miss the point of preservation and limited access.

the remnants of two primitive cultures and ranching/mining operations in the area give a brief glimpse in to the daily life, culture, and beliefs of people who actually lived in the area, vs. people who were just passing through and carved their name on a rock. it is, like someone else mentioned above, an open-air museum with no tour guide, velvet rope, or glass case to spoil the experience. anthropological evidence of any culture is significant, whether thousands or hundreds of years old...it is of great use to us as their lifestyle or point of view may help us lay out resource use now and in the future. just think, perhaps hundreds of years from now, scientists will find evidence in the southwest's current population centers of permanent aquifer damage due to rampant, inappropriate water use, and structure their water use more appropriate to their climate (frankly it'd be nice if they did so now, but they couldnt play golf in the desert anymore). in contrast, tourist graffiti and other marks of people just passing through for the view contain little or no cultural significance, except perhaps as examples of the disrespectful, wasteful and careless side of our culture. It is NOT a double standard, not at all...one of these things is significant, the other is not only insignificant but potentially negatively significant to future discoverers. destroying these fragile remnants of human history is no less damaging (and possibly more so) than careless tracks and graffiti.

personally, after learning the history (ancient, recent past and modern), seeing the photographs (satellite, courtesy google earth), and reading historical accounts from the area, i'm glad the salt creek wash was closed to vehicles and remains a restricted access, permit area. wheels aren't really appropriate in the wash, and with the easy access a vehicle provides i can see the cultural remnants quickly being reduced to campfire ash and coffee table conversation pieces. limited, difficult access ensures that only the most determined and best prepared members of our culture will see these archeological treasures firsthand, and in my experience, those people tend to be the most respectful as regards natural and cultural treasures like the salt creek wash area.

-sean

 

[Ursidae69]

Nice post Sean.

 

[awalter]

. limited, difficult access ensures that only the most determined and best prepared members of our culture will see these archeological treasures firsthand, and in my experience, those people tend to be the most respectful as regards natural and cultural treasures like the salt creek wash area.

-sean

I read this sentence as an elitist, discriminatory statement. It spoiled the posting for me.

 

[Ursidae69]

I read this sentence as an elitist, discriminatory statement. It spoiled the posting for me.

Maybe, but it is the truth. Until funding is provided for real law enforcement, all these natural and historical treasures are being taken advantage of.

 

[devinsixtyseven]

I read this sentence as an elitist, discriminatory statement. It spoiled the posting for me.

walter, i'm honestly sorry it did.

i guess i'm a bit of an elitist, or more likely just a cynic...i've found over my short years that the farther i get from the beaten path, the people i meet become increasingly sensible and respectful regardless of age or ability. it is a generalization, but it seems that the more difficult it is to achieve anything, the more appreciation people have for the results--in this case, leading to an increased chance of preserving human history for the benefit of future generations.

unfortunately, it's always been the easily accessed areas where i find trash, vandalism, and other undesirable human trace...from footprints to firepits, bicycle and vehicle tracks off the route. the "glass half full" part of me wishes these would be the areas with the best stewardship, in the best shape, since the level of traffic presents an even greater chance of taking care of the area.

last weekend, my girlfriend and i eagerly biked out to the "open air museum" northwest of moab, with the dinosaur bones exposed in the eroding strata, hoping to see the real thing in their natural environment. we were beyond disappointed--somewhere between hurt and angry--to find that every available fossil which could have been removed had either been taken or destroyed in the attempt. the area has an improved road leading to the site, with a graded parking lot. the exhibit was an experiment, and we were truly sad to see that it is failing. it is very unfortunate that something so exciting would need to be either closed off to all but the most dedicated observer, or else presented under glass and guard. an exhibit like the one northwest of moab requires only the highest standard from every single person who passes through--thousands may have seen it, but like mentioned on several other threads here, it only takes "one yahoo" to ruin it for everyone else.

in contrast, "harvest scene" is located in the depths of the maze district of canyonlands. it is one of the most difficult sights to see in the park...in any given season, without even considering the drive to the trailhead, a visitor risks heat, exposure, cold, flooding, injury, and misdirection to reach it. it remains in excellent shape.

i hope no-one takes my remark about determination or preparation as slanderous toward age or ability. when our group ventured in to the maze, we did so with a wide range of vehicles, trip preparation, age, and fitness. working together, we safely brought the entire group through the trip despite flood damage to trail markers, intense heat, vehicle malfunction, and a lack of forethought toward hydration by several people in the group. the traits that took us in and out of the maze in one piece were detailed preparation by most, and determination by all, to ensure that everyone was in good mental and physical health despite various potentially life-threatening setbacks.

even for someone unable to walk easily, there are ways to see these areas--scenic overflights, a bunch of good friends (i have both carried, and been carried by, other people in the backcountry at times), or their own determination. last weekend, we were *passed* on the amasa back trail (rated difficult) by a guy riding a hardtail with a prosthetic leg. i certainly do understand that as easy access diminishes, it increases the difficulty for anyone with a physical limitation to reach an area...there are a couple accounts of people who hiked the route i mentioned previously because the road had been closed, and the strain it put on them due to their physical limitations.

at hocking hills, in ohio, there are paved wheelchair accessable routes to several features, but they do not continue farther down the trail. they probably could, but there would be some difficult tradeoffs to consider.

where do you stop the pavement? it's difficult to find that one person who's going to mess it up for the thousands of responsible users, just like it's impossible to completely secure anything--whether a piece of software, a locked door or an airport. the best security is often simply obscurity, and while nothing is foolproof, obscurity at least lowers the number of fools who will pass. the downside to this approach on public lands is that it does limit access to people who are physically unable to make the journey under their own power, but that's not at all what i intended to convey with my exclusory statement, and i apologize if anyone took it as such.

-sean

 

[bigreen505]

I can definitely see Al's point and I agree at some level, but Sean's right too. It is kind of like a car alarm. It doesn't make it impossible to steal your car, but it is more difficult and often that is enough to convince the would be offenders to move on to an easier target. This is also the case here. If someone is hell bent on destroying or vandalizing an area, for whatever reason they are going to do so. But if they are just out make a mess, start a bonfire, paint rocks, etc. they are more likely to just find an easier target. The easier it is, particularly if it is somewhat remote with very easy access (like the places in my original post) it is an easier target.

Al, remember that we are not talking about conservationists run amok here, we are generally talking about our society's lowest common denominator, just with off-road capable vehicles. Unfortunately, and to some degree I think this is Al's point, this is a case of throwing out the baby with the bath water. In attempts to prevent further damage to the area by closing it to all vehicles, you also keep many other respectful people from the area as well. I think it was Ansel Adams who said if it is more than 500 feet from the car, it is not photogenic, and he was quite the conservationist.

 

[awalter]

My thoughts are the 4x4 community, the backpacking community , the mountain bike community, the rock climbing community are all a slice from our society & contain the full spectrum of the good to the bad. It is true that the more exposed an area is to human contact, the higher the chance of abuse. if there are natural barriers that lessen human contact so be it. I don't think any one group has a better class of people within it. I don't want to give up trying to educate people in how to use these resources properly.

I must say some of the things I did years ago (as a jerk), I would be ashamed of today, but that was also a part of my education.

There will always be jerks in our society, that we need to educate. I don't think we need any artificial barriers that would prevent us from educating & converting the jerks of the world, so that they also can enjoy our resources.

I feel more comfortable substituting a--hole for jerk.

 

[bigreen505]

Thanks Al, those are excellent points. It also brings the thread full circle to what was going through my head as I began to understand what was happening -- how do you go about educating people?

 

[Scott Brady]

I must say some of the things I did years ago (as a jerk), I would be ashamed of today, but that was also a part of my education.

Me too...

I wish I could take back some of my stupid and selfish actions from years past.

 

[Dave Bennett]

Me too...

I wish I could take back some of my stupid and selfish actions from years past.

Dont we all...

This is a very thought provoking thread :lurk:

 

[awalter]

I am not sold on the concept that if it is difficult to reach, those that do will be more resposible to our environment. Look at the abuse the Himilayas have taken for those hikers, trekkers & mountaineers that have visited the area over the last 20 years. The tons of abandoned gear & waste is appalling.

Granted, the commercialism of a Himilayan adventure has probably been a key factor.

Bill,
I don't have a solution, but I don't want to just give in. I'm still hopeful through education, forums such as Expo Portal & others we can make a difference.

 

[Ursidae69]

My thoughts are the 4x4 community, the backpacking community , the mountain bike community, the rock climbing community are all a slice from our society & contain the full spectrum of the good to the bad. It is true that the more exposed an area is to human contact, the higher the chance of abuse. if there are natural barriers that lessen human contact so be it. I don't think any one group has a better class of people within it. I don't want to give up trying to educate people in how to use these resources properly.

Great points Al. All these segments of society all use public land. Let's not overlook other uses of public land like mining, ranching, oil, & natural gas. These uses can have both sustainable use as well as abuse on public lands.

Like you, I have hope forums like this one can raise awareness and educate on these type issues. I hope all the user groups of public lands have similar discussions.