3 ms·

1. You can indeed be invested in your own amusement, through sunk time & money for equipment & training, a social network of others invested in the same activit

1. You can indeed be invested in your own amusement, through sunk time & money for equipment & training, a social network of others invested in the same activity, and many things less tangible. 2. "Rights" have nothing to do with this discussion. 3. Unless you're talking about a national park, the residents/owners/official caretakers of the backcountry are often nobody, or at most a volunteer trail maintenance org. 4. Educating people costs money. Providing facilities costs money. Hiring personnel costs money. Ameliorating damage costs money. These things all happen, but they cost money, and nobody is champing at the bit to pay. The approach many in the outdoors community take is indeed everything you suggest, plus an information diet to concentrate use on trails which have seen a lot of work and can handle the traffic.

notacoward 8y ago
> Rights" have nothing to do with this discussion. Rights have everything to do with this discussion. You're trying to argue that other people have less right to these areas because they've enjoyed them less than you. One could easily argue the exact opposite, that you've exhausted your share and should stay away. It's not a very good argument, but it's still more morally supportable than the one you're making. > the residents/owners/official caretakers of the backcountry are often nobody The default owner is the government, the default caretaker is BLM. Or equivalent in other countries. They have the authority to determine who should or should not go on that land, for what purpose. You don't. Get over it.
- ahelwer 8y ago
  I'm afraid you are mistaken. Under discussion is whether there is a moral imperative for individuals to publicly disseminate their personal knowledge of locations of natural beauty. Again, rights are not at all relevant, unless you're talking about the right of someone else to my personal knowledge. Given your wild misreading of the topic I won't engage with you further.
  - notacoward 8y ago
    > ...whether there is a moral imperative... Who said there was such a moral imperative? Not me. Not even you. I'm not misreading; you're misrepresenting.

notacoward 8y ago

> Rights" have nothing to do with this discussion. Rights have everything to do with this discussion. You're trying to argue that other people have less right to these areas because they've enjoyed them less than you. One could easily argue the exact opposite, that you've exhausted your share and should stay away. It's not a very good argument, but it's still more morally supportable than the one you're making. > the residents/owners/official caretakers of the backcountry are often nobody The default owner is the government, the default caretaker is BLM. Or equivalent in other countries. They have the authority to determine who should or should not go on that land, for what purpose. You don't. Get over it.

ahelwer 8y ago
I'm afraid you are mistaken. Under discussion is whether there is a moral imperative for individuals to publicly disseminate their personal knowledge of locations of natural beauty. Again, rights are not at all relevant, unless you're talking about the right of someone else to my personal knowledge. Given your wild misreading of the topic I won't engage with you further.
- notacoward 8y ago
  > ...whether there is a moral imperative... Who said there was such a moral imperative? Not me. Not even you. I'm not misreading; you're misrepresenting.