4 ms·

Which is why I didn't say "Raising prices deters the poor." I think reading it in good faith covers things and that my intent was clear? Really, it's not going

by prawn 7y ago

Which is why I didn't say "Raising prices deters the poor." I think reading it in good faith covers things and that my intent was clear? Really, it's not going to help encourage anyone that is price sensitive for whatever personal reason and would be quite easily criticised. I think if you are going to respect the environment, you should have every right to witness the best of our planet.

tonyedgecombe 7y ago
I think if you are going to respect the environment, you should have every right to witness the best of our planet. Even if visiting that place destroys what you supposedly cherish?
- mft_ 7y ago
  (Again reading the comment with good faith/will) presumably "if you are going to respect the environment" covers that aspect?
- prawn 7y ago
  National parks are generally massive. It's possible to visit the most stunning parts with a light touch, and for the broader ecosystem to endure in other areas. I don't think they need to be the same place within a park - e.g., endangered bird atop Delicate Arch, or bears on Clouds Rest. Obviously we can impact the park from a distance too, but I'd say "destroys" is overly strong language for the respectful traveller I'm discussing. I suspect we damage it almost as much whether we step into the park or not with everything else we do collectively. Certainly a lot of the iconic geological scenery will survive our personal influence.
  - tonyedgecombe 7y ago
    National parks are generally massive. I sometimes wonder if this is why America has such trouble with environmental issues. When your landscape is so vast it is hard to imagine human activity having an impact on it. The trouble with the "respectful traveller" is that they are a minority, as we can see from the article linked at the top of this discussion.
    - prawn 7y ago
      Everywhere has trouble with environmental issues. We're selfish. And respectful travellers are indeed a minority. I actually think that there is a subset of Americans, more than many other countries, that across all age brackets have a great appreciation for the outdoors. In Australia, we have families going camping and grey nomads, but we don't have anything like quantities of college friends camping together that the US has. Makes me quite jealous. Most of our parks have nowhere near the prestige or modern cultural history (s'mores, log cabins, the romantic stone inns in Yellowstone, Yosemite, Zion, Grand Canyon, etc). We have damper and I don't know what else. I've seen comments in other discussions about uncouth Chinese tourists en masse, and Chinese explaining that these are newly middle-class Chinese now with money to head abroad, but perhaps not the awareness to always do it politely. But I don't think it's unique to China. Almost anyone worldwide would've seen domestic groups playing music on their phones or portable speakers while hiking, etc. Others feeding chewing gum to squirrels. I don't know how you get through to these people, because they obviously don't care about signs and park brochures.
someguydave 7y ago
Nevertheless, there is an admission price that will restore visitor traffic to something more reasonable.

by prawn 7y ago

tonyedgecombe 7y ago

I think if you are going to respect the environment, you should have every right to witness the best of our planet. Even if visiting that place destroys what you supposedly cherish?

mft_ 7y ago
(Again reading the comment with good faith/will) presumably "if you are going to respect the environment" covers that aspect?
prawn 7y ago
National parks are generally massive. It's possible to visit the most stunning parts with a light touch, and for the broader ecosystem to endure in other areas. I don't think they need to be the same place within a park - e.g., endangered bird atop Delicate Arch, or bears on Clouds Rest. Obviously we can impact the park from a distance too, but I'd say "destroys" is overly strong language for the respectful traveller I'm discussing. I suspect we damage it almost as much whether we step into the park or not with everything else we do collectively. Certainly a lot of the iconic geological scenery will survive our personal influence.
- tonyedgecombe 7y ago
  National parks are generally massive. I sometimes wonder if this is why America has such trouble with environmental issues. When your landscape is so vast it is hard to imagine human activity having an impact on it. The trouble with the "respectful traveller" is that they are a minority, as we can see from the article linked at the top of this discussion.
  - prawn 7y ago
    Everywhere has trouble with environmental issues. We're selfish. And respectful travellers are indeed a minority. I actually think that there is a subset of Americans, more than many other countries, that across all age brackets have a great appreciation for the outdoors. In Australia, we have families going camping and grey nomads, but we don't have anything like quantities of college friends camping together that the US has. Makes me quite jealous. Most of our parks have nowhere near the prestige or modern cultural history (s'mores, log cabins, the romantic stone inns in Yellowstone, Yosemite, Zion, Grand Canyon, etc). We have damper and I don't know what else. I've seen comments in other discussions about uncouth Chinese tourists en masse, and Chinese explaining that these are newly middle-class Chinese now with money to head abroad, but perhaps not the awareness to always do it politely. But I don't think it's unique to China. Almost anyone worldwide would've seen domestic groups playing music on their phones or portable speakers while hiking, etc. Others feeding chewing gum to squirrels. I don't know how you get through to these people, because they obviously don't care about signs and park brochures.

someguydave 7y ago

Nevertheless, there is an admission price that will restore visitor traffic to something more reasonable.