.jpg)
The discussion from tuesday's class extends beyond that of whether or not you should be allowed to skateboard in a public park. The same struggles are acted out in the theatre of the outdoors and on mountainsides where police officers and rent-a-cops are replaced with rangers and environmental activists.
Seven years ago my brothers, dad and some friends were ice-climbing on Mt. Shasta. We had 12 climbers going on the trip, but only 6 could be covered under a single climbing permit so we bought 2 permits and spread out the party into these seperate groups.
At the 10,000 ft. base camp a ranger saw me talking to my buddy who was in the other group and figured out what was going on. He accused us of having a party too large for the park's rules, we explained that we had purchased 2 permits and kept our camps seperate from each other. The ranger said that was unacceptable and that we had to relocate our camp 100 yds down the mountain, because we knew each other. There were literally dozens of other camps on the mountain right next to ours, but because we knew each other we couldn't camp by each other (we ended up recieving a citation which was eventually withdrawn). 
Seven years ago my brothers, dad and some friends were ice-climbing on Mt. Shasta. We had 12 climbers going on the trip, but only 6 could be covered under a single climbing permit so we bought 2 permits and spread out the party into these seperate groups.
At the 10,000 ft. base camp a ranger saw me talking to my buddy who was in the other group and figured out what was going on. He accused us of having a party too large for the park's rules, we explained that we had purchased 2 permits and kept our camps seperate from each other. The ranger said that was unacceptable and that we had to relocate our camp 100 yds down the mountain, because we knew each other. There were literally dozens of other camps on the mountain right next to ours, but because we knew each other we couldn't camp by each other (we ended up recieving a citation which was eventually withdrawn). 
The point is that public space is becoming increasingly more narrowly defined and unavailable. In recent years 2 million acres of public space in Utah was siezed by the Bureau of Land Management which was then barred from public use. Fire roads are constantly being closed to mountain-bikers and 200 campsites in Yosemite were recently removed. A popular climbing spot that I've used since I was in elementary school in California recently had its camp sites taken out, due to a law suit filed by the Sierra Club. The spot has been used by climbers since the 50's, but when the Sierra Club was contacted for comment, they explained that they wanted to prevent erosion and that many indoor climbing gyms were available in the Valley. 
What's the purpose of public space? Is it for use of the public or is it for preservation? Or how much of both? What can be gained by having National Parks and wilderness available to the public use?
What's the purpose of public space? Is it for use of the public or is it for preservation? Or how much of both? What can be gained by having National Parks and wilderness available to the public use?
32 comments:
Well it does appear that what once was public space is now a preservation area. But if it is a preservation area I believe that the government should call it just that. A true public place means the public may go there when they like and do what they want to do as long as they don't destroy it. Obviously we need to have some preservation area's but that should not need to cut into public parks and such so extensively.
To some extent, public space has to be used for preservation. There are areas that we want and need to preserve, and it is imperative that we do something to protect it (wild life, flora and fauna and such are all important to still have at the end of the day).
Obviously, no climber would ever equate the indoor gym to climbing an actual mountain. But no one wants to preserve the gym life either.
that's a very interesting question... to which, reallly, i have no real answer. i guess it's a double edge sword. If you make everything public, then parks have to make more accommadation for all those who want to enjoy the area, but if it's not public enough it remains "untouched" giving people who do make it there a sense of elitism... so either way its hard.
Obviously there needs to be a good balance of both. If we spend all our time trying to protect the land, no one will be able to live in the world that was created for them. If we use up all our resources that also becomes problematic. The government can't control the public spaces so strictly that it takes away from our freedom to enjoy this country, but I believe they should control the lands sparingly.
There has to be a balance. While it is important to preserve space, it is equally important for us to utilize and experience space.
Public space should be open to the public for use, thus its name public space. As long as there is no intentional destruction to public space I don't feel a need to limit public use. I do see the ideas behind preservation, it is important to maintain and protect space.
So I grew up in Hawaii, and being in the continental US has really given me the itch to surf. Two years ago, I was visiting inlaws in Southern California, and we decided to take a trip to San O to go surfing.
I was so excited and couldn't wait to get in the water. There was a big surprise waiting for me at the beach however....a fee!
I couldn't believe that they would make you pay to drive your car down to the beach.
I agree with Jeremy that there are ridiculous restrictions on what we can do outdoors. Isn't the reason why we have the mountains and rivers and ocean for us to enjoy? I think it's sad that someone makes profit and even feels like they can regulate our use of space that should be free game.
My Uncle and his family have been raising cattle in Southern Utah for generations. Every summer they would run the cattle up on top of a mountain called 100 mile mountain. They had a cabin up there and the cattle could graze there and get strong before winter. They had been doing this for years and knew how to take care of the land and not overgraze it to have enough grass for next summer. Then Bill Clinton made the whole area the Escalante Grand Stair Case National Monument. The next thing you knew my uncle for forbidden to graze on the mountain and had to close his business. Then his cabin which was on the mountain was burned by "vandals". They said that he was destroying the ecosystem and had to be stopped. They had been using that land for generations!
I am admittedly undecided on this topic. I think we should do all we can to minimalize the footprint we leave behind, but instances such as the one shared about the parks ranger irritate me. I think you can preserve, and enjoy, and it all comes down to finding a good compromise.
i like the points raised. public space should be public, shouldn't it? i feel like many times, public space is so narrowly defined that it makes it much less public than it should be.
I have frankly never thought much about this topic, but I think it's very interesting. I have kind of mixed feelings about it all. I think preservation is important...it seems that sometimes people realize something needs to be preserved after people have been utilizing the space for a long time. I see how frustrating it would be to have a favorite hiking/recreational spot and then be told you couldn't use it anymore.
In terms of the climbing experience, I think that you should have been fine. That ranger was an idiot. I think that nature is for us to use and not preserve, but with intelligence. To take this to a totally different subject I think that we should be drilling for oil off shore and here on land. As for the skateboarders, I think that they should be able to skate where they want, but within limits. I loved how the built parks under the bridge where only drug dealers, and whores hung out.
i used to live near a state park that charged an outrageous fee just to drive through parts of it. you could bike, walk, rollerblade, whatever through the gates, but cars had to pay. also, when i go camping, our spaces are always limited to 5 people, even though the spot can accommodate much larger groups. i think when "public" space is no longer public for the sake of making money, it hurts more than helps. while i can see why this happens sometimes (preservation, for example, or crowd control), it's still annoying. parks should either all be free or all be pay-only. pick one!
I understand that there has to be some limitations on what can be public space and what can't. Otherwise I just envision a lot more problems than we can imagine. However, I do think that there are individuals that have something stuck up there...sometimes and it ruins if for everyone else. Some people feel like they have authority and exercise it unrighteously.
i can see it both ways, I can see that is it frustrating having all this public space that the public cannot use, but I think it is that way for preservation. I think there needs to be a happy medium where we get to enjoy this public space.
Don't even get me started on the FREEEEEEEAKING Sierra Club. :) These are the people who want to drain lake powell and restore it to it's natural state. (Which by now would be exposing all the crap people have lost out of their boats while enjoying the gorgeous water) It's public space. It should be used by the public. We wouldn't have to worry about it if people would all respect it. It's sad that you can't force everyone to respect the gorgeous parts of our world, but I really think the environmentalists are getting a little out of hand.
This is a tough decision as to where to draw the line. There are obviously good reasons in closing certain areas of land for preservation, but at the same time, if too much is restricted, how can it ever be enjoyed?
The government does a lot to help give us better access to public spaces and to help preserve these areas, but we must be wary about the government turning these "public" areas into areas of private interest.
This is a hard question to answer. I think sometimes, environmentalists are a little overboard about global warming and stuff, but they also have a point. I don't think they feel society can be trusted with Earth preservation. We as a society can be pretty careless, and it's because of this that we have more National parks to keep others from polluting it. I don't think everyone is this way, but it's those bad apples that ruin it for the whole bunch. Then sadly, those who are non-environmentalists who just want to go on a nice hike with their camp group don't get to enjoy it.
It is difficult finding the answer because everyone will never be satisfied. The earth was created for our use, so we should be able to use it... just with out abusing it.
I agree with what everyone has said so far. Just like everything else, as long as we use things in moderation and do not abuse it, it should be just fine. I think they have to set some limits for those that are constantly stepping over the line. When it comes to nature, we should be free to enjoy it and use it for recreation as we please. Sadly, there are those who misuse the environment, making life a lot less convenient for everyone else. As for skateboarding, I think it is more of a safety issue, rather than being annoying. As for the camping, that is just ridiculous. That man just must have been having a really bad day, and took that way too far!
Although it an area may be called "public space" I think that there are many places where some people shouldn't be allowed. There are so many wilderness areas that have been trashed by careless idiots. I am a river guide in the summers and every summer there will be a few groups of private boaters that come down and leave trash and have no respect for the river. I am all for more preservation and and restrictions of some public places.
Interesting.. I think that in the 1950's there was probably not enough done to prevent damage to the environment and precious land... To compensate, new protections and laws are and have been created to fight back, and obviously they have gone too far. I don't know much about this, but think Lake Powell should not be drained! At Zions National Park I found it very annoying - charging like $10 to drive through and then an hour later having to pass through another station, for more money. Or what about the case mentioned in the movie "Into the Wild" - he wanted to take a kayak down the Colorado, and they told him he had to have a permit. No problem he says. They tell him he has to sign up for a day. Okay, he tells them, when's the next day? (Remember, this was in like 1992) They told him sometime in like 2002 or 2003. Now that's ridiculous! (And a true story, by the way)
It is really similar to civil rights in the idea that "my rights end where your nose begins." There has to be a balance of giving people rights to do whatever they want with public space, but still giving people to comfortably enjoy the space and not have it destroyed or damaged. I think that this is a really hard balance a lot of times, as we saw in the documentary on Tuesday, when something as common and loved as skateboarding can also be disruptive and destructive.
I agree that there are some areas of the country that need to be preserved in some manner although I also believe that we should be allowed to go outside and really enjoy the outdoors.
It's really hard to draw the line between the two though because both are so important and so integral in our lives. We don't want to destroy all of the beautiful nature that we have been given but at the same time, we need to be able to enjoy it.
It does seem like a lot of areas are moving more towards preservation rather than being public, but that can also be a good thing as the area will be available for the use of future generations.
My husband and I rock climb and it's so frustrating when there's a fee or a sign that prohibits it. It's such a tragedy, especially here in Utah with so many mountains that are so close to us. One place that we used to hike up to frequently was Doughnut Falls in Big Cottonwood Canyon. Now it's considered private property and they have a gate and everything. I think we should be able to freely enjoy the awesomeness of the outdoors without ridiculous restrictions.
I think both are true, public spaces should be opened to anybody and everybody. However, among those anybody, there are many who don't really care to maintain or preserve the spaces that they are using. Therefore, it also necessarily needs somebody to take care of the preservation part. Else, in ten, twenty years, there would be hardly any public spaces left for us to use.
We are so lucky to live in a country that values the outdoors the way it does. Setting aside land for national and state parks is one of the best ideas we've ever had. But just because the government (the people) take control of land does not mean that it can be used for whatever a person wants to use it for.
Some restrictions might seem ridiculous, but what if we erred on the side of letting people use public land for whatever they want?
I think public land is just that--public. It is for the use of everyone. However, with that free use comes some responsibility. Unfortunately, not everyone takes care of the land and because of that everyone is forced to suffer the consequences. Because of past destruction, people have deemed it necessary to preserve some land areas and protect them from deterioration caused by human use. It's sad but true.
I agree public space has to be preserved to some extent, but at the same time it is public and should be used by the public. I think we are getting out of hand with the whole enviornment phase of saving the earth. The earth will be ok, lets just enjoy it.
i think it can be used as both. people just need to respect national parks, etc. but public space exists so that we can enjoy it!
I think this is a growing problem among national parks. Unfortunately there are many conservationists nowadays and even though I love the outdoors I think that some regulations that are established are very stringent. We should still be able to enjoy the nature that surrounds us. There definately is a point where there should be efforts to preserve mother nature but not to a point where we are resorted to climb in an indoor gym. I love to fish, hike, mountain bike, and do a lot of other activities outdoors. I hope the natural resources we love and are able to participate in won't be stripped from us completely.
I think Public space is necessary for both conservation and for public use. Having National parks for public use can raise funds needed for the conservation but the balance of public use verse the possible over use and destruction of an area is like a scale which needs to be perfectly balanced. It made me sad to read about the land in Utah that was barred from Public use however I still think that Americans in general need to see the situation in perspective.
America has so much space and so many areas which can be enjoyed for only a nominal fee. Compared to other Nations the US is ahead in terms of the amount of open space for Public use.
Post a Comment