The Adirondacks, as is 'wilderness' in general, is frequently being shown in a constant state of peril from industries, global climate change, and other factors. The way to generate interest in the preservation of the area comes primarily, from my understanding, of writers and passionate people within the Adirondacks who write about their experiences in the park. However, there is a particular downside to this attention, specifically when the point of the park is being a relatively untainted and wild place runs in conflict with the mass of tourists. Thus, a tension rises out of publicity/interest vs. preservation, two things the park cannot survive without.
The part where this tension became emphasized to me was the part of Wandering Home involving the High Peaks. Bill explains, when commenting on how popular the High Peaks challenge is, "In fact, as is often the case, describing something turns it into a magnet." (106) And thus, from Bob Marshall's initial experiences climbing the post 4000 ft. peaks and the publications about that event, Americans had a prerogative to visit the Adirondacks and embark on the challenge.
Bill follows this up, however, with commentary concerning the impact that this increased traffic has had, and how there are attempts at necessitating permits to limit the amount of people attempting to hike the peaks to preserve the area. He then follows it up with a story about a bunch of tourist types who were using walkie-talkies loudly within a 40 ft. distance. Throughout the book he maintains a pretty condescending tone about many people who he feels do not belong in the Adirondacks. (He then proceeds to fall several feet down the cliff, but he has an appreciation for the Adirondacks, so he is spared his own judgement.) This sort of elitist sentiment is echoed all over. (See http://alloveralbany.com/archive/2012/08/06/how-to-hike-the-high-peaks----and-not-be-that-guy for the quintessential target of those-who-do-not-belong, "that guy".)
This asks the question, who does belong in the Adirondacks? What reason do urban-centric people (who far outnumber Adirondacks residents in number, economic, and political power) have to care about this unique region if they are not allowed access to it, to recreate the adventure and experiences they have only read about? The High Peaks are the most accessible points of entry for Hamilton students in particular, who wish to embark on the HOC challenge every year. Sharing the Adirondacks is a vital part of keeping interest and maintaining allies for the area.
I think you've highlighted a really interesting point. How do we promote the conservation of the park's beauty and natural resources without limiting the number of people who get to experience what the Adirondacks have to offer? One of the things I love about going on hiking and canoeing trips in the Adirondacks is that we do not need to reserve a permit, as many other parks in the United States require. Obtaining a permit is a huge hassle and creates an exclusive atmosphere, while right now the Adirondacks feel accessible to everyone while retaining its inherent "wildness".
ReplyDeleteOne thing McKibbon did point out was that although the Adirondacks are crowded with locals and tourists alike, most of the traffic is confined to very specific areas--namely the High Peaks. I have been to Marcy Dam, a popular camping area at the base of a lot of popular mountains to hike, and it is always packed with people from all over the northeast. However, the park is massive and many regions of it are virtually empty. I think that this partly solves the problem you brought up: keeping foot traffic limited to specific regions keeps the effected area of the park small, while allowing most of the park to be nearly untouched.
I think your question of who belongs in the Adirondacks is an insightful one. Some people would argue that humans should absolutely not be allowed in at least portions of the park while others would maintain that the park is there for human exploration, recreation, and general use (or exploitation?). To me, it seems impossible to ever take humans entirely out of the equation. I think that people have a tendency to remove themselves from the human-wilderness relationship because humans seem to encompass everything that the wilderness is not--we're technology driven, high-wasting, resource-guzzling people and much of our life systems depend on manmade rather than "from the earth" inputs. While there definitely is a divide between man and wild, the way I see it is that humans are (always were and will continue to be) an integral part of this biosphere and of all its living systems. I don't think the conservation should be about whether or not humans belong in the park, but rather, how humans can interact with the wilderness in a productive rather than destructive way.
ReplyDeleteAnnie, I think you also bring up a good point about controlling foot traffic, but the problem with this solution is that as more and more people flock to specific human-accessible areas, the amount of ecological disruption in that area exponentially increases. This then becomes a question of breadth versus depth: do we open up more of the park to human activity and spread out the impact or do we confine that activity to certain regions thereby increasing, but containing the impact.