As I've grown older I've noticed this, though at a slower pace than described in the article.<p>When I was younger and lived in the appalachians, there were countless of waterfalls, overlooks, and camping spots isolated and away from everyone. But as time went by, these places became less isolated and full of litter, even the more remote spots.<p>As much as I dislike Instagram and its effect on natural areas, I think another large factor is the population count. The US has 46 million more people than 20 years ago, and that's more people looking to get out and have fun in nature.<p>One hope is for state and federal conservation agencies to buy more private land and enter into more conservation land trusts. We need more public space for people to enjoy, hopefully with fewer ATVs and campsite garbage.
The lack of understanding of Leave No Trace by the general public is pretty astounding. Even among people who self identify as hikers. Lately there have been a lot of instances of people painting on rocks or painting rocks and leaving them out there as well as stacking stones for aesthetic reasons instead of a navigational aid. Both of these violate Leave No Trace but I've seen a lot of people flamed for bringing it up in casual hiking groups. Neither of these have as much environmental consequence as littering for example, but it is still an eyesore and a reminder of human civilization when one is trying to get away from it.<p>If you really want to get away from civilization then you should consider remote backpacking trips. Wilderness backpackers, in general, are strict followers of Leave No Trace and unless it is a super popular trail there won't be too many.
I just got back from a week of backpacking in a wilderness area in Wyoming and saw about 6 people over the course of the trip, and it was great. Unfortunately for the author, he's probably going to have to sacrifice the camper if he wants any immediate relief - if you have to get their on foot (or by horse), it drastically affects who is going to go there.<p>IMO the longer term solution is to educate people. One idea (not a cure all, but it might help): offer free classes on nature conservation, good camping practices, etc. Each person who hasn't taken the class in the past N years pays a much higher access fee to the campground.
I share alot of the same feelings as expressed in the article. Parks, camping, and 'wild areas' are victims of their own success. Where I live the largest Provincial Park is an 8 hour drive away for me, but only 4'ish hours from Toronto. The article talks about car-camping and towed trailers but even areas that require a 2 hour canoe trip and multiple portages to get to and it is still decimated by tourists.<p>Even though the barrier to entry is high, and isn't in the same ball-park as these car-campers there are far too many people trying to spend some time under the trees, and the park is being damaged.<p>Contrast this period with the 1980's. Disposable income is (apparently) lower now then it was back then. Back in my childhood several of my neighbours would have campers, or boats, or snowmobiles; and many opportunities to use them throughout the year. Now when I look around I only see 1 on my entire block, and with entire segments of the economy closing for good, factories being emptied; I see the golden era of the union, and 'extra' money as a thing of the past.<p>So how are all these people able to afford crowding our parks? The article talks about this decline almost as if it's a recent thing, but I have seen this same pattern going back over 10 years.<p>The only way I can find a reasonable amount of peace and quiet is to goto Crown Land, and multi-day canoe trips into the wild.
It really is modern ORVs that have made this so much worse recently. It used to be 4-wheelers, but that's a rough and rugged form of travel. You're not going to get an entire family plus drinks and food loaded up on 4-wheelers the same way people do now with RZRs. RZRs and their like have made off-roading way more accessible. What used to be outdoor gear rental shops selling kayaks and mountain bikes have turned into snowmobile and RZR rental shops<p>In my experience it's the family who shows up at the trailhead with two trailers full of RZRs who are ignorant of LNT principles, not college students and young adults getting out to car camp with their REI gear.
<i>I was easily 100 miles from any notable population center, and I figured I would have my pick of any number of dispersed camping sites along the upper river. But when I arrived on a Tuesday afternoon [...] Every wide spot in the road was occupied</i><p>I learned recently that some portion of these people are actually living in dispersed camping areas full-time, my guess being to avoid paying rent. The level of destruction I have observed, as well as the difficulty of finding sites even in remote locations in the middle of the week suddenly made a lot more sense.
I went to a small college town and there were some amazing wildlife areas that were not well traveled. Some were actual parks, but with poor signage and little parking. Others were private land with neighbors who were alright with people traveling in so long as we kept off the grass when parking.<p>I went back recently and those private areas were now public parks, the public parks had full parking lots, there were signs about dangerous cliffs everywhere, and it all felt very .. different. It was no longer exploring the frontier. I wrote about it a few years ago:<p><a href="https://battlepenguin.com/philosophy/perspective/exploration/" rel="nofollow">https://battlepenguin.com/philosophy/perspective/exploration...</a>
Cached version of the article since it seems swamped right now <a href="http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:pyUsrEAkoqsJ:https://www.hatchmag.com/blog/end-dispersed-camping/7715118&hl=en&gl=us&strip=1&vwsrc=0" rel="nofollow">http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:pyUsrEA...</a>
east of the mississippi there's precious little open/public land; a few places I like to camp around the VA/WV line are often just fire roads that were abandoned. They're now most popular with poachers and teens looking to party without fear of the cops being called, along with a few campers like me.<p>and since Covid, everyone seemingly got into the "original socially-distanced recreation", because now formerly rather low-traffic sites are <i>packed</i>, with all the trouble that brings.<p>trash is often everywhere. beer cans, broken glass, shotgun shells, and spent brass abound. Once just a month ago I came across a loaf of bread and a Hank Williams, Jr. album (as in vinyl), just sitting next to a fire ring. I think I've seen a dozen shoes left along camp sites in the past month.<p>I think somehow it got into the cultural mind that the woods are somehow maintained by a janitorial staff. i have no idea how it got so bad.
I run at a nearby state park several times a week. After running past litter for months, but doing nothing about it, I decided to take two handfuls of trash to the trash bin during most visits. After barely inconveniencing myself by picking up trash on my way to the parking area, months passed and I've thrown away more than 500 pieces of garbage! Doing a little bit over a long period of time can really amount to something substantial. It barely cost me any effort. I've stopped collecting since the pandemic but it seems like others are doing their part and helping keep an understaffed, heavily used park clean.
> This is the kind of behavior that will reduce our dispersed camping opportunities...More damage will lead to more closures by land-management agencies, and rightly so.<p>What would banning people from these areas achieve? Sure, you'd have an unspoilt wilderness, but...for whom?<p>The easily accessible areas are a tiny part of America's public land. Litter and vandalism don't significantly damage the local ecology in somewhere you already have hundreds or thousands of people passing through even with a leave-no-trace policy: they mostly make it less attractive <i>for other visitors</i>.<p>I'm not arguing that people should vandalise or litter public areas, or that the likely practical response wouldn't be to close affected areas. Just challenging the assertion that this would be a useful thing for the likes of the BLM to do. One possibility is that by closing them to RVs you keep them available to walkers on day trips or camping in tents, who may cause less damage if only because they can carry less stuff.
A long time ago I was flipping through very early morning local TV, and came across some sort of fishing program that was talking about a neat way to camp far away from other people.<p>They would get a float plane and fly deep into the Canadian wilderness and find a lake far away from any roads or trails. They would land there and then camp beside the lake for a week or two of fishing and hiking without another human anywhere within 50 miles, or without any signs than any other humans had been to that spot in years or decades.
This seems at first unlikely yet ATVs (even where not permitted) have made attractive places close to trailheads accessible. I used to think 10 miles in was enough to get away from most people, but like the author I have found some of those places colonized by modern life.<p>Fortunately the world is still large and a lot of places are only accessible by foot. But a lot of those ecosystems done recover quickly.<p>A few weeks ago I was up in the emigrant wilderness and it looked like a majority of the visitors were using brand new gear. I hope what this really means is we’ll have a greater appreciation of backpacking and more support.
The article raises some key issues regarding sustainable tourism. I recall some recent posts on here that had some great discussions in the context of high profile destinations (e.g. [0] and to a lesser extent [1]).<p>[0] <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20675096" rel="nofollow">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20675096</a><p>[1] <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19996108" rel="nofollow">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19996108</a>
I think at the end of the day we need to reduce our BLM lands in favor of increasing our wilderness. The problems he describes are solved simply by not allowing people to RV, 4-wheel, or motorbike their way wherever they feel like. I run into trash in the more popular parts of the wilderness areas I love, but I have to look for it, and it's my personal offset for adding load to the wilderness with my presence.
This is not confined to camp sites, on sub reddit dedicated to our own city there are always pictures of trash left behind by people in our city parks.<p>I would just suggest the BLM apply a surcharge too all camping, they provide you two bags, one for trash and one for recyclable materials; labeled on the bag what is acceptable; and upon leaving and turning these over you get a refund on the deposit. Perhaps a bag per three days with a twenty dollar deposit.
Another contributing factor is the rapid growth of offroad capable campers like some of the popup style truck campers and rugged trailers. They allow you to go almost anywhere a Jeep can go, sometimes providing as much solitude as backpacking. I like to think this particular subgroup is more environmentally conscientious than the general vehicle camping crowd.
Link at archive.org <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20200909133530/www.hatchmag.com/blog/end-dispersed-camping/7715118" rel="nofollow">https://web.archive.org/web/20200909133530/www.hatchmag.com/...</a>