Environmental protection and landscape photography

mfinley said:

How do we educate millennials who walk in the wilderness with their dance music playlist blaring on the bluetooth speaker hanging off their back pack?

Click to expand...

Haven't you heard?? It's the new age version of bear-bells!!!

John Photo said:

mfinley said:

How do we educate millennials who walk in the wilderness with their dance music playlist blaring on the bluetooth speaker hanging off their back pack?

Click to expand...

Haven't you heard?? It's the new age version of bear-bells!!!

Click to expand...

lol, you got that right, they don't have to worry about sneaking up on anything.

I find this a particularly interesting thread; thanks all.

For an interesting point of view about geotagging, gatekeeping, and racism, check out this one reprinted in the Rocky Mountain News:

https://www.hcn.org/articles/recreation-5-reasons-to-keep-geotagging

I have to say I agree with much of what she's saying. Reminds me of an essay I saw recently about elitism in the outdoors, the overuse of the cathedral metaphor for recreational lands, and so on. Pretty provocative I'd say.

robgendreau said:

I find this a particularly interesting thread; thanks all.

For an interesting point of view about geotagging, gatekeeping, and racism, check out this one reprinted in the Rocky Mountain News:

https://www.hcn.org/articles/recreation-5-reasons-to-keep-geotagging

I have to say I agree with much of what she's saying. Reminds me of an essay I saw recently about elitism in the outdoors, the overuse of the cathedral metaphor for recreational lands, and so on. Pretty provocative I'd say.

Click to expand...

Wow, hiking is now about white privilege, well of course it is, why shouldn't it be. (eyeroll)

Who are the idiots that get paid to write articles linking anything they can think of to racism, what a joke. Last time I checked I didn't see anybody turning away non-whites at a single national or state park, city park or trail head. I'm going to have to remember to congratulate the latino or black person I pass on the trail for breaking through the racist system that keeps them from buying hiking boots at REI.

It's the Tragedy of the Commons (as sustainability overshoot) being written by the actions of individuals on a global scale. In part it's being driven by the 'get it done before it's gone' principle (covered in a couple of closed threads recently).

If you follow this forum like I do you'll notice a common theme emerges, of people expending huge amounts of carbon to get to their chosen, and increasingly photo oriented, destination. Iceland, The Faroes, the US SW, New Zealand. Huge distances covered in planes and cars to arrive at the location du jour to capture the same things they've seen others take on photography websites, in magazines, on social media or maybe books.

You're pointing out a paradoxical, even existential, crisis. For the last thirty years I've tried to mitigate my personal impact on the wider environment and advocated the same to my students. The mastery of your local patch, arrived at with minimal driving and preferably none at all, can be the most rewarding creative experience. Easier if you live near beautiful landscapes of course and many don't.

These were all taken within walking distance (or perhaps bicycle) from my two homes in the Yorkshire Dales and my current one in Tasmania, and were far more rewarding to make than those I took on family holidays involving further travel.


Limestone Pavement, Wharfedale


Bolton Abbey Estate, Yorkshire


Farm, Yorkshire


Wildflower meadow, Wharfedale


Bushfire Skies, southern Tasmania (where half a million acres of wilderness burnt, 3% of the island).




Manor House, Yorkshire Dales




Doves



Sláinte
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/artists/brettmeikle

ThrillaMozilla said:

BGD300V1 said:

ThrillaMozilla said:

vbd70 said:

BGD300V1 said:

Is it OK to kick over those stupid rock piles fools insist on making?

Click to expand...

More than OK, perhaps "mandatory" would do Best regards,

Click to expand...

That one is not so clear. I was once on a river with some friends in the Southwest. Two of us climbed out of the canyon to the plateau above (maybe 1000 to 2000 feet vertical distance), and explored there for an hour or two. We took our canteens, but nothing else. The canyon was actually overhanging where we had camped, so it was a steep ascent, and there was no trail. Keep in mind that this was wilderness, and we might have been the only people there that month. When we returned, we were very thankful for the small cairn that someone had erected, marking the way back down to the river. We made our way back down in the dark. It's amazing how big everything is, how similar everything looks on the plateau, and how hard it could have been to find the way down. It was only three small rocks, and it did absolutely no harm to the landscape.

Click to expand...

In the wilderness you should make your own trail markers if you plan on returning to a particular place and destroy them as you return.

Click to expand...

That's a good rule for true wilderness. In this case there was no need to make our own, and there was no need to destroy it either, because (1) the next person to climb out of the canyon at that point would also need it; (2) the area was quite remote, and it wasn't even visible unless you were looking for it; and (3) theoretically, the person who made it could still need it. In this case it was definitely a safety marker, which was every bit as valid (and a good deal less damaging) than a trail sign. Finding the route down again was a bit harder than I thought it would be.

Click to expand...

In the SW, if one goes off trail the travel is often across slick rock. Although I have the experience to navigate the old fashioned way and would likely not get lost where there is visibility, others - most - don't have those skills, and a good number would get lost. So Park Service and Recreation Rangers will often set cairns. The cairns serve a second purpose in that they establish a route that does little harm to the environment.

But even in the Wilderness of the PNW, sometimes cairns are useful, say as to lead to a rappel station or mark a critical juncture on a climbing route. Those cairns I would leave; superfluous cairns, like fire pit rings, get cast asunder. Last summer I followed an old trail that had been abandoned for decades to a lovely mountain ridge. On approach I ran into another hiker who had oddly enough done the same route - perhaps we were the only two, or two of a half-dozen all summer. Although rote navigation is possible on some of the route, trail or no; because of slope steepness, cliffs and brush, the trail is really a necessity in several steeper areas where old switchbacks were once cut. I would guess I crossed 200 downed logs and frequently left what remained of the often invisible trail to travel around impassable obstacles. I was glad that the previous visitor had flagged the old trail as I would come back to it at times. But he had not overdone it. If you failed to find the trail coming off the ridge above on return, you would be in world of hurt.

Years ago, a prime but difficult hike that used to be in a popular hiking book in the day was becoming abandoned. After a river crossing, it appeared that fewer than a third found the old trail on the other side. The river crossings and channels changed over the years and part of the old trail was also very deeply eroded and hard to find from the river bank on the far side. With a friend I went back, put a new trail to the river ford, and cut - just scuffed and cut dead stuff - a new trail that bypassed the eroded area and lead most directly to the better established original trail. Higher up I also cut a number of trees to 12" that had been knocked down in a 200 yard wide 1999 avalanche, making the trail unrecognizable. I flagged critical parts of that route after re-establishing the route from the river to the still existent upper trail, and also established the best route through the avalanche swath. All of this is now the established route. So, although I don't mind flagging a trail that is largely abandoned, I would not condone flagging a route that has never been a CCC era trail in the first place.

ThrillaMozilla said:

But generally, following your rule, that also means that you don't destroy someone else's marker because they might really need it.

ThrillaMozilla said:

They are entirely unnecessary within view of the visitors center.

Click to expand...

Indeed.

Click to expand...

I like to travel and take pictures in nice places, but more and more I'm interested in the people and/or natural beauty than spending time getting the perfect shot. I think most travelers have asked themselves the question: Could I leave the camera at home and still have a great time? Personally, I could never take another picture in my life and that would be ok. Not trying to be provocative or judgemental, but sometimes spending time getting the perfect image prevents total experience of the setting and that image becomes nothing more than one reminding us of a place we may not have fully experienced in the first place. I'll never forget being in Arizona a few years ago, east of the Grand Canyon at some Indian ruins, and this guy pulls up in a Cadillac, hops out with a high-end full frame camera and $5,000 lens on the front, and proceeded to quickly fire off multiple shots without hardly even pausing and surveying the scene. He probably took 100 shots in two minutes and got in his car and took off. This was an extreme example of shooting with absolutely no real experience of what he was shooting. I bet he went home and went through thousands of pics to manipulate a few into presentable images proving to friends that he experienced the painted desert and Indian territory in Arizona. To each his own, but that's my 2 cents

Cheers

Gary

The ones I'm familiar with in the Lake Tahoe area are actually trail markers. There are some huge areas of exposed granite in some areas and they are a godsend for me.

Kent

Hi, I'm new to this forum. Just testing if posting a new thread works.!

SkipRD said:

vbd70 said:

Ladies and gentlemen, I just published a new blog article about something I deeply care about and that I have been thinking about for a long time now. As landscape photographers, we love the environment: however, we also contribute in no small part to its destruction. In the blog article below you can find my thoughts about this conundrum and about what we could do to start helping instead:

https://www.vieribottazzini.com/2019/05/environmental-protection-and-landscape-photography.html

Looking forward to your thoughts, ideas and opinion about this. Best regards,

Vieri

Click to expand...

Very thoughtful post. I've seen several along the same lines lately, and I'm glad to see an emerging emphasis on ethical photography practices. But I have a question...

Back in the 1960s, when I first started backpacking, the rule was that one should never set up a tent where others had done so; the idea was that it was best to spread out a bit so as to avoid inflicting unrecoverable damage by piling on in a small area. But as more and more people starting venturing back into the woods, the philosophy changed. The ethic became to camp ONLY where others had done so. True, the damage was greater, but the area of impact was smaller. That's when NFS and others started posting signs along trails that said, "Camp only in designated campsites."

A similar principle applies to the admonishment to hike only on designated trails. (Which ought to be a caution to those who think it's a good idea to destroy trail markers, like cairns.)

So, as I've read the posts about ethical practices for nature photography, I've wondered if a similar principle applies. In a way, is it better for the environment if we limit our photography excursions to frequented areas, or is it better to spread out a bit? I know there are areas (like the cryptobiotic crust areas of the desert southwest) where venturing into "unexplored" areas can be quite harmful if not done properly, and probably shouldn't be encouraged for the public at large, but I'm not sure how broadly that idea applies.

Thoughts?

Skip

Click to expand...

Unfortunately, we seem to live in a time when rights are absolute and responsibilities nil.

Things change over time. Yourpoint on campsites is one. When there were few camping and the camping was primitive spreading out was a good idea. The spread didn't go far because the campsite disappeared over time. You only had what you could carry to take up space. You could share a common firepit. That's not the case now where folks get out in off road vehicles loaded down with all modern conveniences.

robgendreau said:

I find this a particularly interesting thread; thanks all.

For an interesting point of view about geotagging, gatekeeping, and racism, check out this one reprinted in the Rocky Mountain News:

https://www.hcn.org/articles/recreation-5-reasons-to-keep-geotagging

I have to say I agree with much of what she's saying. Reminds me of an essay I saw recently about elitism in the outdoors, the overuse of the cathedral metaphor for recreational lands, and so on. Pretty provocative I'd say.

Click to expand...

The writer's effort to link geotagging & racism is simply ludicrous. Her argument that "it's stupid not to geotag because people can find places anyway from the net" goes against her own thesis: if that is true, then it shouldn't be a problem if someone geotags or not. There are reasons (economical, social, and so on) why underprivileged minorities don't enjoy the outdoors as much ad more privileged groups, but that's the topic for another day.

That said, her proposed solutions at the end of the article aren't bad

Best regards,

Vieri

brettmeikle said:

It's the Tragedy of the Commons (as sustainability overshoot) being written by the actions of individuals on a global scale. In part it's being driven by the 'get it done before it's gone' principle (covered in a couple of closed threads recently).

If you follow this forum like I do you'll notice a common theme emerges, of people expending huge amounts of carbon to get to their chosen, and increasingly photo oriented, destination. Iceland, The Faroes, the US SW, New Zealand. Huge distances covered in planes and cars to arrive at the location du jour to capture the same things they've seen others take on photography websites, in magazines, on social media or maybe books.

You're pointing out a paradoxical, even existential, crisis. For the last thirty years I've tried to mitigate my personal impact on the wider environment and advocated the same to my students. The mastery of your local patch, arrived at with minimal driving and preferably none at all, can be the most rewarding creative experience. Easier if you live near beautiful landscapes of course and many don't.

These were all taken within walking distance (or perhaps bicycle) from my two homes in the Yorkshire Dales and my current one in Tasmania, and were far more rewarding to make than those I took on family holidays involving further travel.

Sláinte
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/artists/brettmeikle

Click to expand...

Your solution makes a lot of sense for individual amateur photographers. As a professional, on one hand I would probably starve if I limited my Workshops and Portfolio to my local; on the other hand, even if I could live out of doing Workshops 5 miles from home, that wouldn't make much difference since my participants would have to come from somewhere, very likely flying... therefore, my staying close to home would just take one person out of the air, not a big difference after all.

Best regards,

Vieri

SkipRD said:

vbd70 said:

Ladies and gentlemen, I just published a new blog article about something I deeply care about and that I have been thinking about for a long time now. As landscape photographers, we love the environment: however, we also contribute in no small part to its destruction. In the blog article below you can find my thoughts about this conundrum and about what we could do to start helping instead:

https://www.vieribottazzini.com/2019/05/environmental-protection-and-landscape-photography.html

Looking forward to your thoughts, ideas and opinion about this. Best regards,

Vieri

Click to expand...

Very thoughtful post. I've seen several along the same lines lately, and I'm glad to see an emerging emphasis on ethical photography practices. But I have a question...

Back in the 1960s, when I first started backpacking, the rule was that one should never set up a tent where others had done so; the idea was that it was best to spread out a bit so as to avoid inflicting unrecoverable damage by piling on in a small area. But as more and more people starting venturing back into the woods, the philosophy changed. The ethic became to camp ONLY where others had done so. True, the damage was greater, but the area of impact was smaller. That's when NFS and others started posting signs along trails that said, "Camp only in designated campsites."

A similar principle applies to the admonishment to hike only on designated trails. (Which ought to be a caution to those who think it's a good idea to destroy trail markers, like cairns.)

So, as I've read the posts about ethical practices for nature photography, I've wondered if a similar principle applies. In a way, is it better for the environment if we limit our photography excursions to frequented areas, or is it better to spread out a bit? I know there are areas (like the cryptobiotic crust areas of the desert southwest) where venturing into "unexplored" areas can be quite harmful if not done properly, and probably shouldn't be encouraged for the public at large, but I'm not sure how broadly that idea applies.

Thoughts?

Skip

Click to expand...

Hello Skip,

glad you found the article interesting. About your question, I'd say it depends on different locations, ground, geology and so on. I.e., in Scotland the type on boggy ground definitely doesn't like many people walking on the same spot, becoming quickly a mud-fest and killing all plants. Rocky or solid ground, or sandy beaches, would stand more people walking on them, as a rule, but then again there is the desert crust, there is life form clinging on to rock like lichens, and so on... so, IMHO the solution should be tailor-made on each location, both for hikers (well defined paths vs free hiking), camping (free camping vs campgrounds) and so on.

Best regards,

Vieri

KENTGA said:

The ones I'm familiar with in the Lake Tahoe area are actually trail markers. There are some huge areas of exposed granite in some areas and they are a godsend for me.

Kent

Click to expand...

Trail markers are really useful navigation aids for everyone who is walking in a lot of places. Making your own small, temporary ones can be useful to you but not to everyone on the trail. Please remove them as you retrace your steps. If you don't plan on retracing, don't put them up.

The ones I object to are the silly vanity stacks and balances that are ugly and disruptive.


Navigational cairns are useful in places


Like this!

This is objectionable. Just moving the rocks around is disruptive to the environment.


Silly stacks of rocks. But even knocking them over is changing the local beauty.




--
My photo blog: http://birdsnbugs.com
RF Stock Portfolio - http://www.dreamstime.com/resp129611

BGD300V1 said:

The ones I object to are the silly vanity stacks and balances that are ugly and disruptive.



This is objectionable. Just moving the rocks around is disruptive to the environment.

Silly stacks of rocks. But even knocking them over is changing the local beauty.

https://www.wideopenspaces.com/rock-stacking-natural-graffitti-ecological-impact/

Click to expand...

That's pretty blatant. Thanks for alerting us to the problem.

ThrillaMozilla said:

BGD300V1 said:

The ones I object to are the silly vanity stacks and balances that are ugly and disruptive.

This is objectionable. Just moving the rocks around is disruptive to the environment.

Silly stacks of rocks. But even knocking them over is changing the local beauty.

https://www.wideopenspaces.com/rock-stacking-natural-graffitti-ecological-impact/

Click to expand...

That's pretty blatant. Thanks for alerting us to the problem.

Click to expand...

These are the ones I was talking about. You can see areas like that often i.e. on the Dolomites in Italy. Best regards,

Vieri

--
Vieri Bottazzini
Formatt-Hitech Featured Artist | ABIPP EP

When we crossed the arctic circle in Norway we came across this... Visitors to the Arctic circle visitors center seem to have made a tradition of building rock piles, the complete hill behind the centre was covered by these UGLY things. I realy hate these kind of things that some people (turists??) do. I think it is disrespective for the natural environment and it serves nothing.

Funny thing is that there are no loose rocks to be found anymore anymore in the vicinity, so when one wants to build a new rock pile they have to "steal" from some other piles



On the hiking trail however I actually appreciate the strategic located rock piles (cairns) that have a clear function: route finding. In bad weather it's just so easy to loose the hiking trail when crossing of a boulder field or something.. these little piles than realy help.

--
https://www.flickr.com/photos/62121798@N08/sets

BGD300V1 said:

Silly stacks of rocks. But even knocking them over is changing the local beauty.

Click to expand...

I've seen places like that all over the world, they really don't bother me, I've never seen a area like that in the 'wild', they are typically close to the trailhead or at a real touristy place, to me they are along the same lines as the locks on a few famous bridges, and I rather they kept them consolidated and have their fun in one place than it being everywhere.

Ever seen this? Pretty common on some trail in the Czech Republic and I've seen it in south Germany too. Would it be considered environment graffiti like the rock piles?







--
Thanks,
Mike

vbd70 said:

Ladies and gentlemen, I just published a new blog article about something I deeply care about and that I have been thinking about for a long time now. As landscape photographers, we love the environment: however, we also contribute in no small part to its destruction. In the blog article below you can find my thoughts about this conundrum and about what we could do to start helping instead:

https://www.vieribottazzini.com/2019/05/environmental-protection-and-landscape-photography.html

Looking forward to your thoughts, ideas and opinion about this. Best regards,

Vieri

Click to expand...

I'll pass. Not a blog guy.