Disturbed Lands (National Park Service)
1–10 of 29 posts
Re: Disturbed Lands (National Park Service)
#2I can appreciate that the term "disturbed" has a negative implied bias, but I wish the author would provide the foundational basis upon which the reader should believe or accept this assumption. The terminology later used is "loss of resources" but by definition a resource is "something that is available for use or that can be used".
Re: Disturbed Lands (National Park Service)
#3I can appreciate that the term "disturbed" has a negative implied bias, but I wish the author would provide the foundational basis upon which the reader should believe or accept this assumption. The terminology later used is "loss of resources" but by definition a resource is "something that is available for use or that can be used". https://www.wordnik.com/words/resource
Many resources go away when you extract them. A forest has wood, an empty field that used to be a forest doesn’t.
Disturbed land can still be valuable, but it’s much faster to turn a forest into a field than the reverse.
Re: Disturbed Lands (National Park Service)
#4I wonder how many National Parks will exist for exploration by my grandchildren or great grandchildren. I've already seen so many trails, rivers, or "attractions" closed because some entitled guest (or guests) decided they were allowed to do ____.
The end result is a restriction on all visitors. Eventually, I fear the only way to enjoy the old caves, or wind-swept dunes or delicate back country will be to have money, a study grant or connections. Everyone else will only be allowed to the ends of the railed cement path.
Re: Disturbed Lands (National Park Service)
#5I wonder how many National Parks will exist for exploration by my grandchildren or great grandchildren. I've already seen so many trails, rivers, or "attractions" closed because some entitled guest (or guests) decided they were allowed to do ____. The end result is a restriction on all visitors. Eventually, I fear the only way to enjoy the old caves, or wind-swept dunes or delicate back country will be to have money,…
I feel like I've seen this in the photography world as well. People don't know how to mute their loud fake cellphone camera sound or they are using the little led flash from 200 ft away which does nothing but interrupt. Even worse are people wondering around with cellphones and tablets getting into the way.
Eventually people have enough and ban all photos at venues or animal exhibits.
Re: Disturbed Lands (National Park Service)
#6I can appreciate that the term "disturbed" has a negative implied bias, but I wish the author would provide the foundational basis upon which the reader should believe or accept this assumption. The terminology later used is "loss of resources" but by definition a resource is "something that is available for use or that can be used". https://www.wordnik.com/words/resource
Many resources go away when you extract them. A forest has wood, an empty field that used to be a forest doesn’t. Disturbed land can still be valuable, but it’s much faster to turn a forest into a field than the reverse.
Interestingly, terms used by developers and builders tend to have a positive bias, for example when roads and buildings are also referred to as resources and "improvements to the land". I am fascinated by how different contexts and mental lenses or framing can bias the perspective on a thing like a road or building or other "disturbance".
Re: Disturbed Lands (National Park Service)
#7I wonder how many National Parks will exist for exploration by my grandchildren or great grandchildren. I've already seen so many trails, rivers, or "attractions" closed because some entitled guest (or guests) decided they were allowed to do ____. The end result is a restriction on all visitors. Eventually, I fear the only way to enjoy the old caves, or wind-swept dunes or delicate back country will be to have money,…
There's another alternative. Those attractions will get cut off from casual visits. I watched a documentary on Yellowstone where it explained most people don't go more than 5 miles from the roads at most, and most of the park is largely untouched. You'll just end up with parks where the very coolest attractions take a lot more effort to get to and consequently, the foolish people who do silly things will either not go, because it requires planning, or perish along the way because nature doesn't suffer fools.
Re: Disturbed Lands (National Park Service)
#8Earlier quoted context omitted.
Many resources go away when you extract them. A forest has wood, an empty field that used to be a forest doesn’t. Disturbed land can still be valuable, but it’s much faster to turn a forest into a field than the reverse.
Interestingly, terms used by developers and builders tend to have a positive bias, for example when roads and buildings are also referred to as resources and "improvements to the land". I am fascinated by how different contexts and mental lenses or framing can bias the perspective on a thing like a road or building or other "disturbance".
Maybe human disturbance would help you frame it better?
Re: Disturbed Lands (National Park Service)
#9Most of the best places are still federal land, and put beyond the 2-3 hours of hiking most Americans find an ambitious day in nature.
Re: Disturbed Lands (National Park Service)
#10[deleted]