Beautiful banners are coming to every article and you can help!
Check out our guidelines and learn how to create your own!

Talk:Leave-no-trace camping

From Wikitravel
Jump to: navigation, search

Um. Why not just plain old Camping, as we don't have that page yet? Jpatokal 12:20, 23 March 2006 (EST)

For the same reason I wrote Isle Royale National Park instead of working on Upper Peninsula (Michigan): It's a manageable subject I know about and wanted to write about. Camping is a big topic, and I don't really have much to say about RV camping, trailer camping, etc. Maybe I could step back and do Backpacking, but that's about as broad as I'd care to try. - Todd VerBeek 12:52, 23 March 2006 (EST)

Get In[edit]

I don't know that listing specific places is necessarily the best content for this section, as I would say that No Trace camping is encouraged in more places than you can list. Really, it should be any and every camping trip that adheres to no trace. I can at least say from experience that every place I've been to in the Smokies and surrounding forests ask for no trace camping. -- Ilkirk 13:50, 23 March 2006 (EST)

If a standard header doesn't make sense or doesn't apply in the context of an article you should feel free to drop it. I'm not sure we should get in the habit of listing the places that feature Leave-no-trace camping, as I can think of 100+ canidates in British Columbia alone, and if they are all added it will soon lead to an unruly list. If someone wants to see which places this applies to they can click on "what links here". However, I think this is a travel topic worthy of a separate article, and I intend to link to it from Mount Robson Provincial Park and others when I get to them. Good work! -- bulliver 13:57, 23 March 2006 (EST)
I used "Get in" as a section header only after I decided to include the section, as a way to re-appropriating the official MoS headers, but you're right: the section was a short-sighted idea and I've removed it. Incidentally, I just added a "Buy" section, not because it's required, but because that seemed an apt header for the section about not taking stuff. - Todd VerBeek 14:22, 23 March 2006 (EST)

Anonymous comments that were reverted[edit]

User:Sapphire reverted the following edit by an anonymous user.

{edited by ollo:) This is absolute crap you methods you suggest will only serve to distance people from the environment by placing us as higher beings above animals who we should only observe. We are as big a part of nature as anything, if you have fruit rmeains drop them if you have a fire have one but use dead wood and be sensible, it is so obvious this was written from an american point of view that demands all of the countryside and forests be absolute wilderness. Im sorry, but guys have a ncie time in the woods and be respectful but dont listen to this bullshitter. Do you think a beaver "leaves no trace" in tis natural habitat?

I think this accusation needs to be discussed rather than simply reverted. It is not vandalism but legitimate comment. -- Huttite 07:27, 30 April 2006 (EDT)

I see his point, but this isn't really an appropriate venue to debate humanity's relationship with the environment. This article describes the principles of "Leave No Trace" and how they apply to camping. Granted, it generally advocates them (you can't explain the point of them without doing that) and maybe the intro should better acknowledge that some people sincerely don't see the point of them, but the text of the article isn't dogmatic (e.g. it says pretty much the same thing ollo does about fires, but more constructively), and the traveler is free to decide for themself whether they agree with the thinking behind these principles and how closely to follow them. (Except of course that they're required by local regs in many places.) - Todd VerBeek 08:34, 30 April 2006 (EDT)
I agree. I dont think we need to have a long counter-point to every travel topic ("Some people do not like scuba diving for the following reasons:...") If you don't want to do Leave-no-trace-camping, then don't. But for folks who are interested in how it work, here's the info they need... It may be an "American thing" but Gap year travel is a "British thing" so I don't think we exclude topics that are someplace-centric out of hand... Of course it's worth noting this it's a popular idea in the US or from the US or however you want to phrase it. Majnoona 13:37, 30 April 2006 (EDT)


Understand[edit]

I think this can be reworded to something a little more practical. (Full disclosure: I'm an eco-spaz myself, but this is a little too preachy for a travel guide...)

As the human population has grown into the billions and spread itself over most of the habitable portions of the planet, there are few truly "unspoiled" natural areas left. In the past century, we've become increasingly aware of the negative impact that human presence can have on these environments. And yet, because the environments we live in have become so unnatural, many of us want to get out of them and experience that wilderness, like our ancestors (or even our grandparents) once could. Not surprisingly, many wilderness areas are now being overrun by exploding numbers of visitors, risking the very character that draws us to them. Leave-no-trace camping is a set of compromises to deal with that dilemma. Without them, the only alternatives are: A) destroy the remaining wilderness, or B) stay out of it. On a less grand and apocalyptic level, leave-no-trace camping is a courtesy to the people who'll be visiting the same place the next day or the next week. It gives them a chance to experience it the same way you did. If you plan on returning there yourself someday, it'll help preserve the experience for you.

Pragmatically, the authorities who manage the place you want to visit may require that you follow leave-no-trace practices.

Variants

Actions

Destination Docents

In other languages