The 395 and Owens Valley-Eastern Sierra Region

There's an interesting philosophical question. Do we blame the influencers or do we blame the sheep that need influence?





It was a trick question. I blame everyone. lol

 

Yes they do.

For what it's worth, the largest messes I've seen have been from camps with old clapped out jeeps and pickups that are out to get shitfaced, burn pallets, and shoot their old TVs that they just dumped

 

I can understand some brass getting left behind - it's very difficult to find all of it. But shooting junk and not cleaning up the mess is a totally different, totally stupid animal.

As far as leaving leaving beer cans, food containers, and other "normal" trash behind, that's just pure shit-headed laziness. It drives me nuts when I go out to Usal Beach and find the tied-up top of a black plastic garbage bag, because some dipshit decided that it would make more sense to bury it in the sand in the beach's tidal zone than to properly dispose of it. Luckily I'm never out there long enough that my Trasharoo gets full, so I can dig them out and get them to a dumpster.

 

Good point, and worth noting that kind of activity has been going on for ages and ages.

The advent of the mass of insufficiently prepared "followers" is what seems more recent to me. Their individual impact is way lower than the drink, shoot, burn fests to be sure, but there are just so many of them that it only takes a small percentage of bad actors to seem to be having an impact everywhere, as well as suddenly having a noticeable impact someplace that was previous properly respected.

Having random folks blare across Instagram that everyone needs to see this amazing place they "just discovered" fundamentally breaks how public lands have been managed for decades. In the past people worked together to carefully curate what was publicized, and to what degree through what channels, so that management resources could match the types of visitation expected and appropriate to a site. Even AAA was careful about what they put on their maps, often consulting with the management agencies to include or not include features.

Fundamentally the folks out there trying to make money off of their "adventures" reek of an opportunism fundamentally in opposition to almost every other previous form of public outreach. The difference in intent behind their media is reflected in the difference in the impacts they cause.

 

Climbers in Yosemite have made videos and made money for themselves. I wonder what percentage goes back to the park?

 

Probably none? But that's a good example to discuss.

If I'm posting videos climbing El Cap and Half Dome then that aligns well with existing park management. Those have always been super high visitation areas with an established infrastructure for resource management. I suspect some of the climbing community members might not like the extra visibility and related increase in users, but fundamentally I don't think it is really "breaking" the long standing resource management model for the area by promoting it.

In comparison, if I start hyping some spot in the middle of BLM nowhere that has no infrastructure, but is easily accessible to any idiot with a stock SUV, that's going to cause some impacts that are very dissonant with previous resource management plans.

 

Climbing has long been a part of park history but as a recreational activity. Even though climbing is regulated there's no doubt it encourages visitation. The question I have is should I be able to shoot a movie in any national park and then earn money from it without paying a fee to the park service? In the broader sense, should I be able to shoot pictures for my climbing gear catalog?

I definitely care about disclosure when talking about areas with historical value and low visitation. Many agencies even have management plans that cover their disclosure of sensitive site locations but they haven't stopped the twats that want a panel or two of the petroglyphs for the wall

 

Every professionally shot movie of climbing in the Valley has been licensed by NPS. And yes they did get money for that license to shoot. I doubt they got a percentage of royalties. By professional. I'm talking Valley Uprising, Dawn Wall, Free Solo and the like

 

Good. Licensing fees are fine. Not sure they’re entitled to royalties but I’m sure we can all remember an actor or two who wished they had a better royalty deal

 

I am pretty sure that professional YouTubers need to have a license to shoot video in National Parks and maybe other federal land. I’m not sure how much or how effectively it’s enforced. A recent New York Times article on the best swimming holes in California got hundreds of angry comments from people comparing that this kind of article brings crowds and trash, loud music etc. But the reality is that none of them were really secret.

 

Backpacking magazine did it before the internet.
"Secret camping spot"

 

YouTubers don’t really have to pay. So long as it’s just them. I found the rates on the NPS site.

I know there are fees for photography workshops that are based on size. There are also other requirements like insurance and first aid. It’s one of the reasons you see groups of “friends” go.

It can be annoying because places like Mesa Arch are iconic but huge groups of people ruin it.

 

These articles are what sell magazines. Same with BDR routes. They sell magazines and maps to describe their product, like any good guidebook does.

 

From the NPS website: “Federal law requires a permit for all commercial filming, no matter the size of the crew or the type of equipment. This includes individuals or small groups that don’t use much equipment, but generate revenue by posting footage on websites, such as YouTube and TikTok.” So a permit is required, but you’re right, the fee is zero for 1-2 people with only camera and tripod. But quite a few YouTubers seem to have a big entourage. $150 and up for more than 2 people.

 

I didn't say anything about not having the permit, only the cost Anyone who makes money off the NPS should be required to pay.

 

I totally get where you're coming from, and I'm totally supportive of any and all licensing and fees that the NPS can charge/collect/enforce. But, there are a few things I always try to do in order to calm myself down with when I start to get into a thought track like this:

1. Most Importantly: We can control our reaction. The same social media that Ken @DVexile mentioned that has created the scum who try to monetize every moment of their lives, has also altered the outlook of much of society to go from zero to 100% angry in less than 140 characters at "any little thing." It's hard to resist that urge/reaction, because they are so good at eliciting it, but we really do need to realize that it's not good for anyone when we act that way.
   .
2. I've been known to bemoan the whole "reservation needed to visit a park" (which, they just introduced for Mt. Rainier this year, and it sucks) a lot, but if people are going to congregate somewhere, I'd prefer they do it in National Parks. These places are already well known (despite InstaTubers trying to sell them as "secret"). While crowds may not be pleasurable for those of us who like solitude, having crowds there means solitude elsewhere (hopefully).
   .
3. People have been making money off of parks forever. We all sing the praises of Digonnet (as we should), but I think it's safe to say that the park never saw a penny from his publications (at least, permitting/licensing). I understand how it seems different, but that's such a slippery slope that it's hard to get right, which is why the NPS rules are what they are.

My hope - and experience - is that it doesn't take much to keep the hoards of people away from places. Not giving GPS coordinates eliminates 90% of people who "shouldn't be there" from going. Not naming a place (so someone can't find it by name on Google or some other site where the GPS coordinates were posted) eliminates another 8%. That leaves about 2%, which I personally divide up into 1.5% that I opt to be sly or purposefully misleading, and 0.5% that I think shouldn't be posted at all.

And, as I think about it, there are bits in every bucket where I ask for posting guidance (and redaction/removal suggestions) from folks who I know are sensitive to a specific area. Of course, that's what responsible people do, not the morons who have sponsored their lives away to OnX and the like.

 

For those of you in the Bishop area who can look out the window - I'm curious whether you think White Mountain summit will be hikable in 10 days? My USGS maps show that snow starts around 12,600', which means 1,600' below the summit.

I'm assuming that even following the road, it might be tough to get to the top. Though, I also see that it's 100+ °F between now and then in the valley, so a lot could change.

 

Thanks for taking the time to reply.

The national parks are for everyone. Not just those who can afford the entrance and reservation fees--if you want to go and are just making reservations, late October is good. BTW, you cannot just show up at the gate and drive through either, you must have a reservation and while it is a little selfish, 120 saves me over an hour of travel time to the east side--I'll probably just arrive early enough I don't need a reservation.

Monetization. The parks are used by a number of professionals. All I'm asking is they abide by the same rules and also pay fair fees for the work they're doing. In addition to access issues, reservations also force users to seek other recreational opportunities and those are drying up as MVUP in National Forests are implemented or as BLM land is closed.
But it is sad when visitors do not respect the places open to us--if you want 0-100% PO'd, that's the one thing.

The guide books like Digonnet aren't really fair comparisons to "sponsored content" or "overland tours".

• Guidebooks require a fair bit of research and effort to assemble and while you hiked or drove the trail, you paid your entrance fees. I would guess authors spend a fair bit of their own money. Maybe $30. Users are usually interested in seeing places on their own and are likely "experienced" users.
• An "overland tour" of DV might set you back around $1500 for 4 days. Group size could be 6-10 vehicles. Large groups tend to tear up the soil with vehicles traveling off-trail to get around others. Camps also experience overuse.
• Photography workshops range from around $1400 to $6000. Group sizes are generally small and benefit from carpooling. These groups often use local hotels and restaurants. Often drive to their location, hop out and take pictures. Might hit several early morning and late afternoon/early evening spots. 2-3 miles is usually about the length of a hike.
• Not sure what an "influencer" receives for posts and mentions--which probably depend on followers too. idk, maybe a fake campsite setup or a few "titanic" poses at the local waterfall? idk.

The bottom line is that we need to figure out how to keep recreational opportunities available to all, to spread the load out, and to help people understand their impact and to be more responsible. If that makes me angry? idk. Some of it does but then I've been participating in land use issues for a long time.

 

There’s a truism that most people are considerate and there are only a few a-holes. Statistically that may be true. Unfortunately in the outdoors, things tend to compound. I like to go outdoors alone or with one or two family or friends. Rarely more than four, two couples who usually have common values. By contrast, a large group may already be less considerate. And by definition, even if they’re considerate, their size has more impact. A big fire, music, more vehicles starting and idling at odd hours. Etc etc. The good news is that it’s pretty easy to get away from crowds in the West.

From my own trail advocacy volunteer work, I do know that more access reduces impact, by spreading out users. But a lot of preservationists (dare I say NIMBYs) want to limit access.

 

Yeah, I mean, I read through all of this and agree with every single point.

The only point I was trying to make was that the bottom line you mention is *really* hard to get right. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try, but in trying, it will benefit everyone if our approach/attitude is a positive one, rather than confrontational/angry/hateful. The latter is how social media wants/teaches/rewards us to do it, and so society has moved that direction (on all interactions), but it's not the constructive way.

Caveat...
I say all this as the guy who has taken more than one or two 0-100% digs at f@#$ing UTV drivers that cut down gates, drive around obstacles, rip up hillsides, and are otherwise a scourge on the earth. Most recently, @mrs.turbodb and I spent more than half an hour attempting to "re-close" a route into the wilderness that some UTVer decided they were "entitled" to drive. Anyway, there I go again. I never said it was easy to stay constructive, either.

Yeah, the small group vs. large is something I've seen as well. Also, I think that in larger groups, there's a tendency for one bad apple to spoil a few more in the bunch who "want to fit in" or "be cool" or don't want to rock the boat by saying something. I've sometimes wondered if this is different in 2024 than it was 30-40 years ago. I feel like when I was growing up, there was education/I was educated about how to "be" in the outdoors in a respectful way. I wonder if that happens less now as people are more consumed/raised by screens, or if my experience was an anomaly.