Fascinating
Your burning man population study is a non sequitur. But, if you prefer numbers, there are 35,000 geo-caches in CA, 15,000 in TX, and 3,000 in NV. (source: http://coloradocacher.com/ColoradoCacherHome/TopGeocachingStates.htm). I included CA since most burners are from the Bay Area How about geo-caching is mildly popular? And let me get this straight, you think the AT is played-out, but Burning Man isn’t?.. Fascinating.
All this aside, I believe we have the same goal of conservation. You believe this goal is best met by keeping all but the most responsible people out, while I believe this goal is best met by letting a lot of people in. I think your “box checkers” that come for one day, pay park fees, and visit the gift shop are fantastic. The vast majority (~80%) of these people will only use a few (~20%) of sites, leaving the remainder of the locations open for more dedicated people like yourself. If the number of visitors is a problem, raise the fee. If the number of visitors continues to be a problem, expand the number of state and national parks. I have the same thoughts about jet skis, snow mobiles, ATV’s, and RVs. The money from licensing and park fees should be used to maintain the parks and enforce boundaries for their activities. In a perfect world we wouldn’t need boundaries, or enforcement, but we don’t live in a perfect world. So the next best thing is to use the funds supplied by the weekend warriors to buy and protect land to hold in trust. By limiting some areas to primordial transportation and no rescue zones, we can keep out all but the most serious, most able, and hopefully most responsible people out.
medicine wheel
this may have started out as a hunters campfire ring and evolved. none of the locals claim to know about its origin. its oriented nwse, located at a junction of trails called ‘country junction’ on a ridgeline near the edge of sumter national forest just west of lake jocassee in sc[URL=<a href=“http://good-times.webshots.com/photo/2715060860053419764dDqonk” TARGET="_new">http://good-times.webshots.com/photo/2715060860053419764dDqonk</a>]
Just because you don’t understand
something, that doesn't make it a nonsequitur.
You obviously failed to grasp what I was saying, or else you never would have said "And let me get this straight, you think the AT is played-out, but Burning Man isn’t?... Fascinating."
First of all, I didn't call the AT "played out". I mentioned the fact that the AT suffers from overuse shows that there is no shortage of people who want to spend time outdoors, and therefore scant need to recruit more through the promise of gimmicks like summit stones at the end of the trail.
Second, I never said that Burning Man is or is not played out. I have no interest in Burning Man. I would never go to Burning Man. I have no opinion of whether it is a good thing or not. all I said is that I have only known about it for about two years, and yet I have met several people in Texas who go to it. I contrasted that with geocaching, which I have been aware of for 10 years, and yet I still have not met anyone who does it.
So, if I look at all the people I converse with in one year, that would be a sample size of n.
So since I have been aware of Burning Man for two years, the sample size would be 2n. The frequency of positive responses (people who participate in Burning Man) is several.
Since I have been aware of geocaching for ten years, the sample size is 10n. The frequency of positive responses (people who participate in geocaching) within that sample size is zero.
Now since the sample size for my observing geocaching activity is 5 times greater than that for my observing Burning Man activity, I would expect the frequency of positive responses for geocaching to be around five times as high as the frequency for observing Burning Man activity, if the two activities were equally represented in the general population. Instead, the geocaching frequency was much lower, in fact, nonexistent.
Now, since I know that the total amount of people who participate in Burning Man is 40,000 per annum, I use that as a benchmark to estimate whether the total amount of people who participate in geocaching is higher or lower than 40,000. Based on my data, I would expect it to be lower (obviously you've never interviewed to get into grad school, or you'd be familiar with this kind of mental exercise).
Now, the population of the US is 300 million. 40,000 is 0.013% of that. So based on the above estimate, I would assume that significantly less than 0.013% of the US population has taken up geocaching as a hobby. You said that geocaching is "wildly popular." I would have reservations about calling 0.13% "wildly" popular, but that may just be a difference in definition of "wildly" between us.
So you may be right, geocaching may be wildly popular, or I may be right, and it may not be. Let's assume that you are right, and it is wildly popular. If it is, then there should be plenty of people out there appreciating nature. That would conflict with the urgency in your comment: "the more people you can get appreciating nature, the more likely it is that we can convince them the importance of protecting it."
One other thing you said, I find erroneous: "If your “nature for nature’s sake” argument holds true, geo-caching would be nothing more than a fringe hobby. Instead, it is wildly popular." Actually, I never said that my attitude towards nature is the predominate one among outdoor enthusiasts, only that it is the responsible one. I may be in the minority, and I wouldn't be surprised if I were. But that doesn't mean that I am wrong, and since I am more educated in environmental management than the average outdoorsman, I would think that I am more likely to be the right one.
So, even if geocaching is popular, that doesn't mean it has an environmentally sound ethos to it. I'm not saying it doesn't, either, just that popularity does not mean environmental responsibility. Surely the popularity of ATVs and jetskis as a means of enjoying nature should tell you that.
No, I am not in favor of "keeping all but the most responsible people out." I believe in access for all. The entrance fees and gift shop revenue are great, if they are used for park upkeep and conservation. Yeah, I have no problem with gift shops at the entrance to a park. Just not at the end of the trail. Commercialism of landmarks is very common these days. Look at the corporate naming of venerable ballparks. There is serious talk about corporate sponsorship of national parks. I think it would be sad to climb El Capitan, only to find a sign that says "Brought to you by McDonalds. I'm Luvin' It." I think things like summit stones are a step, albeit a very small one, in that direction. I feel they are a harbinger of a trend in people's attitudes towards the outdoors, and their attitude towards how they enjoy it.
I just discovered
that you can’t use the “less than” sign in your posts, or everything you type after it disappears. It took my trying to finish my post two times before it dawned on me that there must be a special character in my post doing this, and then it was obvious to see where the special character would be.
Ad hominem
I admire your idealism. I really do. But before we talk about confidence intervals around your point estimates, or whether Chi-squared is at all predictive given one degree of freedom, I think you should consider bias in how the samples were collected. Did you ever think you might be selecting for the group of people you are talking to? Hopefully, adequate sample size and test construction will be covered in your next semester.
To your point about rampant commercialism. Would I be ok if Half Dome became Mount McGriddle? While I think it would be shameful, you would have to tell me what I was getting in return. If this meant the difference between keeping the park intact or selling off parts to land developers, I would reluctantly support the idea since a name is just a name. But in that scenario, I hope the very thought would create enough public outrage to get people active in the conservationist movement. I would expect such a commercial advance to spark lots of people reaching out to their elected officials with their voices and lot of people contributing money to put the mountain in public trust instead. So, in the hopes of getting geo-cachers’ and summit-stoners’ (?) involvement in the future, I will defend their interest in the present.
In all seriousness. This has been fun. I look forward to hearing about your other ideas on bicker and banter.
- Tom.
That sucks
I actually did write a paragraph dealing with bias, but it appears it got lost in the whole "less than" sign technical hiccup. That sucks.
What I basically said was that I am a chinos and polo type of guy, deplore pot smoking, am shy about public nudity. I am not the kind of guy a burner would look at and say "I bet that guy is a fellow burner," or "I bet that guy would really dig Burning Man."
On the other hand, I am a scout leader. I have taken navigation classes. Most people who know me learn pretty quickly I'm an outdoorsy guy. Therefore, it is much more likely for me to have run into geocachers than burners, and have had similar-enough interests to start talking about our respective outdoor hobbies.
Also, as you mentioned, most burners are concentrated in the Bay Area, and I live in Texas (and not even Austin!). I imagine geocachers would have at least somewhat more even geographic distribution.
So, all the biases are in favor of geocachers being overrepresented in my data, and burners being underrepresented, AND the geocachers have the advantage of 5 times larger sample size. If anything, I should have seen many more geocachers than burners, even if both parties were equally represented in the population.
Agreed that this has been fun. This is why I come to p.net, for these kinds of rhetorical exercises.
broken group
The notes on Broken Group made me dig out my charts from 1980’s—back then you were lucky (?)
to find anyone on any of the islands, let alone a crowd. I remember stopping on Clark and being pleased to find two other guys there to share a coffee with one afternoon when the 30knot winds were keep[ing me on the beach.!
lmost 30 years ago, how the time flies! Life is just a dream within a dream…
Summit Stone?
See This?
http://summitstonesadventuremusings.blogspot.com/2007/10/summit-stone-controversy.html
Old idea
Sounds like Geocaching, or orienteering that came before it.
Phreon
summit in Sierra Nevada
Long time ago when I was climbing we did a class 4/5 peak in the Southern Sierra (forget the name) and on the top was a summit stone. In the cache was a page from an elementary arithmetic book. Written on the margins in pencil were instructions for how to catch a snake that is eating your pigs. Basically, you put stakes in the ground in a circle with a pig in the middle. The snake can get in and the pig can't get out. When the snake eats the pig it is too big to get out, so you've caught it. Also, on this same summit was a common house fly. Odd, since we were close to 14 thousand feet and way above timberline. Probably just hanging around waiting for the pig.
DSD
I don’t agree it is geocaching.
I found mine in 2006.
The DSD response to our message board is what I linked in my above message.
Did anyone see that?
Maine Island Trail Association
puts island logs at all their overnight islands on the trail—some 345 miles long----the logs are kept in tupperware containers—people who stop and visit(mainly but not limited to paddlers) write comments in the logs----and the logs are replaced every two years or so(depending on use) serves the same purpose as a summit stone and looks nicer.