From: daf@inmet.camb.inmet.com (Tony Flanders)
Subject: Backcountry Crowding
Organization: Intermetrics Inc, Cambridge MA
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 16:11:27 GMT

I have been following the various threads on population growth and its
effect on the backcountry with some interest and some anger.

Yes, backcountry in the U.S. has become much more crowded in the last few
decades.  Whether it is has become *too* crowded is a matter of opinion,
but the increase is a matter of record.  Very little of the increase in
backcountry use is due to population growth.  Between 1960 and 1990, the
U.S. population increased from 180,000,000 to 250,000,000.  A 40% increase --
nothing to sneeze at.  But if backcountry use were 40% greater than in 1960,
people would hardly have noticed.  I don't have access to any figures,
but I guess that the increase has been closer to 5-fold.

The increase is due to many factors such as the Interstate Highway system,
greater prosperity, lower airfares, improved backcountry gear, and above
all, changing fashions.  But in any case, it seems to be here to stay.

It is great to be part of an elite minority making use of an abundant resource
provided at public expense, but it is not reasonable to expect that situation
to last forever.  Sooner or later, other people are going to catch on.

What to do now?  If you want to run off and get all excited about controlling
the U.S. population, that's your prerogative.  But if you want to cut
backcountry use to 1960 levels via population control, you are going to
have to shoot 80% of the people, and you shouldn't be too surprised if some
of them object.

My own opinion on the U.S. population is that it is not a problem now, may
be a problem some time in the future, and is worth worrying about insofar
as this is compatible with the basic decencies.  The basic decencies
include things like allowing immigrants from more unfortunate countries,
as my mother's parents were allowed 80 years ago, and as my father's
ancestors were allowed 350 years ago -- not that the previous inhabitants
had much of a say about it back then.  They also include not being too
intrusive about birth control.

As for the backcountry, we cannot provide 50 million people, let alone
250 million, with a chicken in every pot, three cars in every garage,
an interesting and well-paying job with all the amenities of civilization,
and easy weekend access to their own private wilderness.  This is 1990,
not 1650.  The frontier has gone, long ago.  If you insist on being utterly
alone in the backcountry, you must accept that it is going to take some
time and trouble to get to the empty spots.  We are fortunate in North
America that many empty spots still exist.  Their enemies are floatplanes,
road construction, trail construction, and publicity, and if you want to
keep the wild places wild, those are the things to fight.

If you want to experience the choice scenic spots, or go to places that
can be reached easily from major urban centers, then you must accept that
there will be other people there.  For these areas, the key is proper
management; if you think that you can or should have them all to yourself,
free of any constraint, then you are part of the problem.

Northern European cultures in general are obsessed with privacy, and
North Americans are obsessed with the myths of the frontier and the
wilderness.  These are all very well in their place, but they cause
serious problems when they clash with reality.  Backcountry users are
part of a community, and it is far more useful to accept that fact and
work with it than to fight against it.

Other people aren't the end of the world.  Without civilization, you would
have neither the opportunity nor the inclination to enjoy the backcountry.

    - Tony Flanders
	daf@inmet.camb.inmet.com