From: peterk@fury.wr.tek.com (Peter Krystad)
Newsgroups: rec.backcountry
Subject: Re: Helicopter Access (was: Alaskan Heliskiing)
Date: 17 Apr 92 17:37:57 GMT
Reply-To: peterk@fury.WR.TEK.COM
Organization: Tektronix, Inc. (for now)


 
I have never participated in a helicopter approach, but have had my 
wilderness experience modified by them.

For those familiar with the old squabble between "sport" and 
"traditional" climbing the rational for using a helicopter follows 
some strangly familiar lines. Helicopters make possible an experience 
otherwise unattainable to those with a limited amount of time. They allow 
one to reach some personally significant goal without any of the 
"less pleasant" or "less glamorous" efforts that were formerly required to 
reach that goal.  Mechanized approaches reduce risk and commitment by 
lessening fatigue and isolation. Placing bolts and using helicopters both 
modify an environment.

It follows that perhaps the same solution to that debate can be
applied here. What you do in the wilderness, and how you do it, is your 
business alone, *as long as it does not adversly others against their will*. 
Who am I to decide that everyone should have to live with thundering 
helicopters in the wilderness? If everyone feels it is fine, so be it.
If some do not, some compromise must be reached. Each of us needs to consider
our actions and how they affect others.

Practical solutions are, of course, hard to come by. My long-held 
contention is that removing the profit motive from wilderness will solve 
much of the problem.  I believe if man cannot profit from activities in 
wilderness, the wilderness is much better for it. 

As long as someone is making money off using helicopters for approaches, 
use of helicopters will increase. The same can be said for climbing guide 
services, rafting outfitters, etc. Money talks. Since it is so easy to 
hide a quest for money behind "lost jobs/way of life" propaganda, that once 
these enterprises get started they are hard to stop. Imagine telling 
Canadian Mountain Holidays they can't fly anymore. 

My experience is that use that is "guided" or "assisted" without the dollar 
behind it provides a better environment for education and understanding.
What else is there to focus on if you no longer have to worry about the nickel?

Any solution will never be simple. Only by evaluating use on a local
case-by-case basis can we manage the issue. I am sure not many will argue
using helicopters as an alternative to several hundred mile overland 
approaches in Alaska and Canada. But as an alternative to a five day bushwack 
in the Coast Range? Three days in a canoe? A one day trail trip? A half-day 
ski tour? Where is the line?  Who better to decide than the regular users?

Think about a "backcountry usage group" for your favorite wilderness area.
It consists of volunteers with an interest and love for the area concerned.
They represent all users of an area equally. They may own helicopters, 
float planes, horses, rafts, jet boats, whatever. Their charter is to 
let people experience their wilderness. They operate bare bones, as a 
non-profit agency. No one making decisions for the group draws a salary.
They arrange guided tours for those without the experience to go it
alone. They coordinate access if user conflict exists. They do this only for
personal satisfaction of showing others the remaining beauty around them.

Well, back to the real world.

Peter.

*------------------------------------------------------------------*
* Peter Krystad                          peterk@amadeus.WR.TEK.COM *
* Still working.                                                   *
*------------------------------------------------------------------*