During the 1980’s, several governmental organizations including the United States Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, and National Parks Service collaborated on the principles of “Leave No Trace”. This wilderness program and outdoor ethic has since gained the support of such national organizations as the Sierra Club and Boy Scouts of America. The seven core principles provide a framework for decisions and planning in the outdoors, and include such now well-known mottos as “Plan Ahead and Prepare” and have evolved into slogans such as “Pack it In, Pack it Out”. Although it is not law, these principles are reflected in policy decisions made by local agencies. Many parks place a limit on the amount of campers able to stay on a campground in an attempt to curtail the negative impact that humans inevitably have on their surroundings. Other policies and regulations include limitations on where fires can be made, and setting paths for hikers and backpackers.
“Leave No Trace” and the policies that spring from it are a reflection of preservationist attitudes, and especially express the ideas of Aldo Leopold. If the environment is something to be protected, then it must have value—is this value intrinsic or instrumental? If the motivating factor for protecting and maintaining the environment is economic, then this implies that the “land” (defined as Leopold broadly defined it, meaning both physical land and non-human habitants) has some quantifiable instrumental (or intrinsic?) value that would be lost if it is used for other purposes. The decisions to limit outdoor use in specialized areas therefore has both practical and ethical implications.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Where did the principles of Leave No Trace come from? Are they based on any specific land ethic, or many?
ReplyDeleteLooking at Bentham's ideas about animal rights, what ethical issues are there in regards to the displacement of animals for campgrounds, or just human use? Bentham's ideas may be a way to argue for the land having intrinsic value.
ReplyDeleteAlthough they are protecting the land, could it still be viewed as having instrumental value in the sense that, if it's protected, more humans with their intrinsic value will be able to use the land for their benefit? If it isn't protected and disappears or is destroyed, people will no longer benefit.
ReplyDeleteIs this really preservationist or is this more like conservation? The fact that we are camping and bring campers in and outside things with us does change the environment. It seems more like it is a conservation approach where it is trying to manage the fact that humans do exist and are having some impact that must be controlled in order to protect the value of nature. It does seem like the intentions of this are good, seeing the intrinsic value in nature and wanting to enjoy it how it is; however, the fact that campers and such are still allowed in will always have some kind of affect. How does one decide how many campers are allowed or how many fire pits before the integrity of the site is lost and no longer preserved?
ReplyDeleteHow do you plan to determine whether or not the "Leave No Trace" principles stem from an instrumental or intrinsic origin? Or do you plan on addressing both types of value? It would seem to me that if you are assessing instrumental value you would also address the Principle of Utility.
ReplyDeleteGoing off of Mary's point, I would be interested to hear an argument about the value of parks to people's well being (instrumental or intrinsic). We talked in class about how isolated we have become from the natural world; how we simply box it up in these areas so we can have interaction with it, but in a limited form. I wonder if preserving parks is really the greatest good for people? Could the park space be better used to benefit people in a different manner, or does that little piece of park provide some intrinsic value to people that cannot be captured from other man-made things?
ReplyDeleteLooking at this from a libertarian point of view, would limiting people's access to the park or nature be a limit on a person's freedom?
ReplyDeleteWhat approach do you plan on using in determining whether or not the parks and forest areas are intrinsically or instrumentally valuable? Can an object be both? Also, what are examples of how intrinsic value can relate to economic value? What effect would this have on the implementation of future policies and regulations?
ReplyDeleteIs there any way that this, "Leave No Trace" policy has merit on the national level? You mentioned that it has been implemented in small local agencies, and I just would like to know if there was more enforcement from a higher power would prove to be more effective? Or should it be started from a grass-roots approach?
ReplyDeleteIs there a maximum number established stating how much traffic is too much for the envnironment to be considered damaged? How was this measured?
ReplyDeleteThe Leave no trace policy is very influential when it comes to national parks and forests. Do you think this type of thinking can be applied to our everyday lives? Obviously it will be extremely difficult to leave no trace at all but is it a good idea to start using this concept in our everyday lives?
ReplyDeleteYou state that humans have an inevitable negative impact on the environment, so wouldn't this be a conservation effort instead of preservation? So preservation would imply that the environment is without human impact, how can this be possible with a rapidly growing human population?
ReplyDeleteHow does one go about quantifying the economic value of a particular use of piece of land? Using the cost benefit analysis is one way to approach this issue but how do you obtain a monetary value of the land to use for the analysis? Does one really know all the benefits of the land that would need to be included in the CBA?
ReplyDelete