Are We Giving up on Backpacking?

There is no doubt that longer hikes, lasting for more than a day, put one in a very different mental space, much farther removed from day-to-day urban existence. It takes time for natural rhythms to take over. But it is also worth mentioning that spending more time, less frequently, in the woods or mountains has a much better carbon footprint. The ratio of time outdoors to time driving really ought to be substantially better than 1:1. Day hikes are clearly the most consumptive form of hiking. When gasoline is severely rationed, or costs $10 a gallon, we may all revert to being backpackers.

The National Park Service's Public Use Statistics Office shows visitation has declined from its peak in the 1990s though 2006: Mt. Rainier NP off 28%, North Cascades NP off 71%, Olympic NP off 28% (1). In the same period, Washington's population rose 20% (2).

Might loss of access have contributed to this decline? Might the Mountaineers Books solicitation of day hiking manuscripts reflect what hikers actually buy? Aren't most WTA work parties on the very trails listed in those "Day Hiking" guides? Might that not be because that's where WTA volunteers actually sign up and show up? Might WTA do better to spend more time listening to what hikers want and actually do, than preaching to them? Questions worth considering...

(1) http://www2.nature.nps.gov/stats/
(2) http://www.ofm.wa.gov/pop/poptrends/poptrends_07.pdf

What is your deal man? Why are you so angry and hostile towards WTA, and it seems in particular to this Andrew person's postings? You talk frequently about being upset about WTA's decision making process. I hope that if you feel so passionately about it that you are either working on decreasing WTA funding, or becoming a part of the organization so you can use your passion and seemingly infinite amount of time (the you are currently using to write very well referenced, but slanderous and hypocritical ((For example calling someone/some group preachy because they have the audacity to publish their stance on subjects important to them ON THEIR OWN WEBSITE, then proceeding to constantly proclaim why your ideas are better over and over again as if standing on the pulpit)) to steer the organization towards what you think it should be sailing towards.

Its obvious that you have a particular stance on access to wilderness. Its obvious that you think that the reasons that lead you to your stance are more valid then reasons others use to get to their stance. Its also obvious that you have are passionate about your views. It is also obvious that you think you are passionate about the democratic process. These are all important things if their is to be effective change in a culture of complacency. However, if you wish to pursuade people to your side of the fence (no matter how many statistics, logical processes, or facts you throw at them) you ought to bear in mind that your average third party is EXTREMELY turned off by name calling, labeling, and irrational anger.

I would be afraid to post this for fear it is too personally directed at one individual, but it seems that your responses are at times irrationally hostile towards the author (Andrew) and WTA leadership, and while intelluctually gigantic on one hand they are emotionally and socially infantile on the other.

For the sake of an open discourse I hope you start leaving words like "preachy" and tactics like referencing the intent of dead heroes out; while allowing your very important, well researched , and passionate responses to be a more meaningful part of the public discourse.

Once again I applaud your passion and enjoy the information you supply, however a little personal insight is in order.

Joshua, your comments are appreciated, and are taken constructively, as I'm certain we all here can benefit from introspection.

You're quite right, of course, that this is merely Andrew's personal blog. But articles from it are often reprinted verbatim in "Washington Trails", and he actively solicits feedback here first. A mere "blog on, dude!" is nice, but critical commentary is more helpful, as it might help him sharpen (or even reconsider) his arguments.

The point of this article is unclear. It identifies a real problem (which is easy), but does not analyze its causes, nor offer a solution (admittedly, difficult) beyond the suggestion that hikers prioritize their personal recreational pursuits above their family, home and work responsibilities, a suggestion which the hiking constituency WTA is privileged to serve might not find particularly helpful.

You are perceptive in noting a degree of frustration in my writings. Please allow me to fill in some background of which you would not be aware. Normally, when a member is interested and concerned enough to ask about the basis and goal of an advocacy position his organization has taken, that would be considered A Good Thing. He might hope to receive a thoughtful response, fully explaining its basis and detailing its precise goal. He would not expect to be merely blown off with a "cut and paste" restatement of the same article he'd asked about, not one single question answered, followed by hostility and the attitude that this member is Insubordinate. That would be highly unprofessional, would it not?

Healthy volunteer organizations have a transparent decision-making process, into which all members are welcomed. WTA's is the very model of opacity. This is reflected in complaints from the majority of fellow WTA volunteers with whom I've had the privilege of working, and in the letters some have written to "Washington Trails" over the past couple of years. It is on their behalf that I started asking questions. After six months, I've gotten no answers. None.

These problems are significant only as they bear on WTA's future. WTA seeks to become a statewide organization. The Cascade Crest forms not only a geographic, but a political divide within Washington. If WTA continues to place priority on taking divisive political positions, and refusing to justify or explain them to its members, it may compromise its ability to fulfill its unique trail maintenance mission. This is not merely theoretical: I am sorry to report that it has already happened in the Olympics. So I am not, as you suggest, "hostile" to WTA, but the opposite: I am deeply concerned about WTA. I want WTA to succeed.

WTA has a completely unique role as a trail maintenance organization. Its advocacy role is not unique; there are well over a dozen outdoors advocacy groups whose efforts are often duplicative. One could choose to join both WTA and one or more advocacy groups. Indeed, individual WTA members do choose to join different groups which disagree on certain issues. That need in no way affect their support for WTA... unless WTA chooses to involve itself in a divisive, purely ideological, issue.

Another way of thinking about this is to ask oneself a purely pragmatic thought question: if WTA chose to split itself into two groups: a pure trail maintenance organization, and (yet another) advocacy group, which would survive? The answer is clear from WTA's recent history: it very nearly ceased to exist in 1992, if not for the sole efforts of Greg Ball. Honoring his memory in this context is perfectly appropriate. That doing so evokes outrage from those who have never hestitated to use his story in fund-raising efforts (1) is surprising, and pardon me, appears disingenuous.

Perhaps the complete lack of any substantive response from WTA's staff simply reflects that these policy questions are beyond their remit, and lie with the Board of Directors? So that is where I shall take them.

So, Joshua, my concerns are not merely my own, sir, they represent those of many other WTA volunteers with whom I've worked. My frustration is not mere petulance, but is quite hard earned, I can assure you. However, I apologize if I've allowed that to come through, and it has irritated you. I shall strive to do better. Thanks.

Meanwhile, note the total lack of response from the WTA staff to the issues I've raised. It's the issues that count.

(1) http://www.wta.org/[…]/wtaweb.pl?5+store+display+ballfund

Rod,

I need to set the record straight here. You and I emailed for a period about the Dosewallips Road, and we concluded that conversation with a commitment from me to you that I will read the upcoming DEIS when it is released with a thoughtful, critical eye and that I will reach out to our members for their thoughts as I did when we modified our position based on new information from the National Marine Fisheries Service. Frankly, I became weary with your implication that I was lying to you about the level of engagement with our members on the Peninsula and chose to end our engagement at that. So your contention that WTA is unresponsive to members is just that—your contention, and a false one. I am not going to engage in a tit-for-tat with you about the details of the Dosewallips Road on WTA’s blog. We encourage thoughtful conversation on the Signpost Blog, but we will not allow it to become a forum for mischaracterizing WTA policy or putting words in the mouths of our members and volunteers.

My direct line at WTA is 206.965.8558. My email address is jonathan@wta.org. All WTA members are encouraged to call me if they would like to engage in a substantive discussion on the issues that we address.

Ok, thanks for responding. I feel I must have communicated the point of my response ineffectively (besides the obvious typos). I am pretty sure that I do not disagree with your stances on hard issues like what to do with washouts or what is to blame for backpacking complaceny. I honestly appreciate your passion and input. I just wanted to try and shine some insight your way about HOW you write your responses. My point is basically that you are being a jerk (sorry for the near name calling) while making valid points. My suspicion is that you are not as concerned about facilitating change as you claim but more concerned with being "right" and having the last word.

I thought that your recommendation for the fate of the Dosewalips road was profoundly well thought out and persuasive. Its just your tactics come across as infantile.

I think that if you weren't obsessed with being "right" then you would use your obviously massive reasoning skills to notice that when you try to claim ownership of what the majority of WTA members think that you are way overstepping what you have the ability to call. No matter if you have received hundreds or even thousands of letters you can not possibly say that you speak for the majority without the polls or votes that you request (sidenote: your polling option is inherently flawed in that due to the nature of WTA and its membership it would be extremely difficult to notify every member of every position poll, and following that the members most likely to respond would inherently represent outliers whose passion for certain issues would drive to the polls and as such might result in a skewed vote that was even less representative of the organization membership then allowing the current WTA leadership to represent its members by doing what they think is best using their experience AND accounting for the desires of the average member).

I can understand your frustration of feeling left out. You obviously have had personal experience of feeling that your views and wishes are going unheeded. I can only speak for my personal experiences and one thing that appeals to me greatly about WTA is my experience of having my thoughts, ideas, and wishes heard and respected. Of course this does not mean that those ideas were enacted or that they were rejected unfairly, having a stance isn't about having your stance enacted but more about personal empowerment.

As I am venturing quite off subject I want to reiterate that in my response to you I do not shun your feedback to andrew and wta, but rather applaud and value your dogged research and passionate and thoughtful analysis of this research. I simply wanted to point out that you are being unfair, callous, and just plain mean in the process.

Also leave Greg Ball out of it. An obvious crutch of yours is to use Greg Ball's legacy against WTA. Especially pointing out that they use Greg Ball's legacy in fundraising efforts is really low. In your response to my response I really appreciated your kind voice and eloquent almost non-hostile response, however adding the link on the website to the Greg Ball fund is just low and not called for. Not knowing anything about the man, very little about his life, and even less about his passing I have a feeling that he would either approve highly of using his name to support WTA's fundraising efforts or would have mandated it in either his will or to those who knew and loved him and wished to carry on his work.

You talk about a lack of response from WTA staff to the issues you've raised. On the Dosewallips road re-opening conversation for example I noticed several responses from andrew and someone named jonathan I think pretty much saying that they appreciated your input, had a desire to reconcile the issues you raised with the current WTA stance, and that they defended themselves against your claim that WTA is dictatorial and insensitive to its members.

In summation, please keep putting your voice out there. It is SOOO valuable, I agree with or have respect for all of your points about the ISSUES you raise but cringe when you harass the staff about: Greg Ball, WTA's deaf ears to their constituency desires (the few staff members that I do know from WTA have, in my experience, demonstrated a profound desire to do right by those they represent) and others that I am too tired to hunt for right now. Happy Trails.

Whats more important, being right or being heard? If what you want is to be listened to better then use tact.

I would like to ask if you would be willing to join a group of fellow WTA volunteers in reviewing a draft of a background briefing on the Dose Road issue for the WTA board. Your input on content, as well as the manner of presentation, would be uniquely valuable and much appreciated. If willing, please contact me at (all one word) rod farlee at oly pen dot com. Thank you in advance.