Rollfast

Most bears are grumpy and hungry.

Rollfast

Everything I needed to know I learned on Sesame Street? That's deep.

Rollfast

This is a homeless Foo thread

tandempower

Ok, I get that you are on the side of humans who think it's their prerogative to behave however they want in nature. I disagree with that and I strongly implore them to realize how nature works and humble themselves before it. Now I already know you disagree so you don't have to respond further.

Machka 

I'm not on the side of humans who think they can do whatever they want.


I am, however, on the side of humans who like to get outside do healthy active things like playing games (frisbee, ball games, cycling, swimming, hiking, canoeing, running, etc. etc.). I'm glad there are places available for all those things and more.

It's great going down to our beach and seeing people swimming, in various watercraft, playing frisbee or cricket on the beach, walking, running, and cycling.

All those people being active, having fun, and often doing so with family members.

Don't you think it's good and healthy for people to be outside in the fresh air and sunshine, being active and having a great time?

tandempower

I agree, but I've just noticed that people cause harm in nature when they get too centered on their own fun instead of respecting nature as their first priority and having fun as their second. I just think if humans would prioritize preservation and sustainability first, we wouldn't always be in conflict with the environment and sustainably stewarding this planet.

Of course, but they should realize all those other living organisms are doing the same, and they should respect them the same as they respect us. We are all on this planet together, helping to maintain and sustain it, as we have been since life began evolving so many eons ago.

tandempower

I understand that, but I also understand on another level that it is crazy that we have to pay to conserve nature. We should have an economic culture that automatically conserves nature in everything it does.

Think about it like cycling or other physical activity and your health. Do you sacrifice your health in order to make money so you can afford to conserve your health? Hopefully not. Hopefully you conserve your health as part of the way you ride a bike, work, etc. That is the way we should design parks and every other development, really. We should always ask how the thing we're doing or building benefits and protects the natural ecology, and not just greenwash the project because it is expected to make money. We should really design everything to optimize sustainability and then make our lifestyles fit within that paradigm.

McBTC

With a singular purpose in life boiled down to just surviving day to day, the direction of life is clear and many of the things we consider necessities of modern life are not needed. For a third world villager with little or no energy, sanitation, clean water and barely enough food, clearly there is no need of our help in understanding, for example, how to use a computer and get onto the internet. If just getting by is the villager's only interest, life is in many ways simplified quite a bit-- e.g., no need for a car... certainly no need for a road bike. It'd probably be no kind of life that anyone on the Bike Forums would desire and yet I suppose the CF authoritarians here will argue the villagers may be truly happy living without our concerns and that we could learn a lot form their example.

Happy Feet

Taking this at face value and responding firmly but without malice, I would say the sentiment is good and shared by many including myself (you might be surprised at who here has actually worked to preserve natural settings) but it does not reflect the reality of life and is therefore not effective as a model for change. In my 50's I have come to think two things:


Life is not always fair and...

It is far better to focus inwardly on what I can change about my behavior instead of pointing outward to what others should do. This "modeling" may be the most important thing I can do to instruct others how to interact with the natural world with a sense of authenticity that makes them consider change. Think of Dick Proenneke of "Alone in the Wilderness" and how many he inspired.

Holding lofty idealistic ideology rarely effects change because it ignores the reality of how life works for others (talks over them instead of with them) and those who do so rarely work within the system for change. They often disconnect, become bitter with society and in some cases become marginalized socially and ideologically. I tend to love nature and love people too, as they are also a part of nature. Crazy.. frustrating... but mostly just seeking what they think will make them happy. To effect change in that case it is valuable to show those people how conserving nature works to make them, and future generations, happy and I think NP's do a good job of trying to communicate that message.

tandempower

I have no need to whitewash or sugarcoat anything. Pragmatism works in the ways that it works, but there's no reason to not air for ideals. The reality is that if someone like me can grasp the notion of putting nature and sustainability first and making lifestyles fit within that, then anyone can. There's really no excuse, no matter how you sugar coat the failure.

Happy Feet

That's all well and good and I'm sure it makes one feel righteous for taking such a stance but when trying to effect change in the world of others it only serves to alienate them and dismiss the message along with the messenger. You may call such things sugar coating but most others call it conversation - in which both sides try to understand the other. I guess I value my message enough to want it to be received favorably. The world is full of people holding signs that say "you're wrong".

While I hold many of the same beliefs as you do in regards to nature I really have little faith in "Ideals" in and of themselves, especially when they involve someone telling others how to behave. Such things are easy to talk about in the abstract with no skin in the game but I am far more impressed by someone who, perhaps having more modest ideals, lives them in a way that makes them attractive to others.

tandempower

Do you know what the phrase, "straight talk" means? In that context, do you understand how failing to be straight would be crooked?

Machka 

You're right!




And I'm not sure how we got onto the topic of National Parks here, but whilst on that topic ...


How many National Parks have you (the participants in this thread) been to? Do you have a favourite?

.

Mobile 155

Bryce Canyon, Glacier Bay, Grand Canyon, The Channel Islands, Death Valley, Joshua tree,Mesa Verde, Mount Rainier,Olympic National Park, Petrified Forest National Park, Redwood National and State Parks, Yosemite, Zion National Park.

My favorite is a toss up between Zion and the Grand Canyon.

Just because you asked.

Machka 

I'm still counting it up!

Bryce Canyon, Grand Canyon, Zion National Park, Petrified Forest National Park, and I'm pretty sure Redwood National and State Parks and Yosemite too. I've been through part of Death Valley but probably not the NP.

But also Jasper National Park, Banff National Park and a whole bunch here in Australia.

I'll keep counting.

Happy Feet

Lived and worked in Banff. Climb, hike, dive and cycle Banff, Jasper and Yoho and numerous Provincial Parks every year since I was 21 - currently 55.

Machka 

BTW - this question was prompted by my own curiosity about people's experience with National Parks, and also because of a question that popped up in my Newsfeed on FB from National Geographic Adventurer:

https://www.facebook.com/NatGeoAdventure/

Their question was:

Of the National Parks you've visted, which have been your favourite? If you've never been to one, which would you want to see?

Mobile 155

Only two others were the Serengeti and Masai Mara. I also learned that Lions are exactly the same color as the natural grass that grows about 4 feet high. You cannot see them unless they stand up. Neither are bicycle friendly.

Machka 

I would imagine not!


Having encountered a cougar while cycling in Banff National Park, one hastily wrestles with the ideas of cycling faster, stopping, cycling slowly, trying to look larger, fleeing and screaming ... keeping in mind that we're dealing with a member of the cat family who might look upon us the way a housecat looks upon a mouse.

tandempower

So you can criticize me when I respond to off-topic comments/questions in a thread, but when it suits you and those that share your POVs, it's fine?

Maelochs

Would you like cheese with the whine, sir?

McBTC

Sure but it's 'gotta be free cheese.

I-Like-To-Bike

Free cheese is too political!

BarkingPup

To the OP:

Why not cut out the middleman, buy a 4x4 van and live in that? But, really, you can make it work *somehow.* Whether that is cutting out some thing's to bring, getting rides from people going that way, buses, renting a vehicle, taking buddy's car until you hit 4x4 and biking the rest, etc etc Just because * you* are unwilling to sacrifice or compromise doesn't mean others are too.

I made both when deciding to live in a van. And don't regret it. But I don't expect everyone else to live in a van .

Happy Feet

Ok. If not free at least from cows that have been respected

Back to the vacation tangent. In the last couple of years I have rediscovered VIA Rail service from just outside my door (well, less than 10 km's) near Vancouver up to Jasper, which then acts like a departure hub for bike tours. It opens up a number of great routes without the hassles of air travel or returning to my van. All in - $147 plus $25 for the bike which they may or may not collect on the train.

I can also get off in Kamloops (or other places) for shorter tours or to access the BC interior. The train continues on to Edmonton, Winnipeg and eventually even Toronto but who wants to go there?

It's a good alternative for car free vacationing by bicycle.