Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

ankylosaurus_tail t1_j850k8p wrote

Reply to comment by johncanyon in California city closes canyon to visitors to avert "poppy apocalypse" by pika_pie

Yes, of course. But if they won't respect it for the intrinsic value of nature, telling them to respect it because it's "the official flower" is lame. That's the wrong ethics to be promoting.

−4

johncanyon t1_j85nwhi wrote

This happens all the time with trails in our national parks. They get shut down and allowed to go dormant every few years to promote rehabilitation of the local wildlife. It falls pretty squarely in line with conservation ethics.

6

ankylosaurus_tail t1_j85vd2r wrote

Yes, but this is a rare, phenomenal occurrence, that people will remember for the rest of their lives (and might change the environmental perspective of some folks). Loosing access at this time is shutting the entire experience down for the public, not just a temporary closure.

−1

johncanyon t1_j8635f9 wrote

That hasn't worked for basically the entirety of human history

3

ankylosaurus_tail t1_j8692ks wrote

So let's just lock people out of nature? What else do you propose?

Perhaps it's naive, but I hope that it's possible for humans to make ethical progress in our relationship with the natural world, and I think encouraging people to have experiences with amazing natural phenomena is key to that project. If you don't believe it's possible for people to improve, then what's the point of conservation? There are 8 billion of us, and we're going to ruin it all pretty soon anyway...

0

johncanyon t1_j88rnau wrote

>So let's just lock people out of nature? What else do you propose?

Please don't take this the wrong way, but... How frequently do you go out hiking, backpacking, climbing or primitive camping? I ask because in a lot of wilderness areas in the US, you need a permit to visit, and the number of permits issued can be limited and strictly enforced. Regulating visitation of publicly held spaces isn't a new or novel form of land management.

Bans like this are sometimes necessary to prevent loss of the ecosystem as a resource, and they're almost never permanent. It would be this way even if everyone respected wilderness spaces; the mere act of visiting will cause some measure of deterioration of the land and wildlife.

I can relate to being bummed about a place being closed for a time, but I think it's important to remember, especially in California, that there are still a tremendous number of beautiful places to visit and enjoy.

2

ankylosaurus_tail t1_j89ghzj wrote

I'm quite familiar with policies to regulate access to fragile ecosystems. I'm a forest biologist and I spend a lot of time in the woods, including a lot of restricted areas. This isn't one of those situations.

California poppies aren't fragile or at risk, and the environmental "concerns" are made up bullshit, to provide moral cover to NIMBY's who don't want to deal with the hassle of tourists. You can see these flowers from the highway, and people are getting to them by pulling over and walking across fields--fields of grass and flowers that aren't protected or fragile.

If people were sincerely concerned about the "impact" of people coming to see the flowers, they'd be advocating for improved infrastructure, like busses that take people to viewing areas, or temporary elevated walkways. There are plenty of creative ways to reduce negative impacts and protect access. Nobody is trying, because access isn't their goal. They are just trying to reduce hassles by eliminating the opportunity for people to experience nature. That's lame.

0

johncanyon t1_j89takg wrote

I imagine it would be difficult to rally the institutional will to commodify a field which blooms for so short of a time.

1

ankylosaurus_tail t1_j8a08fj wrote

Commodify? It's just infrastructure and a plan for access. Setting up shuttle bus service and some temporary walkways isn't very complicated and should be manageable in a few days by a competent, motivated government. If their goal was protecting ecology, they'd have a plan like that. But their goal is just avoiding the hassle of tourists, they're just cynically lying about environmental concerns because it sounds better in the media.

0

scissorseptorcutprow t1_j86l00c wrote

The ends justifying the means in this case. If it helps conservation efforts I’m for it. This will also protect the surrounding ecosystem.

1

ankylosaurus_tail t1_j86q8h3 wrote

There are no conservation efforts for the California poppy, it's an incredibly common species that grows all over the place, literally as a weed. This isn't a particularly fragile ecosystem. The "concern" about the environment is really insincere NIMBY bullshit, to grab the moral high ground. If they cared about protecting nature, they'd be advocating for better infrastructure and planning, so people can see it responsibly.

2