[Geysers] RE: Geysers Digest, Vol 1363, Issue 4

[Davis, Brian L.]

Eric Hatfield wrote:

> Just a quick note to show that the opposite opinion does exist on
> the geyser list... I like it better with trees.

I think there's two issues that really get thorny here.

First, the fact that even in a limited group such as this, what is "best" is often not at all obvious. My passions are cave exploration and rock climbing, among others. And all too many times, I've watched something I love, in it's natural state, "developed", piece by piece, until what I loved just wasn't there anymore. Very often, for the good of the views, or the access of the public. And at rare times, I've actually seen the opposite - huge amounts of labor (largely by concerned groups, not the NPS itself) and bodily risk exerted to restore areas, and remove artificial structures.

Who's right?

The second fact is that the NPS is put squarely in the middle of this by their mandate - to "provide for the enjoyment" and at the same time "protect and preserve". This has been an issue in YNP, Yosemite, Mammoth Cave, the Great Smokie Mountains, Mesa Verde, Arches, etc., for a very long time - and I don't envy the Park Service for being in the middle of it. As yet another example, I was *entranced* by the light pollution efforts at YNP. I'm also a stargazer (and teach astronomy at a local university), and to me, that effort was a major change for the better, even though it's obvious there are people who feel strongly on both sides.

"Common sense" for one person or group is very rarely the same for others... so I tend to take it with a grain of salt when a choice "seems obvious". One of my favorite thermal hikes in YNP is the mudpots area near the Canyon - not for geysers (they're aren't), but for the natural settings - no boardwalks, lots of trees (some dead and dangerous I'm certain), and *risk* (very slight, but still). To me, these are critical aspects of the experience... but thank goodness, I'm not in charge :).

-- 
Brian Davis