johncanyon t1_j88rnau wrote on February 12, 2023 at 2:34 PM

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

>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.

ankylosaurus_tail t1_j89ghzj wrote on February 12, 2023 at 5:29 PM

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.

johncanyon t1_j89takg wrote on February 12, 2023 at 6:55 PM

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

ankylosaurus_tail t1_j8a08fj wrote on February 12, 2023 at 7:43 PM

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.