The tragedy of the commons, leave no trace, limited permits, and sustainability are elements of the “Save Half Dome” thread:
http://www.summitpost.org/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?t=59224

I recall The Chief following the proper government channels to help get land reopened to the public/mountaineers. Several less profitable CA state parks are set up to close with a variety of solutions in the works (many of them private rather than governmental). I also recall issues with public access to areas that cross private lands in CO and CA. I see an article portraying a negative view of current land use in Brazil.

This can be a heavy and contentious subject, but what intriguing research or wisdom is out there among summitpost members in regard to public land policies, CA, US, or world? After all, much of what this site is about is at stake.

I cross private property with stealth. If you own a named mountain or ranked peak, unless you guard it with a sawed off shotgun people are going to walk on your precious land and sit on your summit.

Dont piss on a house, dont trash a summit, dont build a trail, dont bring your dog, dont get injured, dont get lost, dont get caught.

Go alone.

No one knows, no one cares.

Thank you Sean, for asking these questions.

Sustainability and land management are a very important issues. The world's population haas doubled since I started hiking and climbing.

I suppose that I am amongst the enlightened minority in that I believe that public lands are not our play toys. We are the guardians of public lands, not the slave masters. We must manage public lands carefully, always mindful of what is best for the land in terms of the health of ecosystems and sustainability. That means we should be limited use of public lands where and when it is appropriate.

Many climbers believe that they should have unfettered access to both private and public lands, and they should be able to do whatever they want on those lands (e.g., place bolts). I do not subscribe to this believe sytem, and this is why I do not support the Access Fund.

I know that this position is undefendable, given that other groups (snowmobiliers, horse packers, etc.) have apparent unlimited access to public land and have a far greater impact than climbing. In SEKI, I have personal knowledge that the National Park Service ignores the problems that horse packers cause, and ignores the horse packer's blatant violations of wilderness laws, because the horse packers have local clout.

It is difficult to argue that placing a single bolt 1,000 feet up a cliff face is worse than a group of horse packers digging a big fire pit at 11,000 feet in a pristine lake-side alpine meadow, and leaving a bunch of garbage at the site.

In the 1st draft of the Red Rock use plan this last spring, one section proposed to limit the # of hikers per day on a trail to 12... but the number of horses to 40. These end up being very political documents. It all sounds very quantitative at 1st, but soon the various weasel words slither into new meanings. We have people who demand a full-blown NEPA analysis to put a slight kink in an existing trail... but then will allow a big new structure at the drop of a hat. The same rules get used to justify both actions.

FWIW, the rule of thumb in the Smokies and Mammoth Cave (and probably elsewhere) is that each horse has an impact equal to that of 50 hikers.