[OfficialTurkey]

My understanding is that permits, especially quota permits in locations like the Cascades, are to protect the wilderness from too many people. In that case it sounds to me like the ranger was being a good steward of the land. In your case you may have been pack in, pack out (though there's still waste to think about), but in general that's not true and I don't see a non-blanket approach here.

[jandrewrogers]

Most of the Cascades have no quota permits, you just need a basic pass that anyone can buy. The quota permits are for exceedingly popular areas like the Enchantments mountain range, and even then usually only for overnight camping.

I’ve backpacked into several parts of the Cascades without a special permit, because none were required, and never been hassled by a ranger. Most of it is National Forest; more restrictions than BLM land but you are generally allowed to camp as long as you follow the local rules.

[JumpCrisscross]

> I’ve backpacked into several parts of the Cascades without a special permit, because none were required, and never been hassled by a ranger

I mean, yes. You followed the rules. If you wandered somewhere that does require a permit, you'd have been at risk of being stopped.

I live around national parks. A single obnoxious tourist can disrupt the life cycle of dozens of protected species by running feral through their mating and nursery grounds. (It's also not obvious that you're re-routing e.g. a herd of pronghorn from the safe valley whose floor you're on into the territory of a new pack of wolves.)

[jjulius]

It's entirely dependent upon where, specifically, in the Cascades OP was. There are numerous wilderness-designated zones that don't have limits on number of people in an area and access is free, save for the requirement that you fill out a permit at/near the trailhead or wilderness boundary.

[tasuki]

> protect the wilderness from too many people

The person you're replying to mentioned the park ranger was the first person they had seen in days.

[peterhadlaw]

The world is meant to be explored and people have dominion over the Earth and animals-not the other way around. Whatever happened to liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

[SR2Z]

"People" may have dominion over the Earth, but that does not mean that you as an individual can turn a national park into a garbage dump without someone throwing you in jail.

OP might have been backpacking responsibly, but the permit system exists for good reasons and we bear the heavy burden of protecting the wilds from ourselves.

[zzo38computer]

People should not have dominion over the Earth and animals, but neither would be other way around. Humans are also one of the kind of animals (and there are more stuff than animals of the Earth, such as trees and other plants too).

[JumpCrisscross]

> Humans are also one of the kind of animals

We are. But we're also the most powerful. That power comes with responsibility, one of which isn't trampling through sensitive areas.

[itishappy]

The Earth and it's animals didn't ask for a permit. Human dominion isn't being challenged. This is a people problem.

[LiquidSky]

>people have dominion over the Earth and animals

Then you should be happy: it's not the Earth and animals creating the permitting system.

[concerndc1tizen]

> The world is meant to

No, it's not. It literally has no meaning.

> not the other way around

Yeah, until an alien species shows up that has more powerful weapons and decides your meat is delicious, and considers you a herdable animal. They might install you in a coup so you can play videogames all day and drink beer as your only source of nutrients, to give your meat that kobebeef marble.

> Whatever happened to liberty

The Americans decided that it wasn't worthwhile anymore.

> and the pursuit of happiness

It became profitable to keep you from being happy.

[dkarl]

There are a variety of public lands with a variety of management methods. It's important for some to be more restrictive and others less restrictive.

[GuinansEyebrows]

The tragedy of the commons.

Also, you have a scary view of humans' place within the world.

[all2]

Responsibility is a scary thing. It means we have the opportunity to do well or to do poorly. And if we do poorly, we bear the consequences.

[GuinansEyebrows]

that sounds nice and neat to say, but it doesn't really bear weight when you insert that into the world we actually live in. who is "we" in this? i'm not DuPont dumping chemicals in a river. i'm not mining for rare earth minerals. i'm not nestle trying to privatize water. so i'm not that "we".

[peterhadlaw]

The point is, whatever it is, it's not the person I responded to. Unless that was Mr. DuPont himself dumping chemicals in nature and the commenter left that out strategically.

[JumpCrisscross]

> Unless that was Mr. DuPont himself dumping chemicals in nature and the commenter left that out strategically

NPS is stretched on resources. They don't set up permits because it's fun, but because something needs to be conserved.

[ben_w]

This is what happened: https://xkcd.com/1338/

[chowells]

What? "Dominion"? What are you on about? What is the moral and rational basis of this supposed authority?

[anigbrowl]

It's a religious concept (from the book of Genesis). Some people forget that their religious affiliations/foundational beliefs are not universal.

[blooalien]

> "Some people forget that their religious affiliations/foundational beliefs are not universal."

They also forget this one little story their "savior" (the son of god, the one true king; if you believe all that ancient religious gobbledygook) supposedly told (written in the very same book); "The parable of the trusted steward." "Dominion" does not equal neglect and destruction.

[stevenAthompson]

It's from the bible. He's citing God as the authority.

[peterhadlaw]

The stance is anti-authority.

[taurath]

Then the question becomes "why is that ranger, at the expense of the public, there, and what is the purpose of them issuing the order, and do we agree with that purpose?".

Its helpful to understand the intended purpose of something before calling for its removal.

[all2]

I confused. How is this anti-authority?

[peterhadlaw]

To find someone minding their own business in the middle of nature/nowhere and then harass them out of said place is oppressive. I'm opposed to said authority. Just leave people alone. Yes I understand the tragedy of the commons and whatever, I don't think a dude chilling and minding his own business/liberty is _that_.

So I'm arguing to leave people more alone, which is more anti-authority.

[ty6853]

It's a cultural rift. I also built a house with no code inspections, no building plans, and no trade licensing. Which seems to scare the shit out of a large segment of commenters on HN, meanwhile living in a place where that is actually allowed has enabled me to have neighbors who think alike, since these kind of neighborhoods scare the ever living shit out of the collectivist authoritarian types.

It's really hard for me to put into words the cultural rift, but it's almost like aliens colliding, the only solution I have found is to live in a different world and try to tread carefully away from theirs. By identifying a few topics like "is it wrong to exist in remote undeveloped public forest without a permit" I can immediately identify the sort of people I have irreconcilable differences with.