Any interaction with nature is inherently destructive. Creating a hiking trail alters the surrounding environment no matter what you do. Walking off that built path is also destructive more or less. It's easy for the plants to recover from your footprints of course, but they shouldn't have to in the first place; it also sets the precedent for more destructive actions. How many parking lots were created at trail heads? Is there an easy way for people to get there without using a vehicle? Are all of your camping/hiking supplies natural, or are you going to be leaving behind microplastics with every footstep? Are you polluting the ground with PTFAs every time you dump out used water? How many micrograms of microplastics did you introduce into the area with your plastic bags of freeze dried meals? The soles of your shoes especially. I don't know of a single shoe I can buy that doesn't have synthetic soles. Recycled yes, but natural? Not unless I get clogs from the Netherlands.
The entire 'outdoor activity' industry almost seems like a way for people to cop out from responsibility for climate change. Like putting pro-environment stickers on your cars bumper, or buying a license plate that supports national parks. The horrible irony of it.
Many people will say it's important to get into nature every once in awhile, but what does that really cost? How much pollution are you creating to satisfy that need? How many other people are doing exactly the same thing? Is it sustainable? No, it isn't. Not even close. Unless you're going out there in moccasins, creating a shelter from leaves and sticks, wearing only organic cotton and using a canvas bag the entire time, it is impossible to "leave only footprints". Every step you leave behind bits of synthetic material that will persist for thousands of years and it's too easy to ignore that fact.
The most remote places on earth have measurable levels of PTFAs' and I'm certain those were put there not only by polluted rain, but also by people that wanted to camp at the most remote place on earth. They brought with them all their hiking gear, all of it synthetic. Including their non-stick pans. The morning coffee they had created pollution in what was once a pristine environment that will still be polluted for thousands of years because of their goddamn coffee.
Well, on the bright side there isn't much nature left anyway. Most of the protected areas in my country are only protected because the logging companies don't want them anymore. Unless you go really far into the mountains, the oldest forests you'll find are only about a century old since they were left to regrow after the whole area was clear-cut at the beginning of colonization. If you do travel out to the the old-growth, you'll certainly be passing a lot of active logging sites.
Camping and hiking serves no other purpose than another way to ignore your own guilt in the dying planet. I used to like camping, hiking especially, but now it carries the same emotional charge as visiting your beautiful, dying parent in hospice. All I see is waning beauty, what once was and what remains and it won't remain for much longer.
*I don't read any of your replies. It's just a rant. Some people on here dissecting it like it's a dissertation lol.
Yes, but this is done in a managed way to allow us to enjoy the outdoors responsibly.
Yes, which is why it is discourteous and you should not do it.
Again, done in a managed way to allow us to enjoy the outdoors. Also the parking lot and trailhead are generally not deep in pristine nature and instead already on the side of a roadway.
Why, though?
This is really bizarre logic. It sounds like you need to get outside and touch some grass.
Hiking is probably one of the lowest impact activities one can do. On the list of priorities to conserve nature, this is one of the lowest and something that does not need to change much, if at all, as long as people follow conventions like staying on the managed paths and don't litter.
Scale is important here, and you're talking about things like micrograms. Plastic does not persist in the environment for thousands of years, in the first place, and micrograms of it would for much much less time than other plastic waste. Plastic is not a magically indestructible material, and it does break down into organic compounds with sunlight, changes in temperature, chemical processes etc. The real issue with plastic waste is the fact that we are producing more and more of it each year at a rate that outpaces it breaking down, and do not really have a viable way to deal with the waste at the same scale as our production.
This is false in multiple ways. 1, there are huge amounts of natural land. 2, the amount of natural forest globally has only increased since the early 1980s, and the same is true for land set aside for natural conservation and preservation. There's literally more natural space right now than there has been in the last 40 years.
If you believed that there isn't much nature left, it's a big sign that you're consuming too much doom content from the internet and have created a false and skewed perspective.