Difference of opinion

This is a story about Rebecca and Adam. The story and all of the characters are fictional.

They had known each other for a long time. They met at college, took some of the same classes, and discovered they liked many of the same things. Shared experiences provided the starting point for the friendship; shared history served as the bond.

On this particular Saturday evening, they were having dinner with mutual friends Jon and Claire after spending the afternoon hiking. Adam was telling the group about a guy he knew who had recently started a job as a guide for organized tours at one of the national parks.

‘What exactly does a guide do?’ said Rebecca. ‘Is he like a park ranger?’

‘No, he’s employed by a private company. People pay to be taken on hikes. The guides carry the cooking gear and there’s a helicopter food drop, so all the clients have to carry in their backpacks is their clothing.’

‘Really? Not their tents and sleeping bags and stuff?’

‘They stay in huts,’ said Adam. ‘There are some companies that run tours where you do bring your own tent and mat and so forth, but the one that Colin is working for provides almost everything.’

‘They pay to stay in the huts in the park?’ said Rebecca. ‘But the huts are tiny. They have dirt floors. You can’t light a fire and if the weather’s bad, everybody and their brother piles in. Which is fine if they’re free, but you’re saying they’re not free any more?’

Adam said, ‘They don’t stay in the park huts. The private company ones are really nice. They’ve got a wood frame and a floor. Almost like cabins.’

‘How much does it cost?’

‘About twenty-four hundred.’

Rebecca put her fork down. ‘Two thousand four hundred dollars? For a group of how many?’

‘Per person,’ said Adam.

‘Per person,’ Rebecca repeated. ‘At Rocky Point? Where we did the five-day walk with Jill and Janet and those guys?’

‘Yep. I think the company operates at several of the parks.’

‘But when we did it, it was free.’

‘Oh, you can still hike on your own for free,’ said Adam. ‘Well, almost. The parks now charge people $200.’

‘Are you kidding?’

A quick spasm of irritation creased Adam’s face. ‘Bec, it’s for conservation and maintenance.’

‘Because the park service isn’t being properly funded,’ said Rebecca.

‘I think it’s more complicated than that,’ said Jon.

‘Maybe so, but when they start selling entry to the highest bidder, we’ve got a problem.’

Adam said, ‘The public still has access. If you don’t want to pay for private tours, you don’t have to.’ He sounded like he was trying hard not to get impatient.

‘So who does want to?’

‘Colin says a large part of the market is older people,’ said Adam. ‘Those who are not up for a hardcore hike with a 70-pound pack on their back.’

Claire said, ‘Like my parents, for example.’

‘Hey, that’s great,’ said Rebecca. ‘I’m totally in favor of access for all.’

‘But?’ said Adam, smiling. It was a tight, exasperated smile.

‘But. Why does everybody need to be able to go everywhere?’ said Rebecca. ‘There are plenty of people a lot fitter and more experienced than I am, and they do tougher hikes than I do. If it’s above my level, I don’t do it. Or if I want to do it bad enough, I’ll work up to it. Maybe there are some hikes that are always going to be above my level. And that’s okay.’

Adam sat back in his chair. ‘Wow. Empathize much? I guess the oldies should just stay home and watch TV.’

Why is he being so sanctimonious? thought Rebecca. ‘Come on, Adam. You don’t expect to be able to do anything you want just because you can pay for it.’

Claire said, ‘Imagine how you’d feel if every hike was above your level.’

‘Well, it’s not quite that bad,’ said Adam to Claire. ‘The clients at least have to be able to do the walk with a day pack. They’re not out there in four-wheel-drive wheelchairs.’

‘It’s not really about equal access anyway, is it?’ said Rebecca to Adam. ‘It’s about money. It’s about governments that have bought in to “user pays.”’

‘Everything is about money,’ said Adam. ‘The park service is under pressure and has to adapt. Deal with it.’

‘Bec, if they want to pay for someone to carry their sleeping bags and provide them with nice meals, well, why not?’ said Claire. ‘It’s not hurting anybody.’

‘Because it’s changing camping into a posh tourist experience,’ said Rebecca, affecting a fake British accent.

‘So what? You can still do it your way,’ said Adam.

‘On the conservation thing – isn’t there a cap on the number of people allowed to be in the park at the same time?’ said Jon.

Adam said, ‘Yes. Too many people in a small area put pressure on the environment.’

‘Plus, people don’t always behave themselves,’ said Jon. ‘They use the toilet where there’s no toilet, if you know what I mean, and leave toilet paper all over the place. They wander off the trail, feed the wildlife, bathe and wash dishes in the streams. The more the messier.’

‘Do you think rich people are more responsible?’ said Rebecca, looking at Adam.

‘Probably not. But they’re in a group and there’s someone keeping an eye on them.’

Rebecca said, ‘I wonder whether the people on the tours are counted any differently than the individuals on their own. Do they raise the cap? Or is it the same but still first come, first served?’

Adam said he didn’t know.

‘They can’t say rich people are tidier than poor people,’ said Claire.

‘Okay, let’s suppose the cap is set at 50 people,’ said Rebecca. ‘If 30, or 40, or all 50 of those people are with private tour groups, that same number of other people miss out. Not because they didn’t get their application in on time, but because the tour group got in first. Is that fair?’

‘Life isn’t fair, Bec,’ said Adam.

‘Is there even a trade-off? Is the park getting any more money than the $200 per person that everybody pays?’

‘Sure. The tour companies have a deal with the park. The state government and the park managers are totally okay with that. The companies are helping to pay for the upkeep.’

‘But the parks are public,’ said Rebecca. ‘For all of us. Not a money-making opportunity. This government sees no value in anything unless there’s a market involved somehow.’

Adam said, ‘You know, I’d kind of like to drop this. I don’t think we’re getting anywhere.’

He was upset, she could tell. He didn’t like debates. He would cut it short if he felt like he was losing and didn’t want to concede. Sometimes he’d do it when it seemed like he was winning.

Claire and Jon had suddenly become very interested in the dessert menu. ‘Where’s the waiter,’ said Claire without looking up.

Adam folded his napkin, laid it on the table and stood up. ‘Could somebody order me a slice of the pecan pie when he comes back?’ He headed for the lavatory.

Claire, Jon and Rebecca sat there looking at each other.

‘It’s not just happening here, Bec,’ said Jon. ‘If that’s any consolation. It’s a global trend.’

‘I know. It’s the dominant vibe everywhere and I don’t like it.’

‘Nobody’s going to change the vibe by yelling at it,’ said Claire.

Show 4 Comments

4 Comments

  1. Fran Tilley

    Such a dilemma, National Parks for all, but only if you are fit and able or National Parks for all but only if you pay the price. And is it the true price to ensure preservation and protection of our wild areas or is it a profit driven “price” where the charge reflects the market value of our rapidly shrinking wild areas. I have done both options, paying the price for supported private hikes both to support participation of my mother a keen hiker at 80 years but unable to carry a multi day hike back pack and as a time poor resource rich earner who wanted access without the full slog and the heavy back pack. And now, I’m back to time rich, resource poor, carrying my own tent, if I can walk it I can see it and if not I don’t. Despite having experienced both ends of the debate I still don’t know which is the best way, perhaps a mix of both? But do we have enough wilderness areas to cater for both options, of that I’m unsure. But this story is a great elaboration of the challenges facing us all as we attempt to negotiate access to our wilderness areas. Thank you Elaine😊

    • L. Elaine Miller

      Tough questions indeed. I wonder whether the folks responsible for making policy have been in either position. Thank you, Fran.

  2. Hugh C Stevenson

    I love your story, Elaine!
    Too many people makes both styles of tourism overload the wilderness. Adding more “facilities”, to support the people, stops it from being wilderness.
    Is having more people in a region, country or the World a good thing or bad thing in itself? I’ve been thinking for a while that it is a bad thing.

  3. L. Elaine Miller

    Thanks, Hugh!
    It’s not an unrelated issue, is it? But addressing it is a long-term project (for whom?), while the many problems flowing from it may call for more urgent attention (from whom, and which levels of government?).

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *