It's generally been the objective of modern sanitary science to not have solid human waste strewn all over the landscape. There are obvious health problems to having that much crap in a heavily-used recreational area, above and beyond any aesthetic ones. You wouldn't want a playground to have human waste strewn about, yet you are resisting simple efforts to deal with this matter. And, once again, elk poop is not a serious problem or health hazard as compared to human waste. I've been out there. I called the valley below my cabin Elk Sh** Valley because it was paved in the stuff because hundreds of elk migrated through there each day. Wouldn't have wanted it covered with human crap, though.
Yet you think I'm the one who's out of line for extrapolating that someone who would make that case is a little obsesive, and would more than likely secretly rather that humans not be up there disturbing mother nature.
I have never said any such thing. There is a difference between conservation and lunatic environmentalism. A conservationist is in favor of sewage systems. An envirnomentalist isn't happy until every last vestige of pollution is gone, despite the cost or the diminishing returns. I'm a conservationist. There is a distinct problem up there. For reasons already clearly conveyed, you can't just dig a hole above timberline like you can in the woods. Deal with it.
Okay, if that works for you I'm okay with it. I do disagree however. If you wish to make the opposing claim, that you don't really want this, that's okay. I still say it was a valid conclusion to come to. If you want to disagree in order to make yourself feel better, go ahead.
I'm saying you have made several conclusions based upon your intuition that were not consistent with the facts on the ground, so to speak.
Well, I hate to remind you of this, but I gave you the chance to quantify the number of people who went up there. I didn't demand that you pin it down to the nearest ten. You're the one claiming to know everything there is to know about these places, an expert on the number of time stuff is deposited. I ask one simple question and you tell me you'll look it up. Okay, get back to me then bud.
Already did.
Then you have the audacity to tell me I don't understand the situation. Let me know when you've figure out what "a lot of people in Colorado" is.
Already did. It's best to check the latests posts to a thread before trying this approach.
I have said that it would be best to carry a small shovel with you and bury the stuff. On different instance you informed me it was too rocky to bury anything. Then you admitted that when you want to take a whiz, you look for a gravely area. Then you have the audacity to tell me that I'm doing my best not to concede on any issues.
Uh, the gravelly areas are not very deep either, maybe a couple of inches. The idea is not to hose down the plants. Here's the basic guidelines for this subject above timberline - Avoid walking on the plants, walk on rocks and bare areas such as the aforementioned gravelly patches. Don't whiz on the plants, whiz on the rocks or into any gravelly patches you can find. Pack out solid waste, or see if you can get below timberline first. There just isn't enough soil (or gravel) depth to dig a hole, and the stuff just doesn't break down easily in that particular climate.
As for Elk Poop, I believe in most instances you'd agree that it's on the surface, something I never suggested human waste be. And nobody suggested you should want human waste on the ground near your valley. LOL Nice try though.
For the record, a lunatic environmentalist is someone who tries to demand humans carry something out that could much easier be buried below the surface. A conservationist is the person who notes this and suggests a more reasonable approach. An environmentalist isn't happy until every last vestige of pollution is gone... Yep. I agree.
Sorry, you'll have to deal with the fact that you can bury stuff above timberline. If you chose not to, I could care less.
I'm saying you have made several conclusions based upon your intuition that were not consistent with the facts on the ground, so to speak. Yes we both know what you have been saying. And we both know what the truth is.
Well, I hate to remind you of this, but I gave you the chance to quantify the number of people who went up there. I didn't demand that you pin it down to
the nearest ten. You're the one claiming to know everything there is to know about these places, an expert on the number of time stuff is deposited. I ask
one simple question and you tell me you'll look it up. Okay, get back to me then bud.
Already did. Ah, no you didn't. You guessed at the numbers and actually believed I wouldn't notice.
Already did. It's best to check the latest posts to a thread before trying this approach. And I would suggest you reread your response. Where are the definitive figures? You claimed you were the expert, then guessed at the probable number. If the figures you gave are off by 25%, it makes a difference.
Look, you stated that there are thunderstorms after noon. You made it sound like they occur every day. Then you tried to make the case that burying things above timberline was impossible. No sale. In one of your earlier posts you stated that it wasn't a good idea to bury things because it damaged the tundra. Now you're saying something different. Is it possible or isn't it? Why are you so inconsistent?