From 2021 until 2024, while I was Secretary of the Interior, we worked to forge stability, create jobs in a clean energy economy, conserve more lands and waters for future generations, and secure clean air and water for communities in every corner of the country.

We treated everyone with dignity and respect鈥攙alues that New Mexicans live by. Today, the work we accomplished, alongside conservationists, farmers, ranchers, Tribes, rural communities, and cities is under attack.

In a time of questions and uncertainty in Washington, governors around the country will be on the front lines of defense against this president鈥檚 reckless firing of federal workers, massive cuts to services that people rely on, and general chaos. The Trump administration is vigorously defending its actions in court, and if they鈥檙e allowed to stand, the harm will only grow.

When wildfires strike, there will now be fewer federal firefighters to put out the flames. Jobs and livelihoods in the outdoor recreation sector are at risk. Families who plan to visit Carlsbad Caverns in New Mexico, Yellowstone in Wyoming, and other national parks will encounter longer wait times and possibly limited hours.

When folks are looking to gather firewood on national forest lands, they could have a harder time contacting support staff. Veterans who seek solace on our public lands might not have the access they once did. Hunters may notice that their organizations are losing funding, and their hunting grounds slowly disappearing and being sold off to the highest bidder.

I鈥檓 running for Governor of New Mexico because leadership matters.

Governors will need to meet this moment with bold and steady leadership, and I will be a Governor who stands up for New Mexicans and the public lands that we love. While I was Secretary of the Interior, we made tremendous strides to address climate change, expand access to public lands, address drought, and manage resources responsibly. This was all done with clear direction and respect for the workforce tasked with implementing our goals. We tried new things and shot for the moon, and we did it all hand-in-hand with the people most impacted.

We created meaningful change because we were a serious agency led by, frankly, serious people. The Interior was one of the largest agencies in the federal government with nearly 70,000 dedicated employees鈥攑ark rangers, firefighters, climate scientists, biologists, and more. These are the jobs in New Mexico that kids deserve to have when they鈥檙e grown.

As I travel around my home state listening to communities, I鈥檓 hearing time and again that people are afraid. I鈥檝e met federal workers who were worried about their jobs, seniors anxious about Medicare, veterans concerned about VA services, and families worried about their kids鈥� schools. Trump and Elon Musk are striking fear into our communities while failing to deliver the things they promised.

Governors have the obligation to protect our communities. I know I will carry the weight of standing up in the face of these attacks, but it鈥檚 a weight I will happily carry because I believe in a future where we all share in New Mexico鈥檚 bounty and success. It鈥檚 a vision that has sometimes been out of reach, but I believe that with my experience, we can change the system to work for the people.

Similar to the way I changed the system at the Department of the Interior by bringing Tribal Nations and local communities in as active participants in stewarding our lands, I will make that a reality for traditional communities and Tribes in New Mexico. I will also collaborate with other governors who recognize the threats posed by this administration and with the state attorney general to pursue legal routes to fight for the protection of our lands. I hope and expect that governors鈥攁s chief executives of states鈥攚ill work together to share and learn from their successes and find opportunities to pursue new solutions. We must recognize the urgency of this moment and lock arms against these very real threats.

As governor, I will make sure New Mexico鈥檚 state parks are maintained and accessible, and I鈥檒l work to break down barriers to access these treasures. If the national parks and other federal lands in New Mexico suffer further staffing and resource cuts, I will explore ways for the state to step up and provide support to keep federal lands safe and available. I will continue efforts to recruit and hire federal workers who have lost their jobs so that they can continue to share their valuable skills and training.

I鈥檓 running for governor because the experience I gained leading a federal department and working in Congress will help working people. And I will stand alongside all of the governors who will be on the frontlines to protect our beautiful landscapes, outdoor traditions, and natural resources for future generations.

Deb Haaland served as the 54th Secretary of the United States Department of the Interior.

The post Op-Ed: Public Lands Are Under Attack. State Leaders Should Protect them. appeared first on 国产吃瓜黑料 Online.

It has been more than two weeks since the Trump administration let go of hundreds of National Park Service (NPS) employees, and the exact impact of the cuts have yet to play out鈥攖hough experts anticipate everything from longer lines to overflowing trashcans to major safety concerns. Last weekend, the , a group made up of current and former NPS workers, and other public lands enthusiasts held protests across U.S. parks. On Saturday, March 1, 2025, more than 433 different protests occurred in support of national parks.

 

View this post on Instagram

 

Here is a roundup of the most creative signs we saw this weekend:

 

View this post on Instagram

 

 

View this post on Instagram

 

 

View this post on Instagram

 

 

View this post on Instagram

 

 

View this post on Instagram

 

 

View this post on Instagram

 

 

View this post on Instagram

 

 

View this post on Instagram

 

 

View this post on Instagram

 

 

View this post on Instagram

 

 

View this post on Instagram

 

This is just one batch of the many protests that have come to fruition since the layoffs. Last month, climbers and National Park rangers in Yosemite hung an upside down flag on El Capitan, signaling a sign of distress and sounding the alarm for other cities and parks to do the same.

 

View this post on Instagram

 

 

View this post on Instagram

 

The post The Best Signs from the National Park Service Protests appeared first on 国产吃瓜黑料 Online.

Dear Sundog: I鈥檝e always been an environmentalist and lived as close to nature as possible. Years ago I was lucky enough to buy a parcel that borders on public land near a river. I鈥檝e designed and built a dream house that allows me to feel like I鈥檓 a part of the natural surroundings. The house is not visible from the river; I intentionally left the bottomlands untouched. My house fits the landscape and accentuates the natural features, and is honestly nicer to look at than the junk cars and trashed mobile home that I hauled away years ago.

People have historically crossed this land to reach the river. They park at a dead end which is technically my land and walk through the floodplain. When I first bought the land, which used to be part of a ranch, local kids would ride dirt bikes and shoot paintballs down there, and I spent a lot of time and money cleaning up after them and blocking the unofficial roads. I鈥檝e restored ecological systems and habitat for wild animals. I鈥檝e put up signs making it clear that it鈥檚 OK for fishermen to walk through my land to reach the river and for mountain bikers to connect to the larger trail system. And yet people keep tearing down the signs, and driving four-wheelers into my woods, and destroying the place I鈥檓 trying to restore and protect. They complained to my face and in letters to the newspaper that I was ruining a public place鈥攅ven though I own it.

They鈥檝e gone to the zoning board to complain about me, accusing me of technicalities over parking spaces, setbacks, even water quality of the nearby stream. I鈥檝e done everything by the book to protect nature, and still people treat me like I鈥檓 trying to sink the Exxon Valdez here. I feel my next step will be to block access completely: build a fence and put up No Parking signs. My vision for this place did not include a damn parking lot! I feel my next option is to start having cars towed, which I think will be the beginning of a long war with strangers that I鈥檓 not sure I can win. Am I the asshole?
鈥�Nature Is My Back Yard (NIMBY)

Dear NIMBY,

I鈥檓 sorry people aren鈥檛 respecting your property, especially when you think you all share values, that you should be on the same team. I also appreciate you building something that will blend into the landscape, instead of plunking down a scale-model Parthenon with marble columns and double-decker five-car garage to house your collection of off-road motorhomes.

I鈥檓 not the type of purist who wants no manmade structures in nature. From the adobe pueblos of New Mexico, to the whitewashed villages of Andalusia, to the mountain-top temples of Nepal, civilizations have long created architectural styles that don鈥檛 merely complement nature but, as Sundog would say, enhance it, by demonstrating the potential for humans and non-humans to live in harmony.

But, NIMBY, I鈥檓 going to venture that the kids racing their Razrs across your floodplain give zero shits about the temples of Nepal.

The first issue, I suppose, is legality, and you seem to be aware that the law is on your side. You can fence it all off, or even hire an armed militia to patrol your personal border. This nation鈥檚 legal system protects property rights鈥攁nd you will be breaking no law.

However, the deeper issue may not be trespassing: it鈥檚 that you want people鈥檚 approval for the architecturally and ecologically sound decisions you鈥檝e made. The bad news, NIMBY, is that you鈥檙e not going to get it. Based on your letter, I鈥檝e made a few assumptions about your socio-economic status. Although you bought a ranch, you鈥檙e not running cattle on it, nor earning a living by extracting some resource like timber or minerals from it. Second, even if your new house is modest and small, it surely cost a lot more money to build than the existing mobile home that you hauled to the dump.

I鈥檓 going to also assume鈥攎erely because your land is near a river where people come to fish鈥攖hat it鈥檚 shared something with the large swaths of the rural U.S. that abut recreational activities: in the past 20 years it鈥檚 become more crowded, popular, expensive, and filled with wealthy newcomers who don鈥檛 work in the traditional industries of mining, logging, farming and ranching.

I would invite you to interrogate your own belief that the work you鈥檙e doing on your property is for the benefit of nature. Nature may be somewhat indifferent. You are doing this for yourself, for your own sense of belonging on the land, and also for other humans, so that they might share and understand your vision. But how is preserving nature (from other people) all that different than locking up the land to build your own private paradise? These days, land conservation can feel a bit like feudalism, in which the wealthy hoard land for themselves. Of course, in old Europe the lord earned income by stealing the labor of his serfs who farmed his land. These days the lord doesn鈥檛 bother trying to make a buck on the earth; he earns his income in some distant industry鈥攆inance, technology, medicine, media, consulting (whatever that is)鈥攚hile keeping the land 鈥減ristine.鈥�

Are you the asshole? That depends on who you ask. Protecting trees and animals will make you a hero to a certain slice of the population. But if you block local people from the paths they鈥檝e walked for generations before you arrived, well, yes, they鈥檒l think you鈥檙e just another rich outsider locking up the land.

There is no easy decision. You believe that by cleaning up and protecting the natural world, you are implementing a more enlightened land ethic than the Genesis story in which Man holds dominion over all other species, and is free to use or misuse the land for whatever purpose suits him. But may I suggest that the land ethic of cultivating your own private garden is equally colonial, rooted perhaps in another Old Testament idea that Man is sinful but the Garden is perfect without him. Your house indicates that you are able to see beauty in nature not despite humankind, but because of it. I wonder if you can apply the same philosophy to the humans wandering through the woods that you now call your own.

Mark Sundeen once built a handsome shed that integrated with the natural landscape. Thus far it has attracted no trespassers or looky-loos.

The post I Built My Dream House in the Woods. My Neighbors Hate It. appeared first on 国产吃瓜黑料 Online.

Dear Sundog,听

Last September, in California鈥檚 Malibu Creek State Park, a mountain lion pounced on a five-year-old child. The father managed to save his kid by fighting off the cat, and soon after, officials euthanized the cougar. Isn鈥檛 this immoral and outrageous? The lion was behaving just as nature intended.听鈥� People against he Unethical Murder of Animals

Dear PUMA,

This is not the only recent alarming attack on humans by a cougar. In 2023, an eight-year-old boy was while camping with his family in Olympic National Park; his mom chased off the cat, and he escaped with minor injuries. Last April, two brothers were out in looking for shed antlers when they encountered a cougar. It attacked both young men, killing one.

As a professional arbiter of ethics, my job is to see at least two sides of any given issue. However, as the father of a five-year-old who I regularly take to the woods and canyons, I am unable to access the other side here, to find what John Keats might have called the 鈥渘egative capability鈥� to tolerate the mystery that falls outside of reason. My take is strictly Old Testament: I say smite the beast. If an animal tried to drag off my child, my notions of animal rights and equality among the species would go straight out the window. I would try to kill it even if it escaped, assuming that, if left to live, it would try the same thing again.

I seem to be in line among people in positions of responsibility鈥攁t the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, as well as wildlife advocacy groups. 鈥淲e don鈥檛 have a mountain lion jail,鈥� Beth Pratt, the California state director of the National Wildlife Federation, told the after the Malibu Creek incident. 鈥淎s much as it pains me, I think the officials made the right decision here.鈥�

The conundrum is not new. But we might say we鈥檝e had a respite. After a cougar killed a human in California in 1909, the state went more than 80 years without another fatality. In 1990, fearing the lion was going extinct, voters passed a ballot initiative to protect the animal. The past four decades have seen mountain lions acting more aggressively. Even so, it鈥檚 still a small number. According to the , there have been 26 verified cougar attacks on humans since 1986, four of them fatal.

These ethical dilemmas about what an animal is 鈥渁llowed鈥� to do pre-date the United States, of course. During the Middle Ages, animals were put on trial for crimes ranging from caterpillars stealing fruit to pigs who committed murder. 鈥淗ere were bears formally excommunicated from the Church,鈥� writes Mary Roach in her book Fuzz: When Nature Breaks the Law. 鈥淪lugs given three warnings to stop nettling farmers, under penalty of smiting.鈥�

And yet, buried in my psyche, was the belief that killing a cougar for being a cougar was just . . . wrong? I turned to an expert in the field to see what I was missing. Christopher Preston is a professor of environmental ethics at the University of Montana and author of the book . Because mountain lion attacks are still so rare, Preston thought there wasn鈥檛 much official protocol. Bears, however, attack more frequently. When a bear kills or eats a human, it will be euthanized. But if a bear attacks a person while demonstrating what authorities consider natural behavior, it will be spared. 鈥淚f you surprise a bear with cubs or on a kill, and it attacks you, then the bear can be let off,鈥� Preston told me. 鈥淚t鈥檚 not a pattern of behavior that demonstrates unnatural instincts.鈥�

It鈥檚 unclear if the behavior of the Malibu Creek cougar was natural.听 The event that you refer to, PUMA, involved a young lion approaching a group of humans in a picnic area and dragging off a child, a particularly brazen act. Yes, it鈥檚 perfectly natural for a mountain lion to haul off a smaller creature in hopes of dining on it. But, said Preston, this cougar had left its natural environment and entered a human environment: a picnic area in a state park. 鈥淲here do you draw the line when natural behavior starts to impact us pretty severely?鈥� he asked. We have no problem cracking down, he adds, when forms of life like bacteria and viruses exhibit their natural behavior of infecting our bodies.

Preston made another point: humans are constantly expressing their dominance over the natural world, and if we just kill anything that makes a problem with us, then we鈥檙e not learning anything. But in his opinion, even this line of reasoning doesn鈥檛 merit a puma pardon. 鈥淪omeone can feel sympathy for the lion for doing what lions do, but that probably won鈥檛 get you a non-shoot order.鈥�

鈥淲e need to dial back our dominance, but this case brings it into sharp contrast,鈥� said Preston. 鈥淚 don鈥檛 know how many environmental ethicists would say, 鈥榊es, let鈥檚 just let lions keep dragging kids out of picnic areas.鈥欌��

Preston and I decided to find out. He sent out a note to a handful of colleagues. The first to respond was Philip Cafaro, a professor of philosophy at Colorado State University:

The way I see it, mountain lions and people have a right to live in California (and elsewhere). But there are way too many people in CA (~ 40 million) and way too few mountain lions (probably less than 5,000). It鈥檚 way out of balance, way unjustly tilted toward us hogging most of the habitat and resources. So, speaking strictly to the justice of the situation, mountain lions that attack and even kill people should be left alone. We can spare a few people from our teeming hordes, while there are precious few pumas left.

But even he shied away from cougar clemency:

Pragmatically speaking, people are too selfish and cowardly to act ethically in such cases. So, the next best thing is let them kill some mountain lions in the hope that they will leave the rest alone.

A second Colorado State professor of philosophy, Katie McShane, raised other important questions, which perhaps explain why we no longer drag beasts before a judge and jury:

I鈥檓 not sure we blame animals very much at all; but in any case, killing the mountain lion isn鈥檛 conceived of as punishment, but rather, keeping people safe.

Maybe there鈥檚 an animal ethics question about whether killing the lion is the best way to protect people? Given mountain lion behavior, I can鈥檛 imagine that confinement would go well. Are there sanctuaries? I don鈥檛 know; they鈥檇 need to be huge. Anyway, my guess is that killing the mountain lion is the most humane option as well.

The short answer to that is, mountain lions require too much terrain to be placed in sanctuaries. And relocating an animal that鈥檚 attacked a human doesn鈥檛 mean it won鈥檛 attack again. I find myself agreeing that killing is the best option in this difficult situation.

Before Preston signed off, he also speculated that there might be something in the human psyche that calls for harsher punishments for pumas than for other predators鈥攂ears, for example. 鈥淭here is something singular about the lion,鈥� he said. 鈥淵ou get stalked. You don鈥檛 know it鈥檚 coming. Bears kind of look like people when they stand up on two legs, so we know what they are about. The lion occupies a different place in our cultural imagination: the stealthy undesirable ghost in the forest that we don鈥檛 want to empathize with.鈥�

Mark Sundeen lives in a canyon in Montana where cougar sightings are frequent, yet in his four decades of exploring and guiding in the West, he鈥檚 never seen one in the wild. Sundeen’s new book, 听comes out February 18.

The post Should We Spare a Cougar That Attacked a Child? appeared first on 国产吃瓜黑料 Online.

I recently saw a Reddit thread that started with a deceptively simple question. On the subreddit r/bitcheswithtaste, : 鈥淎re we wearing Uggs this year? I wanted Uggs so badly in high school and never had them but after seeing them come back last year I am considering getting a pair for this fall. Are they back in style for good? Or was this just temporary?鈥�

To understand this question鈥攁nd all the weight it carries鈥攚e might need a short history lesson. In the early aughts, socialites听Paris Hilton and Nicole Richie听ruled the small screen听on The Simple Life. The slender, flippable Motorola Razr phone reigned supreme (sorry, Nokia brick) and found its place in the back pockets of teenagers the nation over. Trucker hats, dresses over jeans, Juicy Couture tracksuits, hair scrunched with so much Aussie mousse that it continuously looked crunchy and wet: this was the aesthetic of many a millennial in their prime. I would know. I was there.

Circa 2007, Uggs were expensive and hard to get your hands on. I remember scouring the aisles of a Nordstrom Rack in the Cleveland suburb of Westlake, Ohio, until I finally found听a pair of mint green, size 6 Uggs. I, too, could participate in the trend. And at a discount!

And then, like so many other artifacts of the increasingly fast-fast fashion cycles that we inhabit, Uggs were out and branded as 鈥渃heugy鈥� by the late 2010s. The shoes remained relegated to the margins of fashion until 2023, when model in a pair of tiny white shorts that resembled men鈥檚 underwear and a pair of Ultra single-handedly reviving the aughts staple. .

But there鈥檚 another response to the Redditor鈥檚 question that flitted through my mind as I read the original post. Did Uggs really ever go away? Or were they always there, lurking unfashionably, stalwartly serving practical purposes for outdoor enthusiasts? I鈥檇 been happily packing Uggs for car camping trips for well over a decade by the time Bella Hadid performed the resurrection. And I knew from talking to other folks at 国产吃瓜黑料 that they found all manner of uses for Uggs in the adventures they were having.

So, what gives? Did Uggs die? Or had they just been hiding in the woods?

The Original Departure of Uggs

To be fair, the initial rise and fall of the Ugg boot wasn鈥檛 solely driven by changing aesthetic preferences, although they played a big part. Delving into recent history suggests that concerns over the production of Uggs鈥攁long with some high-profile celebrity campaigns鈥攂rought legitimate skepticism to the animal welfare component of their production. One such highly memorable non-endorsement came from Pamela Anderson who, after wearing Uggs on the set of Baywatch and subsequently learning they were made of sheepskin, told in 2007: 鈥淚 feel so guilty for that craze being started around Baywatch days鈥擨 used to wear them with my red swimsuit to keep warm鈥攏ever realizing that they were SKIN! Do NOT buy UGGs!鈥�

The animal welfare group PETA has long campaigned for that uses real hide, and they鈥檝e taken Uggs to task over the years for their use of real sheep.

The Ugg brand states on their website that, for them, 鈥渋t is essential that all animal-based materials we use are sourced from animals that have been raised humanely using sound animal husbandry.鈥� To ensure this, they say they 鈥渦se an internationally-accepted welfare standard for livestock鈥� called the .

And, Uggs actually do come in vegan options now, which .

But What If They Never Really Went Away?

I never got rid of my Uggs despite being told by my much-hipper younger sister that they were no longer cool, because, well, I wasn鈥檛 wearing them to be cool anymore. My once-cutting-edge mint green Uggs had gone the way of the minivan: their functionality usurped their image. I didn鈥檛 don them for an early morning dog walk on a snowy day to impress my friends and neighbors with my sartorial sensibility. I wore them听because they were warm, and I didn鈥檛 need to worry about socks. I could go directly from slippers to Uggs with little friction.

I asked my colleagues at 国产吃瓜黑料 to share a little on their relationship with Uggs if they had one, and it seems I鈥檓 not the only person who has worn them regardless of the trend cycle.

Fellow millennial Abigail Wise, digital director of 国产吃瓜黑料, told me: “For years, my climbing partners have made fun of what we call my ‘approach Uggs.’ But even the relentless teasing couldn’t stop me from slipping on my favorite crag shoes. They’re easy to pull on between climbs, which gives my toes a break from restrictive climbing shoes, and they keep my feet warm on chilly mornings without having to bother with tying laces鈥攐r even socks.鈥�

Mary Turner, senior brand director for 国产吃瓜黑料, has also been letting Uggs keep her feet toasty for adventure. 鈥淚 live in my ankle-height Uggs all winter. No socks needed, just slide ’em on and head to yoga鈥� Makes life so easy!鈥�

And, Teaghan Skulszki, social media editor and a card-carrying member of Gen Z, says that she first started wearing Uggs in elementary school.听鈥淎s a little girl, I remember going to school with everyone matching their Uggs, instantly creating a connection and community. Today, that community has transitioned to my friends in the outdoor community. With all of the different styles that have come out听recently, I鈥檝e been able to accommodate my different pairs of Uggs to different versions of myself. I have my comfy slip-ons that I throw on after a long hike to relax or my thrifted knee-high leather UGG boots that have survived several Coachella festivals. Uggs are reflected in all different areas of my life and match all of my different personas and styles. They are timeless and adapt and grow as I have.鈥�

So there you have it. We may not all be wearing platform Uggs with men鈥檚 underwear, but we鈥檙e wearing them. And we have been for some time.

Ryleigh Nucilli is a digital consultant and The Pulse columnist who started her love affair with Uggs in a steeply discounted pair of mint greens. Now, she owns some Baileys for outside and some Cozy Slippers for indoors. She鈥檚 writing this bio wearing said slippers. They are cozy.

The post An Ode to the Outdoorsy Ugg appeared first on 国产吃瓜黑料 Online.

Dear Sundog: Am I a jerk for not owning an electric vehicle yet? I live in a city, commute to work, and like to get outside. I have a decent car that gets decent mileage, but feel like I would be doing better for myself and the planet with an EV. Should I buy one? 鈥擫ooking for Environmental Alternatives that are Friendly

Dear LEAF,

Let鈥檚 say you鈥檙e the average American who commutes 42 miles per day round-trip to a job that you find moderately soul-sucking. Maybe your labor serves a corporation that enriches its execs and shareholders while doing ill in the world. Maybe you work for an idealistic school or nonprofit, but are expected to work nights or weekends without additional pay. Or perhaps you simply sense that your one and only life on this gorgeous Earth is slipping past while you compose reports and gaze at Zoom.

In any case, you want to lead a more principled and less wasteful life than your vocation allows鈥攜ou don鈥檛 want to be a jerk鈥攕o you upgrade your Corolla for an electric vehicle. Where will you find that $35K or $75K? If you can pull the funds directly from your savings or trust fund, then God bless you. Otherwise, you鈥檒l borrow the money and make a monthly payment. You鈥檒l have to keep doing your job in order to afford your green ride.

You will likely be paying interest to some bank. Will that bank use your hard-earned dollars to manifest a better society? More likely, their profits will go for millions in dividends to stock owners, or they鈥檒l be loaned out again to finance all kinds of hideous adventures, from oil pipelines across to deforesting the .

So by reducing your dependence on the gas station鈥攐ne tentacle of the fossil fuel industry鈥攜ou鈥檝e now become a partner to some other tentacle. Also, much of the electrical grid from which you鈥檒l power that EV is still burning coal and gas to make electricity, so unless you鈥檙e charging from your own rooftop panels, you haven鈥檛 fully escaped even one tentacle.

So, no, LEAF, you鈥檙e not a jerk should you choose a different path. And yes, if you鈥檙e buying a car鈥攅specially to replace a gasoline car鈥攊t should probably be an EV. But there are so many variables.

You will no doubt have heard about the of using rare-earth elements like cobalt and lithium for electric batteries. It鈥檚 true: mining is bad. But this alone is not a valid reason to pass on buying an EV. The damage required to extract these miracle elements is much smaller than the alternative鈥攄rilling for oil and gas, and digging coal to produce electricity. If you can鈥檛 stomach the exploitation of nature and humans that is inherent to the industrial economy, let me gently suggest that you make a more radical lifestyle change than getting an EV鈥攁nd try giving up your car altogether.

Sundog does not give advice he would not heed, so here鈥檚 my full disclosure: even I鈥攍iterally a professor of environmental studies鈥攄o not own an EV, not even a hybrid. My family鈥檚 fleet consists of a 2005 Toyota Tundra that gets an alarming 15 to 22 miles per gallon, and a 2012 Subaru Outback that does only slightly better at 21 to 28.

As a matter of principle, I don鈥檛 think the only way to save the planet is by transferring billions of dollars from regular citizens to the corporations that build cars. As a matter of budget, I have never owned a new car. All my vehicles have cost less than $10K, except the Outback, which was $16K. I鈥檝e actually never even sat in a Tesla, but I imagine driving one to be like having an orgasm while watching a looped clip of Elon Musk declaring: 鈥淚鈥檝e done more for the environment for any other single human on earth.鈥�

Let me state on the record that I love cars and trucks. They鈥檝e provided much joy in my life, usually along a lovely lonesome stretch of two-lane blacktop or at the terminus of some rutted old ranch road. But those sort of experiences likely account for less than one percent of overall driving. In the past century, we have built American cities to accommodate people using cars for the most mundane of outings like commuting, shopping, and bar-hopping. The tradeoff is not just carbon emissions and pollution, but also sprawl, isolation and streets unsafe for walking and biking.

Turns out that in cities built before the era of the automobile鈥攆rom New York to Barcelona to Kathmandu鈥攜ou can get around without a car. When you remove traffic jams, parking tickets, the endless search for a place to park, the glum designation of a sober driver, and the claustrophobia of being locked in a metal box, city living is just more . . . fun.

When Sundog and Lady Dog set out to design our own lives, it was not to be in some Old World capitol, but rather in a midsized city in the Rockies. We didn鈥檛 aspire merely to burn fewer fossil fuels: we wanted to free ourselves from our car. We bought a house less than a mile from the place we work, less than a mile from the center of town. Our kid goes to preschool two blocks from here. Now we get around mostly by foot and bike, and can walk to trails and a creek. Many days go by where our dented guzzlers sit on the street鈥攚e drive each vehicle about 5,000 miles per year, about a third of the of 13,500.

The downside is that the houses in this neighborhood are a century old, dilapidated, small, and expensive. It鈥檚 a bit of a whack-a-mole game: our heating bills are low because we live in 1,000 square feet, but we can鈥檛 afford solar panels or a heat pump. We don鈥檛 spend much money on gasoline, but we can鈥檛 afford an EV.

Had we decided to live 21 miles from our jobs, we might have had a big new well-designed home and a slick new EV. But we love walking and biking; we want to teach our son that he can do the same, and that his parents are not his chauffeurs.

So why do we bother owning cars at all? For one, Montana is a lovely place to live, but it sure costs a lot to leave. Cheap airfares are not really a thing here. Neither is public transportation. So if you want to take a family vacation within a 1,000-mile radius, you鈥檙e likely driving. We bought the Tundra during the pandemic to tow a camp trailer (our 鈥渙ffice鈥�) and to haul lumber while we built a permanent office. Now we use the truck for long river trips, which entail carrying heavy loads for hundreds of miles through remote areas and down rutted dirt roads.

I don鈥檛 know of any EV that could do this. The Subaru is the town errand runner, and also takes us down bumpy roads to lakes and up icy mountains to ski. If it bites the dust and the cost of used four-wheel-drive EVs drops below twenty grand, I鈥檇 be happy to upgrade.

None of this makes Sundog feel particularly righteous. My point is that choosing a car is not a stand-alone decision as you forge an ethical life.

Mark Sundeen teaches environmental writing at the University of Montana. Despite his fleet of internal combustion engines, he refuses to purchase a parking permit and therefore commutes on a 1974 Schwinn Continental, with a ski helmet in winter.

If you have an ethical question for Sundog, send it to sundogsalmanac@hotmail.com

The post Am I a Jerk for Not Owning an Electric Car? appeared first on 国产吃瓜黑料 Online.

Dear Sundog: We recently went to a wedding in a mountain resort town. We rented a condo online because the wedding hotel was fully booked. I had qualms because I know that people like us are driving up the cost of living for locals, but didn鈥檛 have a better option so I swallowed the qualms. After a flight delay we arrived a day late. We saw a beat-up car parked in the driveway. As we approached, two young guys who looked like climbing bums tossed some gear into the car, took a look at us, jumped in and drove off. My husband thought it was suspicious and asked me to jot down their license plate number, which I did. Inside the condo it was clear that these kids had spent the night. We called the host, who came over immediately, did a quick clean and changed the entry codes. He told us he was not the owner but a professional host who managed a dozen rentals in town. The actual owner lived out of state. It sat vacant during the off-season.

Later, the host messaged us to say that the owner had filed a police report and wanted our help to identify the squatters. My husband thinks we should hand over the license plate number. I disagree. I don鈥檛 have much sympathy for the absentee landlord. The kids hadn鈥檛 actually damaged the condo, and frankly it鈥檚 not my job to get them in trouble. Who鈥檚 right? 鈥擵ery Resistant to Bending Over for Real Estate Barons Exploiting Locals

Dear VRBO REBEL: First let me commend you and your husband鈥檚 coolheadedness: you did not gun down these trespassers in cold blood, which seems an increasingly common response in our country of stand-your-grounders. It appears you have an ounce or more compassion for these loafers even if they made you uncomfortable.

First, let鈥檚 agree that this owner is fully within his rights to press charges against these guys鈥攊f he can find them. They committed a crime against his property. Your ethical quandary, VRBO REBEL, is a more interesting one: must you be complicit in this version of criminal justice, especially when you see ethical qualms in the behavior of the victim. Indeed, the American justice system has long skewed to value property more highly than humanity. Here鈥檚 an example: in the days of the frontier, out-of-state cattle barons owned herds of cattle numbering in the thousands that they hired cowboys to tend. It鈥檚 worth mentioning that the steers and cows could only stay alive by munching off grasses on lands that did not belong to their owners. The herds were too big to manage, and invariably some cattle wandered off. Along comes some hungry cowpoke or Indigenous person who seizes a beef and slices it up for steaks. Now he鈥檚 a guilty of a hanging offense.

In today鈥檚 West, now that beef and lumber and mining are past their prime, the most precious commodity is real estate, specifically rentable residences near some National Park or other natural wonder. When the pandemic brought historically low interest rates, speculators could snap up these properties for far more than locals could afford, and still rent them short-term for enough to cover their historically low monthly mortgage payment. Fill the place with some blonde-wood Scandinavian furniture and patterned shower curtains from Target and voil脿: an investment that not only yields monthly dividends but will also presumably gain value over the years. The speculator wins, the visitors like yourself wins, while the actual town residents are squeezed.

Getting back to the cattle analogy, if an AirbnBaron owns so many rental properties that he can鈥檛 keep them properly protected from the scourge of townies, then so be it. I guess I don鈥檛 see using police work and courts to punish the interlopers as a particularly ethical use of taxpayer money. Just as the cattle baron should have hired more cowboys to guard his cows, so should the rental baron hire a rent-a-cop to patrol his vacant structure.

As for your own question about ratting out these dirtbags, VRBO REBEL, I say hell no. Collaborating with police was not in the agreement you signed. By paying your nightly fee, you have fulfilled your obligations, both legal and financial, to the condo owner. You are not ethically bound to join his posse and help him rope the rustlers. Burn that license plate number with a clean conscience.

Got a question of your own? Send it to听sundogsalmanac@hotmail.com

(Photo: Mark Sundeen)

Mark Sundeen, aka Sundog, has done his fair share of squatting in vacant buildings, such as this cabin near Death Valley, circa 1998. He鈥檚 also had his share of strangers squatting in his un-winterized desert trailer. So it all sort of evens out?

The post Should I Help an Airbnb Owner Bust His Squatters? appeared first on 国产吃瓜黑料 Online.

When I heard the news that a for reckless conduct after someone spotted her ten-year-old son walking alone less than a mile from home, the first thing I did was open Google Maps. I looked up the distance between my house and a nearby middle school that my six-year-old daughter sometimes walks to with a friend her age. They get a thrill from playing at its playground听without a grown-up听around, and I relish the freedom of getting the house to myself for half an hour.

Still, I’m relieved every time I hear my daughter鈥檚 voice approaching our driveway after one of her mini-adventures鈥攚hich, according to my Google Maps search, spans less than half a mile round trip. My relief stems less from my concern that something might actually happen to her, and more from the possibility听that a neighbor or passerby might judge me to be negligent for letting her walk to a playground on her own.

Even before the story about the Georgia mom blew up the internet, I鈥檇 heard similar reports: the Texas mom handcuffed and jailed overnight for making her eight-year-old home; the Maryland siblings by police for playing alone at a playground.

Each time one of these stories makes headlines, the American public loses its collective shit. People from all sides of the political spectrum are equally outraged, agreeing (for once) that helicopter-parenting culture has gone too far. The same comments echo across the internet: When I was a kid, my parents didn鈥檛 care where we were, as long as we were home when the streetlights came on! Or: When I was that age, I walked home from school and babysat my younger siblings!听

The parents I know in real life are similarly supportive of giving our children freedom to roam, and horrified that we might get in trouble for it. One friend has printed out and laminated a 鈥溾�� card for her eight-year-old to carry. If a concerned citizen tries to intervene, the child can present the card, which includes her parents鈥� phone number and states that she is not lost or neglected.

My sister-in-law, meanwhile, told me that two of her kids, ages 15 and 8, were recently walking home from the library when a nice older woman pulled her car alongside them, begging them to get in so she could give them a ride home. The woman was so distraught over what she perceived as the kids鈥� risky behavior that she thought asking them to get in a car with a stranger was better than letting them walk unsupervised down a familiar suburban street in broad daylight.

Though such lapses of judgement are well-intentioned, the chances of a child being either kidnapped or hit by a car are in the United States, and certainly lower than they were in the eighties and nineties when I was a kid. Yet in part because media reports tend to amplify violence and tragedy, such incidents can seem more common than they actually are, prompting some people to misjudge the risk of children acting independently.

Anecdotally, many of the people concerned by modern kids walking or playing alone seem to be who themselves had ample freedom growing up but may have watched too much CSI since then. My own peers鈥攅lder Millennials, mostly鈥攈ave absorbed plenty of articles of letting our kids manage risks and build independence, and many of us try to encourage such behaviors.

A 2023 sort of backs this up, finding that only 28 percent of Millennial parents are 鈥渧ery concerned鈥� about their child getting kidnapped. The same study found that Black and Hispanic parents are far more concerned than white or Asian parents about their kids getting shot, which aligns with demographic trends of gun violence and underscores the fact that free-range parenting is a privilege of living somewhere relatively safe.

Personally, I worry more about the societal or legal repercussions of letting my kid roam the neighborhood unsupervised than I do about some stranger snatching her up. But what if my concerns are just as overblown as those of the lady in the car who tried to stop my niece and nephew from walking home? Lenore Skenazy, who coined the term 鈥渇ree-range parenting鈥� and co-founded the childhood independence nonprofit Let Grow, emphasizes that it鈥檚 for parents to face legal action for letting their kids play outside or walk home alone鈥攕o uncommon, in fact, that when it does happen, it becomes national news.

In other words, just as the risk of a child getting abducted is minuscule, so is the chance that someone will call the police if I let my six-year-old explore outside with a friend鈥攅specially now that more states are passing free-range parenting laws.

Parenting is inherently risky. The world is not and never will be fully safe. But instead of being influenced by stories of what could go wrong, maybe the best thing we can do for our kids and ourselves is to focus instead on all the things that are still OK鈥攍ike my daughter, skipping up the driveway with her best friend, her cheeks flushed from cold and excitement, coming home just as the streetlights are turning on and I鈥檓 pulling a hot dinner from the oven.

The post Why I Let My Kid Roam Free 国产吃瓜黑料 appeared first on 国产吃瓜黑料 Online.

In 1492, Columbus sailed the ocean blue, and then things got really shitty real quick for Indigenous people. The European colonization of America began the centuries-long murderous legacy of trauma and displacement of Native people under the guise of expansion and elitism. This legacy isn鈥檛 just historical but persists in institutionalized racism, public actions, and everyday language, which many communities continue to experience today. Picture a spectrum with voter suppression, unfair lending practices, severe disparities in health and health care, and disproportionately high rates of being killed during a police encounter on one side and white Instagram models wearing headdresses to Coachella on the other.

But that legacy of trauma is also perpetrated in more insidious ways, even in the crunchy, GORP-eating, COEXIST bumper sticker world of the outdoor community.

Earlier this fall, Black Diamond posted a video of skiers arching turns on an untouched powdery slope on its Instagram account. It was a dreamy ski clip that ended oddly when someone off camera said, 鈥淲e own this range.鈥� When who is Lakota, saw the clip, he felt hurt and confused that a brand would want to represent themselves with aggressive, combative, domineering language. He commented as such on BD鈥檚 post. He remixed the video to his own , placing text over the footage that read: 鈥淧OV: A ski brand or publication says some colonial BS like 鈥榳e own this range鈥� or 鈥榗onquered a peak鈥欌�e don鈥檛 let people talk about mountains like that in ski culture anymore.鈥�

During the first few hours of posting, Connor received thousands of likes and hundreds of supportive comments. He also received polite requests for a nuanced explanation of the harm caused, with some commenters pointing toward long-celebrated quotes from famous outdoors people, like Sir Edmund Hillary鈥檚, 鈥淚t鈥檚 not the mountain we conquer but ourselves.鈥� Connor engaged with these comments openly and honestly. 鈥淚ntention and impact are not the same thing,鈥� he told me during a recent phone call. 鈥淚鈥檝e worked with Indigenous kids and women, who all say, 鈥業鈥檓 so put off by the culture of skiing that I don鈥檛 want to get into it, because it鈥檚 all, conquer this, own that, shred it, stomp it, and the language just feels very violent, and how I feel about skiing isn鈥檛 violent.鈥� And so, I get someone who鈥檚 like, 鈥業 don鈥檛 think conquer is a violent word.鈥� Yeah, well, from your lens it isn鈥檛 a violent word. There was no violence experienced on your end of the barrel of the gun. But for the people who were in the crosshairs, that all comes off as violent. If you鈥檙e Native American and someone says, 鈥榳e conquered this place, we own this place now,鈥� that recalls memories of violence, of trauma.鈥�

In the comment section of his post, during those first few hours, folks were receptive to Connor鈥檚 explanation of word choice in ski culture, and the exchanges were civil. To their credit, Black Diamond acted quickly鈥攖hey deleted the original post within 24 hours, issued a public apology, and their social media manager personally apologized to Connor.听 Black Diamond emailed Connor an apology and requested his consulting rates and availability to lead a DEI athlete training (at the time of publication, Connor had not been officially hired for the training and was still awaiting a response from Black Diamond). It was a quick and sincere response to Connor鈥檚 feedback, showing that even brands can model responsiveness in building a more inclusive community. Unfortunately, comments on the post devolved into a hellscape of sun-cooked porta potty thrown atop a tire fire.

An accurate number of the racist and bigoted comments Connor received on his post and in his direct messages is hard to calculate. There were so many that he had to block and report accounts, delete comments and messages, turn off comments on the post, and scrutinize new comments on pre-existing and unrelated posts. Friends and followers who stood up to trolling in support of Connor would later tell him they received racist and/or bigoted messages, even death threats. I contacted close to 20 accounts who commented on Connor鈥檚 post in a questionable way to hear their perspective, maybe even change it. Four responded. One told me that my Irish ancestors would hang me for 鈥減icking that side.鈥� One responded with a series of memes suggesting they鈥檇 burn down my house and that they sexually pleasure themself to photos of my face. One admitted they could understand how 鈥渃onquer鈥� is a harmful word to an Indigenous person and that language can be damaging but saw no issue with calling Connor a homophobic slur. I did have a civil exchange with the fourth respondee, who identified as white and male (he did not feel comfortable sharing his age), but he ultimately doubled down on his belief that words cannot cause harm, even slurs. It was not a great day to go interneting.

The concept and impact of harmful language can, at times, be difficult to grasp for white skiers. A simple change could make a big difference. If ski enthusiasts embraced language that reflects a relationship of respect with the land, it might feel more welcoming to skiers from all backgrounds. To contextualize it, I asked Connor if a fair comparison for outrage would be white folks taking issue with an Indigenous skier creating a reel of a jib session filmed on the grounds of a Catholic church in which someone could be heard saying, 鈥淚 just crucified this!鈥� He told me a more apt comparison would be if he filmed himself skiing in Germany using 鈥渉olocaust鈥� as a descriptor for skiing. Connor was quick to tell me the motivations for his post and how he interacts with people in person and online. In general, it is not about calling folks out but rather in. Connor figures the skiers in the BD post most likely won鈥檛 have a combative relationship with the mountains. They probably are grateful for them, even love them. But we鈥檝e been conditioned to describe skiing as having dominion over the land. And in any other circumstance, that type of language would be ridiculous.

鈥淚t鈥檇 be like dancing with your grandma at a wedding and then you jump up and you鈥檙e like, 鈥楩uck yeah, bitch! Told you I had the moves,鈥欌�� he described to me. 鈥淓verybody would be like, 鈥楧ude, what鈥檚 wrong with this kid?鈥� That鈥檚 how I feel in my relationship with the mountains. This is my respected, cherished elder.鈥� Connor wants skiers to shift our language to represent our true feelings. And that is not a hard concept to grasp. Think about it. We don鈥檛 don eyeblack and listen to Jock Jams before we ski. We鈥檙e not physically besting an opponent. Skiing is not a football game, so why do we talk about skiing like a contact sport with a scoreboard? Maybe it鈥檚 time to embrace language that truly reflects our connection to the mountains鈥� and community rather than a win-at-all-costs mentality. We鈥檇 get dumped on our asses if we smooched our significant other and yelled out, 鈥淪layed it!鈥� We don鈥檛 use meathead language in our love affairs. Skiing is no exception.

One of the things I love most about skiing is the universal language of the pursuit of joy. Laughter and those barbaric yawps, yippees, and woooohoooos we bark out in communal elation at the bottom of an epic wiggle do not need Google Translate to be understood. Shouldn鈥檛 we all want as many people as possible to feel that? The answer is yes. And that means that, at the very least, we need to think about what we鈥檙e saying and be open to hearing someone else鈥檚 perspective. Unfortunately, the internet is filled with hateful dickalopes. But you don鈥檛 have to be a hood-wearing Klan member to say something hurtful.

After Connor and I talked about racism-net, our conversation moved to a subject decidedly less awful: powder skiing. Connor and I are friends, and we鈥檝e shared a handful of frosty days filled with featherlight snow that has risen to our eyeballs. We often joke about 鈥渟toke鈥� and 鈥渇low鈥� and how we whiff when describing the magic of skiing. I told Connor the person who described it best was mystic, author, and powder skiing legend Dolores LaChappelle. 鈥淒id you just hear what you said,鈥� he asked me. 鈥淵ou said something I take issue with.鈥� To describe LaChappelle, I used the word 鈥減ioneering.鈥� I hadn鈥檛 even realized it. My intention was not to cause any harm, but I had. And I immediately thought, No, no, no. You鈥檙e my friend. I鈥檓 on your side. I鈥檓 a good guy. I felt like I needed to defend myself. But Connor pointed out that we must accept when we鈥檙e wrong to be a good guy, for skiing to be more inviting and inclusive.

What is more important to us: the words we use to describe skiing or skiing itself? I think it鈥檚 fair to assume that skiing would still be a joy-filled event if skiers everywhere went mute tomorrow. If the community we love is built upon that joy, then considering how our language reflects our shared respect and love for the mountains is a small but worthy endeavor. No one鈥檚 getting canceled, the woke police鈥攚hatever that is鈥� isn鈥檛 going to confiscate your boots and skis, and no one鈥檚 ski membership is being revoked. Being wrong is uncomfortable, but that鈥檚 all it is. If we get called on something, we are not at risk of losing anything. We only stand to gain understanding.

鈥淚 want you to know how I feel when you say this or that,鈥� Connor says. 鈥淚 don鈥檛 just bring it up with the outcome in mind of like, I want you to be different. I want you to know why I鈥檓 different, and to decide if that鈥檚 a reason worth changing something small about yourself.鈥�

The post Skiing Isn鈥檛 About 鈥淐onquering鈥� the Mountains鈥擨t鈥檚 Time to Change the Language appeared first on 国产吃瓜黑料 Online.

Dear Sundog: Floating down Desolation Canyon in Utah on a private trip, pulling the oars against the upstream wind, we were passed by commercial rafts lashed together buzzing their motors to snag the primo camps. I know it鈥檚 bad form for parties to send a boat ahead to steal a camp, but this situation just demanded some sort of justice. Is it OK to break the rules to combat the commercial guide domination? 鈥擯erplexed Rower Offended by Boating Ethics

Dear PROBE: As your letter notes, the practice of splitting up a river group to 鈥渃amp run鈥� downriver is morally murky. It breeds cutthroat competition, with boaters racing each other for a shady beach instead of chilling the F out while floating lazily down the current the way the Creator intended. On many permitted river sections, the practice is explicitly banned, enforced with the threat of a ticket written up by river rangers鈥攚hat Sundog used to call 鈥減addle pigs.鈥� What鈥檚 more, it鈥檚 downright foolhardy: if someone in the upstream group has a medical emergency, a blown valve, or simply can鈥檛 hack the wind, then some of the group may spend the night separated from food, groovers, and first-aid kits.

Yet Sundog鈥檚 area of expertise is not legality or foolhardiness鈥攊t鈥檚 ethics鈥攁nd the fact of some activity being forbidden and stupid doesn鈥檛 make it unethical.

PROBE, these are desperate times trying to get to the river. The COVID recreation boom, combined with the online ease of applying for permits, has made it nigh impossible to win the 鈥渓ottery鈥� and float the big rivers. Perhaps this onerous process before the launch is what ratchets up the battle for the best camps. The behavior you describe by the commercial guides is, though not illegal, extremely irritating. Motoring past hard-working rowers and paddlers all but guarantees that the loudest polluters get the best camp. Ethical guides would cut their goddamn Evinrudes, and call out, 鈥淗ey, which camp were you hoping to reach tonight. We鈥檒l be happy to skip that one so you can have it.鈥�

Likely ain鈥檛 gonna happen. So we鈥檙e left with deciding how we can best behave. On canyons like the Gates of Lodore where sites are limited, boaters are required to sign up for camps and stick to that itinerary. Sundog finds this a Draconian fix, as it takes away from the sense of spontaneity and timeless drift that attracts him to rivers in the first place.

On the Salmon River, all parties are required to talk it out, perhaps hug, and decide who will camp where on which night. It鈥檚 a good idea. Sundog is aware of at least one instance in which commercial guides welched on their word and stole a camp from a private party, who made a point鈥攋ustified, I鈥檇 say鈥攐f repaying them in kind the following night. However these shenanigans are precisely what motivates the paddle pigs to write more rules and regulations.

In your case, PROBE, the best practice would be to flag down the motor-rig and have a conversation to try to avoid the steal in the first place. If that fails, and your camp is taken, I suppose it is ethical to break the rules in order to fight what is otherwise a losing battle. But it鈥檚 a slippery slope, because when you set out to grab a camp from an outfitter, you鈥檙e just as likely grabbing it from another private party in front of you, which makes you the jerk.

Your question does raise another issue, which is why are motors allowed on a stretch of river in a designated wilderness that for at least a portion is labeled Wild and Scenic. The most obvious answer is the first 25 miles of windy flatwater. Difficult, sure, but boaters without motors have made their way through for over a century now. The longer answer is that motors allow outfitters to sell the 86-mile canyon as a 5-day trip, while muscle-powered expeditions take a few days longer. There is some rich irony in the well-intentioned leave-no-tracers straining their dishwater to avoid contaminating the river while a few yards from shore outboard motors spew oil and gas directly into the fishes鈥� living room.

In a column about being a surfing tourist in Mexico, Sundog suggested re-examining our beliefs about globalization. A reader, Stan Weig, responded:

I was intrigued by your recent column on 鈥淵ankee Imperialism鈥� and Mexico travel, as I just returned from a five week drive to Cabo San Lucas and back. I have traveled to Baja since the 鈥�60s, in everything from a pickup camper to a really nice motorhome. And a 747.

While I respect the need to be nice to the subscribers that write in, I suggest your 鈥渕iddle-of-the-road鈥� was too soft on the self-centered Rich White Yankee Surfer guilt trip of your advice seeker.听

Not everybody likes the huge condos, raucous tourist bars and t-shirt shops of Cabo鈥擨 don鈥檛鈥攁nd if your reader doesn鈥檛 like it, don鈥檛 go. But it鈥檚 more about preferences than an ethical quandary about globalization. I don鈥檛 particularly care for Miami Beach either. However, San Juan de Cabo is just to the north of Cabo and has a very different vibe and a well preserved old town鈥攇o there and rest easy.听

Tourists are a cash crop, and the folks running the sushi restaurant that she deplores, renting the beach chairs, and driving her around in a rental car made in Mexico and owned by Mexicans, are local entrepreneurs raising and harvesting that crop. Indeed, one could argue that in the good old days when we traveled from the high ground of Yankee prosperity down to 鈥渦nspoiled鈥� poverty of Mexico we were taking advantage as well.

Your advice to research and support local business was right on. If she doesn鈥檛 want to support globalist capitalists, she ought to be doing that here at home too. By the way, the reader may not know that while development along the beach may have been built with expat dollars, the ownership is required to be at least 51 percent Mexican. And she may not be aware of the government mandated efforts to ensure that local interests are at least somewhat protected during development. For example, perhaps the nicest beach in the Cabo area for sunning, swimming, and snorkeling is Chileno Beach. Right next to it is a huge new (and expensive!) resort鈥攂ut access to the beach is free, there are nice restrooms, showers, and a lifeguard; and any of the locals that want to can take their kids and a cooler down to the beach for the day.

When we visited Todos Santos 35 years ago, the fabled Hotel California was shabby and in disrepair and all the side streets were pot holed dirt. Now the hotel is nice, locally run restaurants abound, local artists successfully compete with Made in China souvenir shops, and the streets are paved鈥攕o maybe tourism ain鈥檛 so bad.

Got a question of your own? Send it to听sundogsalmanac@hotmail.com.

Mark Sundeen, aka Sundog, worked as a river guide for 11 years. These days he thinks young guides have a bit of attitude that they own the whole river, and he is happy to poach their campsites if the situation warrants it.

The post The Battle for Campsites Is Out Of Hand. Is it Ever OK to Steal One? appeared first on 国产吃瓜黑料 Online.