The “Leave No Trace” Myth
Thought Piece by Mikaela Capalby
Nature enthusiasts may have heard the popular outdoor ethic: Leave No Trace. These seven principles serve as a guide for recreationists to protect wildlife. It may seem crazy that a set of rules created with good intent can be problematic, but I soon learned otherwise. As a future wildlife biologist, I have heard of the LNT ethic since my first ecology course at university. My passion to conserve wildlife lines up with these principles, so naturally I supported the LNT ethic and preached it to any listening ear. But recently, my concept of outdoor ethics was turned on its head. Only months ago, a friend returning from the National Outdoor Leadership School opened my eyes to the truth: LNT perpetuates unrealistic standards, creates a disconnect with the environment and is intertwined with systemic injustice.
“Did you have to pack everything out?” Was a question I asked Tatum Libby during our first lunch together in over a year. She had been gone over winter and summer during her 90-day immersion in the wilderness and had just returned home to Fort Collins, Colorado. “Yes, but I’m not really a fan of leave no trace,” Libby responded. This was where our conversation, and my further research, began.
Libby explained that her group practiced LNT, but was aware of deconstructing the issues around it. LNT is a land-use ethic, slogan and educational program first coined from the National Outdoor Leadership School. Its message, however, is being questioned. Libby informed me that her program taught the LNT principle from a different lens.
LNT is not a realistic outdoor ethic. Students in ecology may know that all things have an effect on one another. For example, predators and prey can strongly influence one another, or losing one vital part of a food web can cause a trophic cascade. Humans are the same; we are part of this great ecosystem. Saying that we can leave no trace is simply untrue and is born from our disconnect with the environment. Though we should pick up trash at a campsite, we should also realize that this trash still goes somewhere. Nothing disappears as it may seem; our landfills are definitely leaving a trace. LNT leads us to believe we can leave no trace when in reality, everything always leaves a trace. We should acknowledge the importance of this ethic and practice it, but we must also realize that following a few rules does not clean up all of our messes.
Further, thinking we can leave no trace makes us believe that we don’t belong to nature. Humans have a very complex relationship with nature. LNT can make us feel like we shouldn’t touch anything, pick anything up or get curious about our surroundings. LNT teaches us that everything we do in the environment is disruptive and increases our anxiety about wilderness recreation.
“It’s as if we ask students that visit the wilderness to live, eat, travel and play inside a museum, constantly reminding them not to upset any of the fragile displays.” David Moskowitz and Darcy Ottey, Leaving ‘Leave No Trace’ Behind.
The LNT ethic should be practiced to protect natural spaces from preventable human degradation, but not scare us away from seeking experiences and building a deeper relationship with our world. When we develop a personal connection with the land, we are more likely to take care of it.
“We abuse land because we regard it as a commodity belonging to us. When we see land as a community to which we belong, we may begin to use it with love and respect.” Aldo Leopold, A Sand County Almanac.
Finally, LNT is intertwined with systemic injustice by influencing self-righteous behavior and the policing of outdoor spaces. Outdoor recreation is already excluding minority identities. Expensive park passes and gear, limited access to outdoor education and a lack of diversity in recreational industries can gate-keep people from enjoying the wilderness. The LNT principle adds an air of entitlement to this mix; since the LNT principles were created in a western context, they may prove ignorant to various cultural practices.
“I [have] heard plenty of examples of so-called “LNT policing”: A Latino family told to stop talking at a campground. A family of Luiseño Indians shamed by passersby for their annual, traditional harvest of poppies during the California super bloom.” Corey Buhay, The Challenges of Inclusivity: Opening the Gates.
No one truly owns the land. LNT perpetuates a bias that certain people “own” the outdoors and they must enforce these rules. This enforcement may be onto other cultures with different land ethics. Native cultures have been sustainably using land for far longer, yet the white recreationists still feel entitled to control stolen land and dictate its culture. In most cases, Indigenous groups have to pay fees for non-traditional, recreational activities, even though many national parks are on historic tribal land. Due to inequality and limited resources, outdoor recreation is difficult to access for people identifying with minority groups. When the LNT ethic is policed onto these groups, it further polarizes who can access these areas. Maybe we should stop and listen to the land ethics that were here first.
“People of color are three times more likely than white people to live in places that have no immediate access to nature.” Emma Gosalvez, Nature Gap: Why Outdoor Spaces Lack Diversity and Inclusion.
We must hold ourselves to a standard of accountability to educate ourselves and one another about our use of LNT. We should not ignore the LNT guidelines, but we should check our biases.
Though there are problems with the LNT ethic, it was founded for good. The organization has been addressing where they could be better. The organization has explained that the LNT ethic is a guideline, not a rule, and understands that people still make mistakes. They encourage us to do more than follow the guidelines and recognize that this principle doesn’t fix everything. Another misconception the organization is addressing is that land ethics are not the same everywhere, or for everyone.
There is a long way to go for us to amend our relationship with the environment, and the LNT ethic alone won’t get us there. It is not up to individuals to save the world, it comes down to government funding and policy. Living consciously of our impacts will spark change, but the real action happens at a societal level. I know I will still practice the LNT guidelines, but I will also demand my representatives to listen to local communities and Indigenous stewards of the land to create long-term change. Next time I go to Lory State Park or Horsetooth Reservoir, I will still think consciously of my impacts, but I will also recognize there is so much more I can do than pick up a piece of trash.
“The more clearly we can focus our attention on the wonders and realities of the universe about us, the less taste we shall have for destruction.” Rachel Carson.
