It’s been a while since I’ve done a mailbag, so here are a few reader comments on previous newsletters. I continue to enjoy receiving such thoughtful responses each week. Sometimes it’s just a sentence or two about why you enjoy H&T, and other times they’re long, thoughtful messages that dive deeper into that week’s topic. I do read them all, and try to respond to everything – my inbox is always open.

Re: Chevron Deference

“Nope. Your explanation AND why it matters is not correct and over complicated. The overturn of Chevron is great for America including outdoor enthusiasts. Congress makes law, no one else. Not NON-ELECTED officials working for the government.”

I received several emails in this vein, mostly from proponents of smaller government who cited issues with unelected bureaucrats having such a powerful influence on laws and regulations. It’s correct to say that Congress is the branch of government responsible for making laws. However, I also think it's a tough ask for members of Congress to write laws that are always specific enough to account for every nuance, and it's an equally tall task to expect the courts (also un-elected) to have the specialized knowledge to rule effectively on those specifics.

In a perfect world, would all legislation account for every permutation that will arise in the future? Sure, but it feels like a bit of a pipe dream. I've watched enough C-SPAN to see how woefully un-educated Congress is, particularly on technological and scientific topics. There’s also some evidence that Chevron also led to less partisan judicial rulings, saying “Contrary to prior, more limited studies, we find that legal doctrine (i.e., Chevron deference) has a powerful constraining effect on partisanship in judicial decision making. To be sure, we still find some statistically significant results as to partisan influence. But the overall picture provides compelling evidence that the Chevron Court's objective to reduce partisan judicial decision making has been quite effective.” (Barnett et al. 2018).

I want to note that I responded to this particular email directly, and the writer also responded to my response – while he still disagreed that Chevron deference had any redeeming qualities, he expressed an appreciation for engaging with his POV in good faith. I really value the ability to engage with readers on complex topics and respectfully disagree. It’s a tough, complicated topic full of legalese; I was also pleased to get some great feedback from a subscribers with law and/or policy backgrounds.

Re: Outdoor participation in 2023

“Talking to friends and colleagues, we all feel that the increase in casual participants in some areas just makes it difficult to enjoy those activities or trails we once loved because they were peaceful, not traveled often… I stress that I would NEVER gate keep the outdoors from anyone – I wish more people would get out there and see these incredible places…I just wonder if “crowding” being a reason for declining core participants has a deeper meaning”

The conversation around crowding and experience/education is a complicated one – some would say that the push to "get more people outside", as is the goal for many brands/tech companies in the outdoors, is part of the problem. It's incredibly difficult to balance increasing the 'availability' of the outdoors through visibility and access (hiking apps, marketing, social media, etc) with proper education about how to do things safely and in a low-impact way. It's something I struggled with on the previous hiking discovery app I worked on.

It's partially hard because the incentives aren't always aligned -- as an outdoor brand or app, the business side of things wants the most people recreating and using their product, not necessarily a smaller but more educated or respectful contingent. You also end up fighting with human nature as well – there are only so many signs, emails, or app pop ups about LNT, best practices, being prepared, etc you can do...most of the time people are just going to do what they want. It's a Catch-22 that the industry doesn't love to talk about. I've struggled to put all my thoughts concisely but I'd love to have a future newsletter dig into what "getting more people outside" is really good for, and what the trade offs are (both business wise and conservation-wise).

Re: Apple Maps and AllTrails

“Gadgets to guide people with no clue farther into areas that took effort in the past…and their cluelessness only serves to degrade everything good. Bummer that those who value the effort have to find farther places to avoid the masses.”

While I understand the sentiment, I don’t love the perspective that technology has “ruined” the outdoors. People use the tools available to them. If Edmund Hilary had GPS maps and modern weather forecasting, I think he probably would have used that. This romantic idea that everyone used to “explore” and “put in the effort” just doesn’t quite sit right with me personally. The world feels smaller now, there’s no doubt. But that shrinkage has also allowed more people to be exposed to and experience these places. And again, that increased accessibility sometimes comes with trade-offs and negative consequences. Lotta nuance. Lotta shades of gray.

"Is there room in the mapping application space for all these niche players based on their loyal users and specific feature sets? Will they continue to hold on to their constituencies in the face of major investments by big IT ecosystem players like Apple and Google?  Could these big moves force alignments (or even mergers) by smaller players to stave off perceived obsolescence?"

Ooooh this is a great question. There are a surprising amount of hiking/mapping apps currently in existence with converging feature sets. The differentiating factors become niche features, price, and brand/vibe. I don’t think Google/Apple themselves will gobble these up, but they might introduce new pressures that create opportunities for the top players like AllTrails/Outside/Strava. We’ve already seen this with Outside’s acquisition of Gaia GPS (the founders have left and are working on a new mapping app), Strava’s purchase of FATMAP (RIP), and REI’s purchase of Adventure Projects (and later spin out, and sell again to OnX). I think it’s reasonable to predict that the ‘outdoor tech’ industry will continue to see some level of consolidation in the coming years...but sometimes consolidation also births new, niche competitors, which is always fun.

Other comments

"Something that I would find interesting is a "Local" section. This may be too hard to do, but I live in Colorado. So articles about my general area (Colorado, Utah, New Mexico, etc.) I find it more interesting than say Northern California or elsewhere."

Unfortunately yes, it’s a bit hard to do. Here & There is a one man show, and I focus my efforts on producing something that I think will be broadly interesting for y’all to read on a weekly/bi-weekly basis. That means not every newsletter is going to be perfectly up everyone’s alley, and that’s ok. There are a lot of great ‘round-up’ style emails, including Mountain Gazette’s own Sunday newsletter (shout out to Hannah).

"I'd like to share a story with you for consideration in the magazine"

Unfortunately, I don't handle that side of things. If you have subscription issues, please email help@mountaingazette.com and if you want to submit a story, you can learn more on the submissions page.

"I just wanted to drop a quick line that I love these weekly emails. Smart, informative, and generally a nuanced take on a complex topic that deserves it...they're a highlight of all the stuff that hits my inbox, and easily best-in-class for what I'd term 'marketing newsletter' or 'brand outreach'.

I'll use this one as a stand-in for all the folks who take the time to write nice things. It means a lot. If you're enjoying H&T, please share it with your friends and colleagues – and if you ever want to contribute a testimonial, feel free to shoot it my way.

‍