Re: Blue Zones

“I guess I thought Mountain Gazette was a magazine about adventure, mountain life, hope, and going higher. Reading "Are Blue Zones Real," a story that sows doubt based on "misleading statements and assumptions" has lowered my esteem for the Magazine…I'm not interested in reading these kinds of stories, and I hope to see stories that "When in doubt, go higher.”

Here & There covers different subject matter than the print magazine, and the topics vary more widely. I tend to gravitate towards complicated, nuanced discussions, and I’m happy to revisit things when I’m wrong or new information is shared.

If the general style of the newsletter is a miss for you, I’d love for you to hang around to see if future topics are more up your alley. If not, no hard feelings – you can unsubscribe and just receive the two print issues every year (if you've subscribed to the annual print subscription).

On that note, this reader noted that Blue Zones previously provided a rebuttal to several of the criticisms noted by other researchers; I neglected to find or include this additional context last week. Blue Zones defends the accuracy of their research methodology, and also point out that 2 Blue Zones are NOT regions with supercentenarians, rather “the blue zones areas are places with the highest healthy life expectancy, where people reach their 90s with low rates of chronic disease, and where there is a high probability to reach 100.” I’m not sure this completely invalidates some of the conclusions being drawn by other researchers, but it’s an important set of information that I missed the first time around and is important to include as part of the overarching story.

Re: STRs

“Your story (and an ongoing balanced discussion) on the topic is an important one.  I'd love to see more on the topic with a push for innovative solutions.  (and p.s. Lease to Locals isn't innovative despite what the name suggests as the economic incentives just aren't there to get an STR property owner to take a huge cut in potential income just to lease to a local).”

I’m sure it will come up again in the future! The Lease to Locals comment is interesting – and you’re probably right. I did a bit of additional digging, and while it seems to have encouraged some positive change, it hasn’t been particularly meaningful. In Eagle County’s recent implementation, “more than 140 property owners expressed interest in the program, but many chose not to move forward either due to rent caps the program required or because they found the stipend to be too low”. They also missed their target of 40 homes, only converting 28. So maybe more in the “positive, but nothing near a solution” category.

“Over the long term, all STRs do is bring in more tourists/crowds, displace staff, and consolidate the ownership of housing into fewer people owning more houses.  Follow the flow of profit and you can see this.  Not revenue, but profit.  Businesses may generate more revenue but not more profit, as their cost of labor increases at the same rate as their revenue.  The only party that generates more profit are the few people who own the STRs.”

This is a great point. As housing costs increase (and/or are limited by high levels of STRs), the supply of local workers often goes down and increases labor costs. However, I would say that due to the geographic and zoning restrictions of mountain towns, this isn’t purely an STR problem. Places like Telluride were always headed for problems – there’s nowhere to build, more people want to live there over time, and it’s not a commute friendly location.

Re: Stanley

“It's interestingly counter-capitalism and on some level anti-materialist at some point to make products that are ideally sustainable and minimal, and that brings up the issue that it's a fine line to balance on when you're a retail company with these ethics in mind.”

It’s an interesting contradiction at the heart of the industry, and one I’ll likely touch on more in the future. Related, here is an image of the REI homepage this week, where they straight up reference 'completing your collection of colors'.

Re: The wolves

“However, the presence of all these wolves has not resulted in a single tangible benefit to my life.  I don't get to see the wolves and photograph the wolves, because they are secretive and skittish and largely nocturnal in areas that are readily accessed by humans.  And the presence of the wolves has wrought havoc on their prey species, largely Moose and Whitetail Deer. There used to be thriving herds of Whitetail Deer that enjoyed mostly carefree lives, making them easy to find and photograph because they were not living in fear and would spend much of their time out in the open, easy to spot and approach.”

I’d like to propose a counterpoint here. The data I’ve seen does not indicate that wolves are a primary cause for declines in moose and deer populations – there is quite a bit of research into the declines of moose populations and it began prior to wolf reintroduction (and the phenomenon is not limited to areas with heavy wolf predation). Most research points to habitat loss and warmer winters allowing for increased tick populations that often spread disease and can cause emaciation. In one region of Maine they had an 86% calf mortality rate – largely attributed to ticks. And in Idaho, “emaciation – concurrent with a winter tick infestation – and parasitic disease were the leading cause of death, followed by infectious/inflammatory diseases, vehicle collisions, non-infectious diseases, neurologic diseases and predation.”

It’s also worth considering that:

1. The wolves aren’t there to benefit us.2. There’s been another thing ‘reintroduced’ to wild places over the last 20 years. Us. It’s possible the reason animals are less ‘available’ is because there are more trails, more traffic, and more people hiking, biking, ATVing, and trying to approach/photograph them than ever before.

"This is seriously a masterclass in navigating the larger carnivore/predator reintroduction conversation. No doubt you’ll get some feedback from folks who feel differently, but I think that’s what makes this topic so fun to cover; everyone has an angle, and nuance is king."

Aww shucks. Thank you.

“This is a decidedly anti-wolf/pro landraper perspective on the 'outdoors.' Not really interested in hearing more from you.”

It is a bummer to get these kinds of emails, especially when you spend so much time doing your best to present a balanced piece. However, everyone is entitled to their own take and it's not going to hurt any feelings to have you unsubscribe from emails. We're not for everyone.

More generally

“Do you have advice about pursuing a career in writing or journalism?”

I don’t have any sage advice here. I wouldn’t have even considered calling myself a writer until quite recently. My background (and day job) is in digital product design – I’ve designed software across a range of industries for over a decade. That said, I think that working in design has had a surprising effect on my writing; communication is an underrated skill for designers. You’re constantly trying to effectively coach customers on how to use features or explain decisions and ideas to executives/engineers/sales/etc in a compelling way. Taking a complicated topic or problem and making it clear and simple is a skill in both design and writing.The story of Here & There is a slow, organic one. I started writing a Substack because I thought I had interesting things to say, and I tried really hard not to dumb things down or write one-sided takes. It started small, and I eventually wrote enough things over the last three years that people (like Mike) noticed. And here we are :)

‍