Seems like fairly reasonable attitudes on both sides of the issue, here. I don't see anybody taking things to either extreme - which is good. Like dweste says, it is an ages old debate and a proper balance is probably the most important thing.

I do have somewhat of an objection to the "leave no trace" concept. I'm definitely opposed to anyone trashing the place. But I have come to the realization that simple traces of human habitation or presence is not a blemish on the face of the wilderness. I now see traces of human activity as an integral part of nature. Mankind has always inhabited the face of the earth and left his mark upon it. Finding traces of an old campsite is just as much a natural occurrence as is finding an old fox den, an elk wallow, or trees cut down by a beaver. Actually, finding traces of old human habitation can be one of the most fascinating parts of exploring the wild places - things like finding arrowheads, indian signal trees, cave drawings, or thousand year old portage paths. Now obviously, as I stated above, there is a need for balance in all things. I wouldn't use this argument as an excuse for people to leave garbage lay around, carve their initial in every other beech tree, or in any other way be sloppy their caretaking of the creation. My only point is just that evidence of human presence and traces of responsible human use of our natural resources shouldn't automatically be considered a blemish on the environment. Mankind is an integral part of nature, not just an outside observer. Actually, an ecosystem without any trace of man would be most UNnatural.

Very good discussion amongst all, I think.