In the March 2009 issue of this journal, we published an essay entitled ‘BeyondLeave No Trace’ (Simon & Alagona, 2009). Our paper investigated the developmentof Leave No Trace (LNT) in the United States, explored the historical andgeographical assumptions that underpin LNT as an environmental ethic, describedits strengths and accomplishments, explained its logical and normative weaknesses,and identified opportunities to expand this already successful approach beyond itsartificial and self-imposed limitations. We were not the first authors to explore thehistory of LNT (Turner, 2002), and we joined a growing chorus of researchers whohave called for a more effective integration of critical humanistic scholarship intoland management and environmental education (Cachelin, Rose, Dustin, & Shooter,2011; Havlick, 2006; Lockhart, 2006).Yet our essay touched a nerve. It became the subject of a vigorous debate amongthe staff and sponsors of the Leave No Trace Center for Outdoor Education(LNTCOE), the leading non-governmental organization that promotes LNTprograms, practices, and principles. It generated a controversy at LNTCOE’sannual board meeting (Personal communication with LNT staff). And it elicited acritical response paper, entitled ‘Revisiting ‘‘Beyond Leave No Trace’’’ (Marion,Lawhon, Vagias, & Newman, 2011).Our objectives in the current essay are threefold. In the first section, we addresscritiques from the Marion et al. (2010) response paper. In the second section, werearticulate the argument from our original paper, including the major shortcomings