The point of all this is that the wilderness in the lower 48 is gone....long
gone. If you want a "wilderness experience" go to Alaska or get Disney to
make you for you. You can't bring it back....areas logged over three times
ain't wilderness......and will not ever be so again.....and don't dare to
tell me that because I live in a relatively "undeveloped" area I have to
stop my ecomonic developement so you can wander around in the "woods."

You evidently live in NC....which is a wonderful state with many great
places....but don't stick your nose in our Michigan and tell us how to live
our lives....

nuff said....


"Oci-One Kanubi" wrote in message
om...
"stone" typed:

Wow, you are as bitter and rabid about "wilderness" and "wild rivers" as
I
am...just on the other side of the stream!

But on a more conciliatory tone, if they want wild things, they need to
go
where they are not try to "restore virginity" here....

Yeh, but...

If everyone who wants a wilderness goes to the same relatively small
area where true wilderness exists, there will be so many people that
the true wilderness will CEASE to exist there.

How much better to try and restore enough lands in the lower 48 to
enough of a semblance of "wilderness" to meet the needs of
outdoorspeople, so that the resources will not exceed their carrying
capacities and cease to resemble "wilderness"?

If people want more Chevys, GM makes more Chevys. So, if people want
more wilderness -- or, at least, something like "wilderness" -- why
should we not make more "wilderness"?

Some heal their souls by walking in urban parks.
Some heal their souls by driving in farm country.
Some heal their souls by hiking in crowded National Parks.
Some heal their souls by backpacking in "restore[d] [non-]virgin"
woodlands.

Would you argue against the creation of enough urban parks to fulfill
the demand? Would you argue against the creation of more National
Parks, to reduce crowding and enhance the experience of visiting? If
some people can fill their need for [perceived] wilderness by spending
time in restored non-virgin woodlands, why would you deny them that?

If restoring non-virgin woodlands to some semblance of wilderness is
the best we can do with what we have left, why would you resist the
attempt to do the best we can?

Is there anything more elitist than to say that only those with the
time and money to go to Alaska should be permitted to enjoy primitive
camping in what appears to be a natural environment?

You set up a false dichotomy when you say environmentalists are
against people, in favor of animals. Jeez, we can have BOTH! You set
up a REALLY false dichotomy when you say environmentalists hate
loggers. The timber companies have put more loggers out of work, with
"productivity gains" from ever more-destructive mechanized logging,
than environmental and conservation movements ever have (not to
mention putting all the millworkers out of work by shipping the
milling overseas). These false dichotomys have you fighting people
who really want the same thing you want: a beautiful United States to
live in.


-Richard, His Kanubic Travesty
--
================================================== ====================
Richard Hopley, Winston-Salem, NC, USA
rhopley[at]earthlink[dot]net 1-301-775-0471
Nothing really matters except Boats, Sex, and Rock'n'Roll.
rhopley[at]wfubmc[dot]edu 1-336-713-5077
OK, OK; computer programming for scientific research also matters.
================================================== ====================