"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.
================================================== ====================

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.
================================================== ====================

"stone" wrote in message
...
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.

No, I don't want a manufactured experience. I want to hike or
canoe in the outdoors. In my home state.

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 want economic development, move to Denver.

Much of the "development" in rural areas has been one-shot based on
non-renewable resources. The area gets logged or mined, the business
takes its money and moves on, leaving behind a scarred landscape.

Besides, tourism is one of the biggest industries in Michigan. People
come here because of the outdoor character. Improving it makes for
a better tourist destination. Sustainable economic development.

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....

Don't pretend to speak for all Michiganders.

nuff said....

Hardly.

"stone" typed:

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.

Man, I am sooooo tired of listening to you elitists telling me that if
I cannot afford to go to Alaska I must do without, or accept a
mass-market commercial imitation.

You can't bring it back....areas logged over three times
ain't wilderness......and will not ever be so again.....

Actually, that's patently false. All depends upon the time-scale you
apply. But I repeat: absolute, pristine wilderness is not necessary
to fulfill the spiritual/emotional needs of most Americans (look at
Europeans, who have "recreating" themselves by shelter-hiking the
Alps, for centuries). An undeveloped, un-clearcut wood, with some
renmaining natural fauna, is quite enriching for many people, even if
there are blazed trails and -- omigosh -- huts and footbridges along
the way. And even if it was a clear-cut site or a strip-mine several
decades earlier.

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."

No, I don't think I want to tell you that, unconditionally. But I
would certainly support regulation of the forms of development that
you would be allowed to choose. This is a fairly well-established
principle, where, for example, zoning boards across the country will
not allow businesses to be established in the middle of a residential
neighborhood, or industry to be established in a commercial
neighborhood. It's just a matter of scale, and on a large scale, the
United States is my neighborhood and I don't care to see destructive
industries in that neighborhood -- even if it's yer backyard being
trashed, not mine.

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....

Sorry, mister, but yer Michigan is part of my United States, and I am
interested in keeping my United States a beautiful place to live. If
despoilation is how you want to live yer life, I'll tell you yer
wrong, and I'll vote for Federal regulations to force you to change.
And if yer state legislature allows you to trash yer state, then yer
state won't get any of my tourist dollars.

nuff said....

Yer not kidding. Too much said, with not enough thought.


-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.
================================================== ====================

stone wrote:

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.....


Just because it's not perfect or pristine anymore is no excuse for
letting it go completely to hell. The idea is to preserve what's left.
If you want a river that's so polluted that it catches on fire, go to
Cleveland.

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 don't own the river. Nobody owns the river. Stop acting like you
have some sort of claim on it that you don't.

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....

Ok, I'll stick my nose in then: We should conserve the rivers as a
public resource. How's that?

--
//-Walt
//
//

"stone" typed:

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....

Disregard my last, Stone. Everything I typed in my last is true, and
I stand behind it, but the fact is, it is almost possible to reconcile
two contrary abstractions. Reconciliation has to come about in the
realm of concrete reality.

If I were standing with you on yer property in Michigan and you
described the development you had in mind, I would probaly say "oh, is
THAT what you mean? Yeh, that makes sense". And if you and I were
standing together looking at some clearcut stand of US National
Forest, where the timber had been harvested for a token payment and
then shipped off to Japan and the river was running brown with runoff,
you would probably agree with me that SOME kind of regulation was
required.

So, I'm sorry that my last started to verge on hostile, and used
terminology that probably riled you when you read it. Unfortuately,
my abstraction really cannot kick yer abstraction's ass. That's the
way abstractions are.


-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.
================================================== ====================

In rec.boats.paddle stone wrote:

The point of all this is that the wilderness in the lower 48 is gone...
long gone.

Doesn't northern Michigan (the peninsula) still have wilderness?

There are many wilderness areas left in California, some of them
officially designated, some not. Areas in the N California mountains,
outside the Sierra, generally have less airplane traffic overhead.

Bill Tuthill wrote:
In rec.boats.paddle stone wrote:

The point of all this is that the wilderness in the lower 48 is gone...
long gone.

Doesn't northern Michigan (the peninsula) still have wilderness?

Depends on how you define "wilderness". Except for a few hard to log
areas (i.e. The Porcupine Mountains) the state of Michigan was logged
clean in the last half of the 19th century. Nearly every tree was cut
down in massive clearcuts, so there are very few stands of "natural" old
growth forest (i.e. forest as it would exist in the absence of logging),
or any trees older than about 100 years.

Prior to that, there's a growing body of evidence that the North
American landscape was shaped by fires intentionally set by native
Americans, so the idea that Europeans discovered north America in some
sort of pristine condition unaffected by man is mostly a romantic
fantasy. Of course, that doesn't give us an excuse to simply trash the
place.

To a city boy, parts of the UP sure *look* like wilderness. There are
wolves and bears and elk and moose and coyotes and probably cougars
(even though the DNR won't admit it). No wolverines, though, and you
have to bring the Vernors from town.

The two rivers in question are in the lower peninsula. No, it's not
pristine wilderness, but it's mostly undeveloped. Protection under the
natural rivers act would help keep them that way.

--
//-Walt
//
//

Bill Tuthill wrote:
In rec.boats.paddle stone wrote:

The point of all this is that the wilderness in the lower 48 is gone...
long gone.

Doesn't northern Michigan (the peninsula) still have wilderness?

Depends on how you define "wilderness". Except for a few hard to log
areas (i.e. The Porcupine Mountains) the state of Michigan was logged
clean in the last half of the 19th century. Nearly every tree was cut
down in massive clearcuts, so there are very few stands of "natural" old
growth forest (i.e. forest as it would exist in the absence of logging),
almost no trees older than about 100 years.

Prior to that, there's a growing body of evidence that the North
American landscape was shaped by fires intentionally set by native
Americans, so the idea that Europeans discovered north America in some
sort of pristine condition unaffected by man is mostly a romantic
fantasy. Of course, that doesn't give us an excuse to simply trash the
place.

To a city boy, parts of the UP sure *look* like wilderness. There are
wolves and bears and elk and moose and coyotes and probably cougars
(even though the DNR won't admit it). No wolverines, though, and you
have to bring the Vernors from town.

The two rivers in question are in the lower peninsula. No, it's not
pristine wilderness, but it's mostly undeveloped. Protection under the
natural rivers act would help keep them that way.

--
//-Walt
//
//

Walt wrote:
[snip]
Just because it's not perfect or pristine anymore is no excuse for
letting it go completely to hell. The idea is to preserve what's left.
If you want a river that's so polluted that it catches on fire, go to
Cleveland.

I've never been much of a fan of Ohio in general or Cleveland in
particular (though I did have some fine ol' times years ago in the late
70's when I used to play the Hannah Theatre there) - but - IIRC,
Cleveland should not be used as an example of how to catch a river on
fire, but, rather how to salvage a river from such a condition.


--
John Gann /) 83°52'49"W
(865)924-4203 O_/ 35°57'25"N
_____(\/_____
~~~~~~~~~~`~-~~-/-~~-'~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~ / ~~~~ ~~~~ ~