Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
stone
 
Posts: n/a
Default Natural Rivers (or not) - Pine, Upper manistee

Interesting point, but if you want natural rivers go to Alaska, not Michigan
or anywhere in the Midwest. We can not alter our environment to meet the
emotional needs of a few elitists.
"Bill Tuthill" wrote in message
...
In rec.boats.paddle stone wrote:

Walt ) wrote;
A week ago two rivers in the northern lower peninusila of Michigan were
designated as Natural Rivers under the 1970 Michigan Natural Rivers
act. This action protects the scenic quality of the Pine and Upper
Manistee Rivers, preserving their natural character. So far, so good.
Now the legislature is trying to undo that designation and gut the
Natural Rivers act. Not so good. Public hearings are 24 Sept 2003.


There are no natural rivers any more in Michigan. All have been altered

by
man to some degree, logging, navigation, farming, industrial, etc. Why

do we
insist on calling stuff by inappropriate names? Its like claiming we

have
"wilderness" in Michigan. What nonsense!


Wilderness is a state of mind, and can exist in very small patches.

Like beavers and other animals that modify rivers, man (and woman!)
are part of nature. A Wild & Scenic river, or a Natural River, is one
that hasn't (yet) been turned into a reservoir. That's all we want.
There are enough reservoirs already, at least where I live.



  #2   Report Post  
Jim Carter
 
Posts: n/a
Default Natural Rivers (or not) - Pine, Upper manistee


"stone" wrote in message
...
Interesting point, but if you want natural rivers go to Alaska, not

Michigan
or anywhere in the Midwest. We can not alter our environment to meet the
emotional needs of a few elitists.


You need not travel so far. Just cross the border into Canada and drive to
the North Shore of Lake Superior. Lots of very good natural rivers.

Jim Carter
"The Boat"
Bayfield


  #3   Report Post  
rick etter
 
Posts: n/a
Default Natural Rivers (or not) - Pine, Upper manistee


"Jim Carter" wrote in message
le.rogers.com...

"stone" wrote in message
...
Interesting point, but if you want natural rivers go to Alaska, not

Michigan
or anywhere in the Midwest. We can not alter our environment to meet the
emotional needs of a few elitists.


You need not travel so far. Just cross the border into Canada and drive

to
the North Shore of Lake Superior. Lots of very good natural rivers.
=================

And very good paddling too!

Pukashwa, White, Dog, Steel....


rick etter
Canoe North
http://www.bright.net/~retter/




Jim Carter
"The Boat"
Bayfield




  #4   Report Post  
Dave Moorman
 
Posts: n/a
Default Natural Rivers (or not) - Pine, Upper manistee

In article ,
"stone" wrote:

Interesting point, but if you want natural rivers go to Alaska, not Michigan
or anywhere in the Midwest. We can not alter our environment to meet the
emotional needs of a few elitists.


Which elitists would that be?

Dave
  #5   Report Post  
stone
 
Posts: n/a
Default Natural Rivers (or not) - Pine, Upper manistee

The ones that think there is wilderness in the lower 48, that push for
rewriting the National Park general management plans to limit access for the
public unless you are a backpacker, that pushed private boats out of Isle
Royale (America's only "maritime" park) so "wilderness" backpackers could
enjoy themselves without seeing a, heaven forbid "boat", that are working to
add "wilderness" to the Apostle Islands National Lakeshore and Pictured
Rocks National Lakeshore, that denigrate people over animals, I can rattle
on and on, but you miscreants know who you are......that will not allow
logging but instead let our forests become tinder dry only to go up in
flames because they hate timber men, etc...... you know a good rant is good
for the soul.....
"Dave Moorman" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"stone" wrote:

Interesting point, but if you want natural rivers go to Alaska, not

Michigan
or anywhere in the Midwest. We can not alter our environment to meet the
emotional needs of a few elitists.


Which elitists would that be?

Dave





  #6   Report Post  
J.D. Baldwin
 
Posts: n/a
Default Natural Rivers (or not) - Pine, Upper manistee


In the previous article, stone wrote:
The ones that think there is wilderness in the lower 48, that push
for rewriting the National Park general management plans to limit
access for the public unless you are a backpacker, that pushed
private boats out of Isle Royale (America's only "maritime" park)
[...]


Huh? Off the top of my head I can think of Channel Islands (national)
and Hanauma Bay (state) parks.
--
_+_ From the catapult of |If anyone disagrees with any statement I make, I
_|70|___=}- J.D. Baldwin |am quite prepared not only to retract it, but also
\ / |to deny under oath that I ever made it. -T. Lehrer
***~~~~-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  #7   Report Post  
Walt
 
Posts: n/a
Default Natural Rivers (or not) - Pine, Upper manistee

"J.D. Baldwin" wrote:

In the previous article, stone wrote:
The ones that think there is wilderness in the lower 48, that push
for rewriting the National Park general management plans to limit
access for the public unless you are a backpacker, that pushed
private boats out of Isle Royale (America's only "maritime" park)
[...]


Huh? Off the top of my head I can think of Channel Islands (national)
and Hanauma Bay (state) parks.


Stone is full of misinformation. The general management plan did not
push private boats out of Isle Royal. It does attempt to separate the
backpackers/kayakers from the motorboats, so that someone who spent
three days hiking or paddling to a remote campsite doesn't have to put
up with someone docking their cabin cruiser 100' away and running the
generator all night. The plan was approved three or four years ago, and
you can still take your boat to Isle Royale.

And as you correctly point out, Isle Royale is hardly America's only
maritime park.

--
//-Walt
//
//
  #8   Report Post  
Charles Pezeshki
 
Posts: n/a
Default Natural Rivers (or not) - Pine, Upper manistee

Yep, that's right on the money. Folks in the Midwest don't need solitude,
clean water or beauty. They don't need to feel a delicate wind in the
pines, while looking down a ribbon of water. They don't need to see
pintails on the water, or a heron in the rushes.

They have Walmart, stocked full of worthless crap made by slaves in a
far-away land where they don't have to bear witness to the consequences of
their actions. They have Pizza Hut, and McDonalds on every intersection,
and can fatten themselves by the day at an endless fountain of high-fructose
corn syrup-charged pop.

No, you're right-- people in the Midwest don't need wild rivers. They've
already got it all.

Chuck
http://www.wildcountry.info

in article , stone at
wrote on 9/28/03 6:34 AM:

Interesting point, but if you want natural rivers go to Alaska, not Michigan
or anywhere in the Midwest. We can not alter our environment to meet the
emotional needs of a few elitists.


  #9   Report Post  
stone
 
Posts: n/a
Default Natural Rivers (or not) - Pine, Upper manistee

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....

"Charles Pezeshki" wrote in message
...
Yep, that's right on the money. Folks in the Midwest don't need solitude,
clean water or beauty. They don't need to feel a delicate wind in the
pines, while looking down a ribbon of water. They don't need to see
pintails on the water, or a heron in the rushes.

They have Walmart, stocked full of worthless crap made by slaves in a
far-away land where they don't have to bear witness to the consequences of
their actions. They have Pizza Hut, and McDonalds on every intersection,
and can fatten themselves by the day at an endless fountain of

high-fructose
corn syrup-charged pop.

No, you're right-- people in the Midwest don't need wild rivers. They've
already got it all.

Chuck
http://www.wildcountry.info

in article , stone at
wrote on 9/28/03 6:34 AM:

Interesting point, but if you want natural rivers go to Alaska, not

Michigan
or anywhere in the Midwest. We can not alter our environment to meet the
emotional needs of a few elitists.




  #10   Report Post  
Oci-One Kanubi
 
Posts: n/a
Default Natural Rivers (or not) - Pine, Upper manistee

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


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
River Grades - Rafts vs Kayaks ZattleBone General 37 September 19th 03 08:23 AM
Survey - How many rivers/new rivers? Mike McCrea General 1 August 20th 03 02:22 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:10 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 BoatBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Boats"

 

Copyright © 2017