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.

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

(Oci-One Kanubi) writes:

"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.

Not sure it's elitist, but it is a rather strict definition of
"wilderness". Who's humpty-dumptying the definition? It doesn't
really matter -- just be aware that in this conversation, there are
at least two widely divergent definitions of "wilderness" being
used.

--
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::
Mary Malmros
Some days you're the windshield,
Other days you're the bug.

Good points made by all and certainly good discussion!

My argument is that true wilderness, somewhere without the footprint of man,
essentially does not exist in the lower 48.....I am sure there are some
exceptions but they are rare and out in the north west. No amount of
bitching and moaning or legislation will ever restore it.

If you want a true wilderness experience therefore it is not going to happen
in the lower 48.

If you want to wander around in the woods and stumble across a transplanted
moose or two, or even see a native wolf or bear, it is very possible and in
the UP at least, fairly easy to do so. We regularly have moose and bear in
town (3 times a year +/-) plus damn deer all over the place....I live on the
edge of town but not on the extreme edge and they are in the yard every
day.... There are places the damn four wheelers and dirt bikers do not get
to and driving your kayak on the Superior coast isn't wilderness but to a
degree it does approach it....depending on where you are.

But there are those jets....we are on a air route and seeing the contrails
from high flying jets is common.....and from a purist sense, that certainly
destroys a "wilderness" experience.......

Keeping selected areas pure (relatively) and free of development is
important. We don't need concrete everywhere but so is a sustainable
economic base which means jobs etc...so it all comes to a balance......

We have an interesting problem brewing in Marquette County. The Kennecott
Copper Co. is exploring the potential for a nickel mine in the county on the
Yellow Dog Plains. Remember this is exploring only, to determine if the
deposits are sufficient in size etc, costs of development etc...No permit
applications have been made to the state. No EIS started, just a real early
exploration. Already the extreme environmentalists are organizing to oppose
the company! They held one meeting to fire up the public to the danger and
refused to have a Kennecut representative there! I do not know whether the
mine is a good idea or not. We do have a long history of iron and gold
mining and the operators have by and large, been excellent corporate
citizens plus providing a stable economic base. But I will not make up my
mind without additional data. The extreme environmentalists however do not
need information....just the very idea of development is evil to them. And
that is where the danger lies. When they take extreme positions like that it
really poisons the well as to dialog and understanding. We will see how it
all plays out.


The Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore is also going thru a fight. The park
wants to designate more wilderness areas and the local people do not,
feeling they have enough already. It is so bad the City of Munising (gateway
to the park) and Alger County officially passed resolutions against the
park. I have never heard of such strong hostility by local government to the
NPS.
I suspect the park is being pushed (lead?) into the wilderness fight by the
strong lobbying effort of the environmental extremists from downstate and
elsewhere, at least that is what I am hearing from the locals.

Lots of issues here but taking extreme positions is never the answer.....


"Mary Malmros" wrote in message
...
(Oci-One Kanubi) writes:

"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.

Not sure it's elitist, but it is a rather strict definition of
"wilderness". Who's humpty-dumptying the definition? It doesn't
really matter -- just be aware that in this conversation, there are
at least two widely divergent definitions of "wilderness" being
used.

--
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::
Mary Malmros
Some days you're the windshield,
Other days you're the bug.

In article ,
"stone" wrote:

The extreme environmentalists however do not
need information....just the very idea of development is evil to them. And
that is where the danger lies. When they take extreme positions like that it
really poisons the well as to dialog and understanding. We will see how it
all plays out.

You're taking a reasonable position, Stone, and that's commendable.
I've had the feeling lately that the country as a whole is getting more
polarized, and wonder if that's because we seldom actually sit and talk
to people we disagree with.

Dave

In article ,
"stone" wrote:

The Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore is also going thru a fight. The park
wants to designate more wilderness areas and the local people do not,
feeling they have enough already. It is so bad the City of Munising (gateway
to the park) and Alger County officially passed resolutions against the
park. I have never heard of such strong hostility by local government to the
NPS.
I suspect the park is being pushed (lead?) into the wilderness fight by the
strong lobbying effort of the environmental extremists from downstate and
elsewhere, at least that is what I am hearing from the locals.

Lots of issues here but taking extreme positions is never the answer.....

Haven't been to PRNL for several years but used to camp there (Hurricane
River) when the kids were small. It is a beautiful area. Twelve Mile
Beach is extraordinary. I would hate to see it developed or overrun.

Dave

"stone" writes:

Good points made by all and certainly good discussion!

My argument is that true wilderness, somewhere without the footprint of man,
essentially does not exist in the lower 48.....I am sure there are some
exceptions but they are rare and out in the north west. No amount of
bitching and moaning or legislation will ever restore it.

If you want a true wilderness experience therefore it is not going to happen
in the lower 48.

If you define "true wilderness" as "somewhere without the footprint
of man", the only way that anyone can have a "true wilderness
experience" is by destroying the wilderness.

Or maybe you could just cut off your feet before you go there...or
only women could go...any other suggestions?

--
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::
Mary Malmros
Some days you're the windshield,
Other days you're the bug.