Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#11
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
"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. ================================================== ==================== |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
River Grades - Rafts vs Kayaks | General | |||
Survey - How many rivers/new rivers? | General |