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
//
//