No-impact tips
Sarah Rutherford
spread the word about Leave No Trace and no-impact backpacking and
would like any tips on how to prepare for a no-impact backpacking
trip.
Thanks
Sarah
penny s
"Sarah Rutherford" <sbru...@indiana.edu> wrote in message
news:81d5ee25.0202...@posting.google.com...
tom phillips, call on line one
or you could try
www.lnt.org ( I think)
penny
Perry Noid
> how to prepare for a no-impact backpacking trip.
plan on not going there ;o)
Pete Hickey
Sarah Rutherford <sbru...@indiana.edu> wrote:
>I am a beginner backpacker and a magazine reporter. I am trying to
>spread the word about Leave No Trace and no-impact backpacking and
Just a note about spreading the word...
"Don't preach"
--
Pete Hickey Pe...@mudhead.uottawa.CA
DISCLAIMER: I am not responsible for spelling errors. My computer is plugged
into the same circuit as my washing machine, and every time the machine
switches cycles, noise is generated, and the words get spelled wrong.
Michael Martin
ground and off your other gear.
*next*
Sarah Rutherford <sbru...@indiana.edu> wrote in message
news:81d5ee25.0202...@posting.google.com...
Jerry L. Golden
trace that you've been there no matter where you go & what you do, and
change "no-impact" to
"as-low-as-practical-and-still-be-able-to-do-it-impact".
Else, as was suggested, wait for TP's answer.
---
JLG
dh
A typical 5 day trip (pretty short, to be sure) generates
a sandwich-sized zip lock of trash, and that zip lock had
to carry soething in...
BTW, zip locks make good liners for the sand/rock carrying
bag used to get the rope over the 35' high branch. Eases
wear and tear on the mini stuff sack...
Dan
"Michael Martin" <spa...@engineer.com> wrote in message
news:u64vmgh...@corp.supernews.com...
dh
than when you arrived.
Rule 2: Don't go changing the camp site drastically.
Rule 3: Choose an existing camp site, where practical.
Rule 4: When a camp site has an excess of soot on the
ground, destroy the fire ring (unless an "official" ranger-
approved camp site).
Rule 4b: Destroy all fire rings (exc., see 4)
Rule 5: Stay on the trail for main hike.
Rule 5b: In areas with use above the carrying capacity, stay
mainly on the trail, to limit damage area. In areas with use below the
carrying
capacity (ability of the area to recover from typical use in one
season), spread out to distribute damage.
Rule 6: Carry out everything you are comfortable with transporting.
Rule 6b: Become comfortable transporting used TP.
Just a start.
Dan
"Sarah Rutherford" <sbru...@indiana.edu> wrote in message
news:81d5ee25.0202...@posting.google.com...
penny s
"Jerry L. Golden" <jlgo...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:6b1b153e.02020...@posting.google.com...
short version... take out more than your bring in. learn how to wash, pee
and poop properly in the woods. ( see book, how to shit in the woods) Learn
about making a minimin impact camp, how to use a camp stove and educate
yourself about appropriate and inapropriate uses of fire and fire rings.
Understand the concept of "microtrash". Learn why horse packers and large
groups of hikers trash the backcountry.
that's for starters...
penny
Ed Huesers
> > I am trying to spread the word about Leave No Trace and no-impact
> > backpacking and would like any tips
penny s wrote:
> tom phillips, call on line one
Ya think...
> or you could try http://www.lnt.org ( I think)
Yep, that's it...
Here's a page about cat holes from that web site:
http://www.lnt.org/TeachingLNT/background/dispose.htm
It looks pretty good but they don't say anything about winter
disposal of human waste.
I've heard of people doing their duty next to a tree in winter and
when the spring/summer hikers come along... it looks like a TP tree
ready to harvest.
Here's the text from that page:
-------------------------------------
Minimize Human Impacts
Human Waste: Proper disposal of human waste is important to avoid
pollution of water sources, avoid the negative implications of someone
else finding it, minimize the possibility of spreading disease, and
maximize the rate of decomposition.
In most locations, burying human feces in the correct manner is the most
effective method to meet these criteria. Solid human waste must be
packed out from some places, such as narrow river canyons. Land
management agencies can advise you of specific rules for the area you
plan to visit.
Contrary to popular opinion, research indicates that burial of feces
actually slows decomposition (at least in the Rocky Mountains).
Pathogens have been discovered to survive for a year or more when
buried. However, in light of the other problems associated with feces,
it is still generally best to bury it. The slow decomposition rate
causes the need to choose the correct location, far from water,
campsites, and other frequently used places.
Catholes: Catholes are the most widely accepted method of waste
disposal.
Locate catholes at least 200 feet (about 70 adult steps) from water,
trails and camp. Select an inconspicuous site where other people will be
unlikely to walk or camp. With a small garden trowel, dig a hole 6-8
inches deep and 4-6 inches in diameter. The cathole should be covered
and disguised with natural materials when finished. If camping in the
area for more than one night, or if camping with a large group, cathole
sites should be widely dispersed.
Perhaps the most widely accepted method of backcountry human waste
disposal is the cathole.
The advantages are:
1.they are easy to dig in most areas.
2.they are easy to disguise after use.
3.they are private.
4.they disperse the waste rather than concentrate it (which enhances
decomposition).
5.it is usually easy to select an out of the way location where you
can be certain no one is going to casually encounter the cathole.
Selecting a Cathole Site:
1.Select a cathole site far from water sources, 200 feet
(approximately 70 adult paces) is the recommended range.
2.Select an inconspicuous site untraveled by people. Examples of
cathole sites include thick undergrowth, near downed timber, or on
gentle hillsides.
3.If camping with a group or if camping in the same place for more
than one night, disperse the catholes over a wide area; don t go to the
same place twice.
4.Try to find a site with deep organic soil. This organic ma al
contains organisms which will help de pose the feces. (Organic soil is
usually dark and rich in color.) Refer to the jars used to demonstrate
decomposition. The desert does not have as much organic soil as a
forested area.
(See number 2 under Digging a Cathole below.)
5.If possible, locate your cathole where it will receive maximum
sunlight. The heat from the sun will aid decomposition.
6.Choose an elevated site where water would not normally during runoff
or rain storms. The idea here is to keep the feces out of water. Over
time, the decomposing feces will percolate into the soil before reaching
water sources.
Digging a Cathole:
1.A small garden trowel is the perfect tool for digging a cathole.
2.Dig the hole 6-8 inches deep (about the length of the trowel blade)
and 4-6 inches in diameter.
In a hot desert, human waste does not biodegrade easily because
there is little organic soil to help break it down. In the desert, the
cathole should be only 4-6 inches deep. This will allow the heat and sun
to hasten the decay process.
3.When finished, the cathole should be filled with the original dirt
and disguised with native materials.
Catholes in Arid Lands:
A cathole is the most widely accepted means of waste disposal in arid
lands. Locate catholes at least 200 feet (about 70 adult steps) from
water, trails, and camp. Avoid areas where water visibly flows, such as
sandy washes, even if they are dry at the moment.
Select a site that will maximize exposure to the sun in order to aid
decomposition. Because the sun s heat will penetrate desert soils
several inches, it can eventually kill pathogens if the feces are buried
properly.
South-facing slopes and ridge tops will have more exposure to sun and
heat than other areas.
Latrines:
Though catholes are recommended for most situations, there are times
when latrines may be more applicable, such as when camping with young
children or if staying in one camp for longer than a few nights. Use
similar criteria for selecting a latrine location as those used to
locate a cathole.
Since this higher concentration of feces will decompose very slowly,
location is especially important. A good way to speed decomposition and
diminish odors is to toss in a handful of soil after each use. Ask your
land manager about latrine-building techniques.
Toilet Paper:
Use toilet paper sparingly and use only plain, white, non-perfumed
brands.
Toilet paper must be disposed of properly! It should either be
thoroughly buried in a cathole or placed in plastic bags and packed out.
Natural toilet paper has been used by many campers for years. When done
correctly, this method is as sanitary as regular toilet paper, but
without the impact problems.
Popular types of natural toilet paper include stones, vegetation and
snow.
Obviously, some experimentation is necessary to make this practice work
for you, but it is worth a try! Burning toilet paper in a cathole is not
generally recommended.
Toilet Paper in Arid Lands:
Placing toilet paper in plastic bags and packing it out as trash is the
best way to Leave No Trace in a desert environment. Toilet paper should
not be burned. This practice can result in wild fires.
Tampons:
Proper disposal of tampons requires that they be placed in plastic bags
and packed out.
Do not bury them because they don t decompose readily and animals may
dig them up. It will take a very hot, intense fire to burn them
completely.
Urine:
Urine has little direct effect on vegetation or soil. In some instances
urine may draw wildlife which are attracted to the salts. They can
defoliate plants and dig up soil. Urinating on rocks, pine needles, and
gravel is less likely to attract wildlife. Diluting urine with water
from a water bottle can help minimize negative effects.
Special Considerations for River Canyons:
River canyons often present unique Leave No Trace problems. The most
common practice is to urinate directly in the river and pack out feces
in sealed boxes for later disposal. Check with your land manager for
details about specific areas.
-----------------------------
Ed Huesers
http://www.grandshelters.com
penny s
"Ed Huesers" <e...@grandshelters.com> wrote in message > Yep, that's it...
> Here's a page about cat holes from that web site:
> http://www.lnt.org/TeachingLNT/background/dispose.htm
> It looks pretty good but they don't say anything about winter
> disposal of human waste.
> Selecting a Cathole Site:
left out this important criteria:
must have a view.
> Special Considerations for River Canyons:
> River canyons often present unique Leave No Trace problems. The most
> common practice is to urinate directly in the river and pack out feces
> in sealed boxes for later disposal. Check with your land manager for
> details about specific areas.
There are several reasons why you pee in the river or at the water line.
- most river camps are concentrated and highly used.Peeing in the river
keeps odor etc to a minimum.
-urine is diluted in the river water
-many (not all) rivers are in arid area, and if you pee on the ground above
the water line it stays right there until the next rainy season.
-it's fun to watch the drunks stand on the edge of their boats and not fall
in.
for the same reasons, this is why all feces is packed out on rivers. If you
have 16-25 people using a camp, every single day for a full season (
multiply by the turd factor) and you can easily why even with most people
hiking off "far enough" away for their own personal cathole, a camp can
easily become degraded. Witness the camps on the Grande Ronde where packing
out waste is not required. Pee-yeeuw. Self supporting kayakkers are even
required to pack it out.... they usually just take Tupperware.
Funny tale. Right after 9/11 some friends were coming back from a river trip
in Canada. Naturally, *everything* was being searched. My buddies were told
to sit still and not say a word while their vehicle and boating trailer was
being searched. So when the guy got to the rocket box, appropriately
labeled with a "shit happens" bumper sticker (hee-hee) it was all my friends
could do to NOT say something. Mind, the groover had been dumped and washed
out, but the smell never, ever, goes away. And neither does that little
"whoosh" of methane buildup. Needless to say, they were waved on through
immediately and the guy ran off holding his nose.
penny
Donald Newcomb
> Rule 1: Leave the camp site and visited areas with less litter
> than when you arrived.
A good way to accomplish this is to take a solid-fuel stove such as a
Zip-ztove or Markil Wilderness Stove. These allow you to burn up the
charcoal that others leave in those nasty fire rings. Also, bits of
damp paper, etc that you find all over camp sites.
> Rule 3: Choose an existing camp site, where practical.
Perhaps. In true wilderness areas you should not reuse campsites but
try to spread the impact around. In any case, I think the first rule
is to never build a fire on the ground, except perhaps below the high
tide line.
Another way to mimimize your impact is to sleep in a hammock. You
won't have to clear off a spot for your tent and you don't pack down
the grass. Good hammocks have wide straps to prevent damaging the
trees' bark.
Donald Newcomb
DRNewcomb (at) attglobal (dot) net
Ruger9
Oh, man! I would have PAID GOOD MONEY to see that! Sounds like
something out of a cheesy high school movie!
Ruger9
>
>penny
>
>
Ed Huesers
> >I am a beginner backpacker and a magazine reporter. I am trying to
> >spread the word about Leave No Trace and no-impact backpacking
Pete Hickey wrote:
> Just a note about spreading the word...
> "Don't preach"
"Are you ready to do all this while *Igloo Ed* laughs at these demons
and tells them to bring it on."
Pete earlier wrote:
> Next you'll be wanting me to drink the orange kool-aid!
Ed Huesers
Esreverni
I found that staying home is the only way.
Jerry L. Golden
<pennys...@cet.com.invalid> Wrote:
>
>short version... take out more than your bring in.
>
for cripes sake, that doesn't mean 'improving' it as a site!)
I've developed a rigid routine whenever I depart somewhere we've
stayed for any appreciable amount of time: walk slowly around anywhere
where we might have been [zig-zag like a dog searching for where he
might have buried a bone], constantly scanning the ground & the
trees/brush. Anything that catches my eye gets picked up. Amazing how
much junk I've found - even other peoples 'useful' junk like knives,
compasses, flashlights, utensils, etc - even jewelry & money.
I do this not only for ethical reasons, but because every piece of
gear I carry has a reason, and sometimes it's a royal PITA to
backtrack 10-15 miles because someone forgot something.
The 'final survey' usually takes me around 10 min. if we've been
there overnight, and the site is usually spotless (as far as my eyes
can see).
> learn how to wash, pee and poop properly in the woods.
> ( see book, how to shit in the woods)
>
And most of this stuff is found when *you're* looking for a spot to do
the same thing :-)
But anyway, it does get a bit offensive when you take a small
'side-path' and find that it ends up in a minefield of turds decorated
with TP.
> Learn about making a minimin impact camp, how to use a camp stove
> and educate yourself about appropriate and inapropriate uses of fire
> and fire rings.
>
75% of campfires seem to be a useless waste of time & energy, but
people seem to like them. I even like them at times, but they're
really a lower priority in the overall scheme of things. Cooking is
really easier over a stove, warmth in bad weather is better inside the
tent, and fires are rather lousy for drying things - use the tent, or
wait for the sun. And in good weather it's another layer of clothing
and the flashlight; save your night-vision for the moon and stars -
you really needn't focus on a central fire: watch what's around you,
smell, listen - be part of something other than a 10 ft. circle of
light.
Ahh, but sometimes the fire - and we - die down when someone notices
that it's getting brighter to the east.
>Understand the concept of "microtrash".
>
Lots of little pieces of trash becomes one big ugly.
Somewhere along the way there is a threshold that people have that
says "why not: it wouldn't really matter" and "No: I really shouldn't
be responsible for causing it". Most people have a realistic threshold
and will reciprocate the respect that's already been shown - but,
alas, there's always the jerks.
> Learn why horse packers and large groups of hikers trash the
> backcountry.
>
Horses are for the idle, lazy, rich that are apparently unconcerned
about who follows them on the trail. Sorry, but I have miles & miles
of horse & hiking trails behind my house; after 19 years I've gotten a
very poor impression of what groups of horses do to the trails along
with the attitudes of the creatures perched on their backs.
Hiking group sizes should be limited to around 6-8 for practical
reasons if anything else.
>that's for starters...
>
Yup.
---
JLG
tmc
>tom phillips, call on line one
>
This is what kills me. After all that debate Tom had going regarding
LNT, he didn't even once step in to steer this writer to the
appropriate place or slam down his views on it. What a troll indeed.
Perhaps he finally left to flee into the Winds. BUHAHAHAHAHA!
tmc
penny s
"Ruger9" <rug...@bigmailbox.net> wrote in message
news:3c630da...@news.mindspring.com...
> On Thu, 7 Feb 2002 10:13:25 -0800, "penny s"
trip
> >in Canada. Naturally, *everything* was being searched. My buddies were
told
> >to sit still and not say a word while their vehicle and boating trailer
was
> >being searched. So when the guy got to the rocket box, appropriately
> >labeled with a "shit happens" bumper sticker (hee-hee) it was all my
friends
> >could do to NOT say something. Mind, the groover had been dumped and
washed
> >out, but the smell never, ever, goes away. And neither does that little
> >"whoosh" of methane buildup. Needless to say, they were waved on through
> >immediately and the guy ran off holding his nose.
>
> Oh, man! I would have PAID GOOD MONEY to see that! Sounds like
> something out of a cheesy high school movie!
we were all blowing beer out our noses when the actual parties involved told
the tale. You have to understand, once a ammo can gets turned into a
groover, nothing will take the stink out, it's permanent. Should know, we
have one out in the garage. Clean of course, but you'd never know from the
smell of it.
p.
penny s
obnoxious to prove myself either. Hmmm.
(read on)
"Jerry L. Golden" <jlgo...@earthlink.net> wrote in message Amazing how
> much junk I've found - even other peoples 'useful' junk like knives,
> compasses, flashlights, utensils, etc - even jewelry & money.
windpants, knives, goretex jackets...
>
> > Learn about making a minimin impact camp, how to use a camp stove
> > and educate yourself about appropriate and inapropriate uses of fire
> > and fire rings.
> >
> 75% of campfires seem to be a useless waste of time & energy, but
> people seem to like them. I even like them at times, but they're
> really a lower priority in the overall scheme of things.
It's amazing how many stars you can see with no fire.
Cooking is
> really easier over a stove, warmth in bad weather is better inside the
> tent, and fires are rather lousy for drying things - use the tent, or
> wait for the sun. And in good weather it's another layer of clothing
> and the flashlight; save your night-vision for the moon and stars -
yes, it's not hard to see once your eyes adjust. Is the only reason you
take a flashlight when you have to pee is so that you don't hit your feet?
Kids and flashlights together ought to be outlawed (remember that for the
panel)
>
> >Understand the concept of "microtrash".
> >
> Lots of little pieces of trash becomes one big ugly.
> Somewhere along the way there is a threshold that people have that
> says "why not: it wouldn't really matter" and "No: I really shouldn't
> be responsible for causing it". Most people have a realistic threshold
> and will reciprocate the respect that's already been shown - but,
> alas, there's always the jerks.
kids: train them early to go around the camp with a baggie: match sticks,
tiny peices of foil, rubber bands, old dental floss...
Camping on permitted rivers has really brought the pack it in pack it out
concept to the forefront. It should be that the only evidence that someone
was there the night before you is foot prints in the sand.
We take firepans on rivers and even pack out ash.
>
> > Learn why horse packers and large groups of hikers trash the
> > backcountry.
> >
> Horses are for the idle, lazy, rich that are apparently unconcerned
> about who follows them on the trail. Sorry, but I have miles & miles
> of horse & hiking trails behind my house; after 19 years I've gotten a
> very poor impression of what groups of horses do to the trails along
> with the attitudes of the creatures perched on their backs.
> Hiking group sizes should be limited to around 6-8 for practical
> reasons if anything else.
>
Here's one for you: why on river corridors like the Idaho Salmon, are
boaters required to pack out shit, but horse packers using the very same
corridor, concentrated on the same two riverbanks, do not have to pack out
human or horse shit? Same thing on the lower salmon... rafters are required
to pack it out, but any asshole jetboater can come up the river (to a point)
and take a crap behind a rock.
I smell lobbyists.
penny
Brian Sniatkowski
impact .Some ideas:
1. Stay on marked trails
2. Camp in designated areas
3. If no number 2 available, find a spot with minimal vegetation.
4. Don't build a fire
5. If you do build a fire, use an existing fire pit
6. If you must have a fire and no existing pit is available,
keep your fire small, and when done, be sure its out and
scatter the rocks from the fire ring when you're done.
7. Limit the size of your group.
8. Limit your stay at the site.
9. Vary your route to the "lavatory" and water source.
10. When leaving, make sure the site looks like nobody
was there.
I'm sure others can add to this.
Jerry L. Golden
it was or whether it turned out to be a success or failure?
I also wonder if he'll return (he was kinda fun in a way), or if he's
dismissed us all as a bunch of ignorant heathen - or in your & my
case: planet destroyers - and just called it quits.
Stay tuned for 'The return of Tom'; back with a vengeance & with more
credentials than ever before.
---
JLG
John Paul Minda
"Jerry L. Golden" <jlgo...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> Or perhaps he's completed his 'Mission' here. I wonder what he thought
> it was or whether it turned out to be a success or failure?
> I also wonder if he'll return (he was kinda fun in a way), or if he's
> dismissed us all as a bunch of ignorant heathen - or in your & my
> case: planet destroyers - and just called it quits.
> Stay tuned for 'The return of Tom'; back with a vengeance & with more
> credentials than ever before.
Or, you were right Jerry. He was a "rapid-burn" guy.
Jerry L. Golden
> Jerry I am so happy to be right! and I didn't have to flame anyway or get
> obnoxious to prove myself either. Hmmm.
>
anyone's here approval to be 'right'. But I do think that you've
struck a pretty good balance between being 'right' & being 'alright'
in my opinion.
When I expound on another's comments I'm in no way saying that they're
right or wrong; only using it as an opportunity to contribute my own
unique perspective. 'Right' depends on circumstances to a large degree
and trying to impose 'one-size-fits-all' solutions onto others is
usually rather ridiculous.
> (read on)
>...
> It's amazing how many stars you can see with no fire.
>
And satellites, meteors, planets, auroras, wildlife scurrying, flying,
swimming.
> yes, it's not hard to see once your eyes adjust.
>
Many (most?) people get a sense of security by constructing a real or
imagined structure (a dividing line between what they know & have some
control over, versus what they don't) when they are in unfamiliar
surroundings. A fire or lantern provides them with that artificial
boundary, but at the cost of making them somewhat impervious to what's
happing on the other side. It's not a bad thing: it's sometimes useful
(as in a communal gathering, or giving people [exp. kids] a sense of
security), it's human nature.
A campfire will kill your retinas for 15-20 min. but with a Coleman
lantern your eyes are pretty well shot for the night.
> Is the only reason you take a flashlight when you have to pee is so that you > don't hit your feet?
>
Actually I don't have a problem with it dribbling down my leg (yet),
but he wife & kids need it to see what they're about to squat on. I
can't blame them.
I use it randomly for all kinds of reasons: checking my gear, looking
at the maps, sometimes cooking, mixing another cup of Twang, bedding
down, digging thru the packs, and so on. And sometimes it's just plain
black out there.
> Kids and flashlights together ought to be outlawed (remember that for the
> panel)
>
Man, they *do* love their lights don't they? They'll easily go thru a
set of batteries a night if you let them, but, well, they _are_ kids
and they're having fun. And a flashlight is a magical device that
defeats the forces of darkness; it takes them a while to be able to
'see' without relying on their vision so much, and to know that things
that go bump-in-the-night out there are rarely frightening (but
oftentimes quite interesting - so back to using the light).
I'm thinking about ditching the incandescents in favor of some LED
lights, as they're supposed to live on a set of batteries a lot
longer.
> kids: train them early to go around the camp with a baggie: match sticks,
> tiny peices of foil, rubber bands, old dental floss...
>
Yeah, that works to an extent (at least it lets 'em know what the
expectations are). But we're talking about kids whose floor of their
rooms haven't been visible in months. I think they interpret 'trash'
as 'un-navigable'.
> Here's one for you: why on river corridors like the Idaho Salmon, are
> boaters required to pack out shit, but horse packers using the very same
> corridor, concentrated on the same two riverbanks, do not have to pack out
> human or horse shit? Same thing on the lower salmon... rafters are required
> to pack it out, but any asshole jetboater can come up the river (to a point)
> and take a crap behind a rock.
> I smell lobbyists.
>
I smell favoritism towards the tourists that are anticipated to spend
the most money. Unfortunately, many of the rules are still written for
& by wealthy people and primarily serve to control only the unwashed
masses. The wealthy still believe in the superiority of their class
and can easily afford to create exceptions for themselves.
---
JLG
penny s
> "penny s" <pennys...@cet.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:<u66mjcn...@corp.supernews.com>...
> > Jerry I am so happy to be right! and I didn't have to flame anyway or
get
> > obnoxious to prove myself either. Hmmm.
> >
> Oh no, don't think that I'm being condescending or that you need
> anyone's here approval to be 'right'. But I do think that you've
> struck a pretty good balance between being 'right' & being 'alright'
> in my opinion.
JLG, that was a joke.
>> > (read on)
> >...
> > It's amazing how many stars you can see with no fire.
> >
> And satellites, meteors, planets, auroras, wildlife scurrying, flying,
> swimming.
>
> > kids: train them early to go around the camp with a baggie: match
sticks,
> > tiny peices of foil, rubber bands, old dental floss...
> >
> Yeah, that works to an extent (at least it lets 'em know what the
> expectations are). But we're talking about kids whose floor of their
> rooms haven't been visible in months. I think they interpret 'trash'
> as 'un-navigable'.
We made a game out of finding micro trash when they were smaller. And these
are kids who rooms, yes, "unnavigable" would be a good term. But they
understand caring for the outdoors. The one wants to live in a burrow in the
rainforest when he grows up, so pikcing up micro trash is right up his
alley.
>
> > Here's one for you: why on river corridors like the Idaho Salmon, are
> > boaters required to pack out shit, but horse packers using the very same
> > corridor, concentrated on the same two riverbanks, do not have to pack
out
> > human or horse shit? Same thing on the lower salmon... rafters are
required
> > to pack it out, but any asshole jetboater can come up the river (to a
point)
> > and take a crap behind a rock.
> > I smell lobbyists.
> >
> I smell favoritism towards the tourists that are anticipated to spend
> the most money. Unfortunately, many of the rules are still written for
> & by wealthy people and primarily serve to control only the unwashed
> masses. The wealthy still believe in the superiority of their class
> and can easily afford to create exceptions for themselves.
I think it's more good-old-boyism that wealth. consider that every other
driveway in the towns along hte snake river corridor has a jet boat in it.
How many guys in Idaho have a pack srting, or maybe it's just a strong
outfitter lobby.
Penny
Jerry L. Golden
>
> Or, you were right Jerry. He was a "rapid-burn" guy.
>
everyone has an attack of wishful thinking.
Tom Phillips
Whose *best* idea of LNT is beer and piss?
The response this innocent got from you asses proves what you are. :-)
Tom Phillips
"Jerry L. Golden" wrote:
> Else, as was suggested, wait for TP's answer.
Nope. It was better for the world to see how the "experts" on this list practice LNT (*not*)
Tom Phillips
should have called LNT in Boulder instead. To a lot of people in this
nsg LNT means beer and piss and spent cartridges. But some posted good
advice.
www.lnt.org.
Tom Phillips
Pete Hickey wrote:
> Just a note about spreading the word...
>
> "Don't preach'
Actually, Sarah, you should not only preach but wack the obstinate over the
head with some alpenstock. Usually, I use my ice axe to do this :)
Ruger9
wrote:
>And why should anyone waste intelligence on the morons in this newsgroup?
>Whose *best* idea of LNT is beer and piss?
>
>The response this innocent got from you asses proves what you are. :-)
Did you guys hear something? I guess not...
Ruger9
penny s
"Tom Phillips" <nosp...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:3C644AA1...@aol.com...
> And why should anyone waste intelligence on the morons in this newsgroup?
OK, so why are you here then?
> Whose *best* idea of LNT is beer and piss?
heh, you haven't heard my best ideas yet.
penny
>
> The response this
penny s
gosh I"m so sorry I've been picking up microtrash, looking at the stars
instead of making first, and packing out ammo cans full of crap. What would
you have me do?
ps
penny s
> Sarah, unfortunately you made a big mistake asking that here :) You
> should have called LNT in Boulder instead. To a lot of people in this
> nsg LNT means beer and piss and spent cartridges. But some posted good
> advice.
> www.lnt.org.
oh thank you for noticing.
Chris Townsend
writes
>And why should anyone waste intelligence on the morons in this newsgroup?
>Whose *best* idea of LNT is beer and piss?
>
>The response this innocent got from you asses proves what you are. :-)
>
Donald Newcomb and Brian Sniatkowski?
If you're interested in discussing LNT or wilderness philosophy why not
start a thread on these?
Or are you just interested in attaching rec.backcountry because a few
people here have views with which you disagree?
Tom Phillips
penny s wrote:
> "Tom Phillips" <nosp...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:3C644B4E...@aol.com...
> >
> >
> > "Jerry L. Golden" wrote:
> >
> > > Else, as was suggested, wait for TP's answer.
>
> gosh I"m so sorry I've been picking up microtrash, looking at the stars
> instead of making first, and packing out ammo cans full of crap. What would
> you have me do?
well penny, I thought your name was penny and I actually posted this to
*jerry*, who thinks LNT is for jokes around the campfire.
Tom Phillips
penny s wrote:
Of course I noticed. Did you see me post under your name? But your pals
proceeded to trash this thread as they do every thread they piss on.
Tom Phillips
Chris Townsend wrote:
> In article <3C644AA1...@aol.com>, Tom Phillips <nosp...@aol.com>
> writes
> >And why should anyone waste intelligence on the morons in this newsgroup?
> >Whose *best* idea of LNT is beer and piss?
> >
> >The response this innocent got from you asses proves what you are. :-)
> >
> Presumably you failed to notice the responses from Ed Huesers, Penny S,
> Donald Newcomb and Brian Sniatkowski?
Presumably you failed to notice I didn't post under those that provided a
useful, valuable, and intelligent response to the ladies actual question.
Your pal jerry and his band of morons are in fact trolls, and they've proved
it time and again by speaking while posting no relevant info in the process.
They did it in Wind River (and none of them have ever even been there...) and
they do it here. And you applaud this...hmmmm
>
> If you're interested in discussing LNT or wilderness philosophy why not
> start a thread on these?
been there done that. Only response was "how do I shit on a trail so Tom can
see it" by ruger, tmc, and other asshole buddies of your's.
> Or are you just interested in attaching rec.backcountry because a few
> people here have views with which you disagree?
Seems to me they're the ones who disagree, who think LNT is for jokes around
the virtual campfire or for trolling for your's truly.
Hey Chris -- but the hell out.
Chris Townsend
writes
>well penny, I thought your name was penny and I actually posted this to
>*jerry*, who thinks LNT is for jokes around the campfire.
>
>
replies to anything.
Also, did you not notice that Jerry made one of the longest most useful
posts in this thread, full of useful LNT information?
Tom Phillips
penny s wrote:
> "Tom Phillips" <nosp...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:3C644AA1...@aol.com...
> > And why should anyone waste intelligence on the morons in this newsgroup?
>
> OK, so why are you here then?
Question is, why are your pals jerry and ruger here? If you think I'm going to
post serious thoughts when they've pissed in the thread you're wrong. They'd
only make posting a waste of time. But I appreciate the offer...
tmc
Chris Townsend
>
>
>Chris Townsend wrote:
>
>> In article <3C644AA1...@aol.com>, Tom Phillips <nosp...@aol.com>
>> writes
>> >And why should anyone waste intelligence on the morons in this newsgroup?
>> >Whose *best* idea of LNT is beer and piss?
>> >
>> >The response this innocent got from you asses proves what you are. :-)
>> >
>> Presumably you failed to notice the responses from Ed Huesers, Penny S,
>> Donald Newcomb and Brian Sniatkowski?
>
>Presumably you failed to notice I didn't post under those that provided a
>useful, valuable, and intelligent response to the ladies actual question.
>Your pal jerry and his band of morons are in fact trolls, and they've proved
>it time and again by speaking while posting no relevant info in the process.
>They did it in Wind River (and none of them have ever even been there...) and
>they do it here. And you applaud this...hmmmm
No, you attacked the whole newsgroup as full of morons and a waste of
time, not just certain individuals.
>
>>
>> If you're interested in discussing LNT or wilderness philosophy why not
>> start a thread on these?
>
>been there done that. Only response was "how do I shit on a trail so Tom can
>see it" by ruger, tmc, and other asshole buddies of your's.
Interesting, the assumptions you make about who my "buddies" are, You
couldn't be more wrong.
>
>> Or are you just interested in attaching rec.backcountry because a few
>> people here have views with which you disagree?
>
>Seems to me they're the ones who disagree, who think LNT is for jokes around
>the virtual campfire or for trolling for your's truly.
You're a bit over sensitive, I think. People can make jokes about
something they still believe in and practise.
I've been recommending and practising LNT techniques for years. I can
still enjoy a joke about them. Your attitude is the one guaranteed to
turn people off LNT techniques and any respect for the wilderness. Maybe
that's your intention. If not, you are doing the cause you profess to
believe in a great deal of harm.
>
>Hey Chris -- but the hell out.
And who are you to tell me what to do?
>
--
Chris Townsend
Mountain & Wilderness Writing & Photography.
tmc
rock and roll.
Don't mock it 'til you try it.
tmc
On Fri, 08 Feb 2002 15:10:19 -0700, Tom Phillips <nosp...@aol.com>
wrote:
>Sarah, unfortunately you made a big mistake asking that here :) You
Tom Phillips
Chris Townsend wrote:
> No, you attacked the whole newsgroup as full of morons and a waste of
> time, not just certain individuals.
So far, that's my best experience with the exception of a few in the two weeks
observing and posting here. I did note there were some who agve good serious
advice in this thread despite it being pissed on by ruger and jerry and tmc
> Interesting, the assumptions you make about who my "buddies" are, You
> couldn't be more wrong.
Uhmmm...lets see. Your name is Chris and your taking the offensive (or defensive)
at a post I made to jerry....
> >Hey Chris -- but the hell out.
>
> And who are you to tell me what to do?
I'm the guy who didn't post to Chris but to a troll named jerry...and I don't
think jerry needs you as a defense lawyer.
Tom Phillips
Chris Townsend wrote:
> In article <3C646F09...@aol.com>, Tom Phillips <nosp...@aol.com>
> writes
> >well penny, I thought your name was penny and I actually posted this to
> >*jerry*, who thinks LNT is for jokes around the campfire.
> >
> >
> This is an open forum not a private conversation. Anyone can post
> replies to anything.
So, I'll just start calling you jerry. or penny, which ever you prefer.
Tom Phillips
tmc wrote:
> Beer, Piss and Spent cartridges is the same thing as sex, drugs, and
> rock and roll.
>
> Don't mock it 'til you try it.
Point, set, match.
Pete Hickey
.....
In article <3C64731D...@aol.com>,
Tom Phillips <nosp...@aol.com> wrote:
>Your pal jerry and his band of morons are in fact trolls, and they've proved
....
>Seems to me they're the ones who disagree, who think LNT is for jokes around
>the virtual campfire or for trolling for your's truly.
>
>Hey Chris -- but the hell out.
Uh Tom.... Just a suggestion... Learn a bit about someone before
you flame them. Chris is a modest guy, but his credentials are
impressive. Take a look at his books:
http://www.auchnarrow.demon.co.uk/books.html
It don'T do too much for your credability to say what you did to a
guy like that.
Something else... If you are in a hiking/backpacking store check
out his newest bok about long distance hiking.. Look in the back.
at references... about Internet references.... What he says
about rec.backcountry... Why, one might almost think that he wrote
something about you.
-Pete, who now knows how to LNT shit in the Grand Canyon.
--
Pete Hickey Pe...@mudhead.uottawa.CA
DISCLAIMER: I am not responsible for spelling errors. My computer is plugged
into the same circuit as my washing machine, and every time the machine
switches cycles, noise is generated, and the words get spelled wrong.
tmc
Chapter 9, Pages 291-292 in The Backpackers Handbook by Chris
Townsend, 2nd Edition has some wonderful advice on minimizing impact
while backpacking.
Also you can turn to pages 255-256 for proper waste disposal, etc..
You will get some good info there. Happy reading.
tmc
On Fri, 08 Feb 2002 18:15:10 -0700, Tom Phillips <nosp...@aol.com>
wrote:
>
>
tmc
1. Moron
2. LNT
3. Winds
4. Assholes
5. Piss
6. jerry, ruger, tmc
Yeah, I got bored today at work and wrote a nice little parsing
script. Tomorrow its the San Mateo Wilderness (Cleveland NF) for the
weekend.
tmc
On Fri, 08 Feb 2002 15:01:19 -0700, Tom Phillips <nosp...@aol.com>
wrote:
>And why should anyone waste intelligence on the morons in this newsgroup?
tmc
Looks like we had the same idea. :)
tmc
Tom Phillips
Brian Sniatkowski wrote:
> No such thing as no impact backpacking. You can try to minimize your
> impact .Some ideas:
> 1. Stay on marked trails
> 2. Camp in designated areas
> 3. If no number 2 available, find a spot with minimal vegetation.
> 4. Don't build a fire
> 5. If you do build a fire, use an existing fire pit
> 6. If you must have a fire and no existing pit is available,
> keep your fire small, and when done, be sure its out and
> scatter the rocks from the fire ring when you're done.
> 7. Limit the size of your group.
> 8. Limit your stay at the site.
> 9. Vary your route to the "lavatory" and water source.
> 10. When leaving, make sure the site looks like nobody
> was there.
>
> I'm sure others can add to this.
A pretty good list. Perhaps the best low impact tip is to go in a small
group -- 4 or 5 at the most. If you have a larger group, break into
smaller groups and hike in different areas. Avoid meadow areas for
camping. They're flat and inviting but easily damaged. Seek sites in
deep forest cover or else with little vegetation. Once someone sees
you've camped in a meadow, they will too.
Camp far from water sources. Rather than 100 feet, some wilderness areas
now require at least 200 feet. 500 is better, and where special
management areas exist this is usually 1/4 mile. These distances also
include disposal of any waste water and human waste. Don't wash pots and
pans or yourself near water sources. Don't clean fish near water
sources. Haul water instead. The general recommendation is to toss fish
entrails deep in the forest for scavengers. Don't use soap. If you must,
use it sparingly and dispose of biodegradable soap on good soil to take
advantage of it's biodegradability. Many people mistakingly think
"biodegradable" means it breaks down in water. It doesn't.
For human waste, see www.lnt.org on how to dig a cathole.
There is much debate on whether to camp in already used sites or it's
better to disperse. In high use areas it may be better to camp in
existing sites if you have no alternative but to remain there.
Otherwise, hike on and disperse. Base camps for climbing are more
difficult being the terrain is generally more limiting; try to select a
site that will not damage alpine vegetation. Avoid tundra in the growing
season. These plants take years just to flower and may not recover from
damage for centuries. If hiking cross country, disperse. If not, stay on
trails. Select a different campsite each night.
Many backpackers hire outfitters to take them into the wilderness on
horseback. Avoid this: Horses do immense damage to trails and
vegetation. Admittedly this is usually the fault of the rider, but if
you must pack go with Llamas.
Don't carry in anything you're not willing to carry out. Someone else
said "Carry out everything you are comfortable with transporting." Carry
out everything, period, including opther people's leavings (I do.) Don't
bury trash or uneaten food. The only thing one should bury is feces.
Everyone else here is right: Don't build campfires. Dead and downed wood
is essential to maintaining healthy soils of the forests we go to see.
Stoves only should be the rule for backcountry campers. Never build a
fire at or above treeline.
Finally, respect wildlife. Do not approach them and do not feed them.
Wildlife are as much a part of wilderness as wildflowers. They live
there, we don't. The best low impact tip on wildlife is to leave your
pet at home. Even the most well behaved dog will chase deer and smaller
mammals, so if you must bring a pet make sure it's leashed.
Pete Hickey
Esreverni <esre...@aol.comma> wrote:
>>I am a beginner backpacker and a magazine reporter. I am trying to
>>spread the word about Leave No Trace and no-impact backpacking and
>>would like any tips on how to prepare for a no-impact backpacking
>>trip.
>
For an ATV rider, that makes a lot of sense.
penny s
no, I post under my name, you post under Tom Phillips. Are you ok? if you
are refering to "reply to a quote" maybe that's what you should call it. At
least, that's how this ng works.
Penny
penny s
uh, it looks to me like you posted it to the group, quoting Jerry. If you
wanted to talk just to Jerry, you would have emailed him, right?
p.
Tom Phillips
Pete Hickey wrote:
> Uh Tom.... Just a suggestion... Learn a bit about someone before
> you flame them. Chris is a modest guy, but his credentials are
> impressive. Take a look at his books:
>
> http://www.auchnarrow.demon.co.uk/books.html
>
> It don'T do too much for your credability to say what you did to a
> guy like that.
>
> Something else... If you are in a hiking/backpacking store check
> out his newest bok about long distance hiking.. Look in the back.
> at references... about Internet references.... What he says
> about rec.backcountry... Why, one might almost think that he wrote
> something about you.
Ego or concerns about ego don't impress me, Pete. I never read backpacking or
hiking books, how to books or where to go books. My tastes incline toward
Leopold and Muir and other literary works. Instead I grew up in western US
wilderness (all I need's a map and a compass. ) I also don't consider that our
remaining wilderness exists to make money off of. That's not a flame, it's my
honest opinion. So I really don't care what sort of books he's written --
especially if they refer to this nsg. I think such overpopularize finite
wilderness in an effort to make a buck and generally end up doing immense
damage to the resource. But it does depend...a good cause may popularize and
area in order to save it. So, if I may ask, how much of his profits go toward
the Wilderness Society or other conservation orgs? A lot, I hope.
The point is I did not follow his posts around, nor post anything to his
attention. Never even heard of him before. He did that to me, and after the
trolls spoke insults in my absence. So again, I think he should kindly bow out
-- he apparently thinks said trolls who consider LNT a butt for joking around
the virtual campfire and who favor drilling in ANWR need defending. All I can
say is I have spent years *actually* fighting to preserve a wilderness area or
two from the sort of nonsense Jerry and Ruger9 and tmc and few others espouse.
And I didn't get paid for it. In fact, I was part of an organization that made
legal history here in Colorado. In short, these guys get to go see real
wilderness thanks to the very folks they deride as "liberal wacko
environmentalists." So no, I won't reconsider my attitude. They've earned my
comtempt.
Of course, if Chris does want to donate some $$$ I can recommend some deserving
"liberal wacko environmentalists." BTW, I have heard of David Brower, who
risked the Sierra Club to save the Grand Canyon. But I don't think he wrote a
hiking guide.
Tom Phillips
Tom Phillips
penny s wrote:
> > well penny, I thought your name was penny and I actually posted this to
> > *jerry*, who thinks LNT is for jokes around the campfire.
>
> uh, it looks to me like you posted it to the group, quoting Jerry.
My original post said "Jerry L. Golden" wrote:, not pennys wrote.
> If you
> wanted to talk just to Jerry, you would have emailed him, right?
Vis-à-vis for your post of Wed. also, since as I simply don't have the time to
spend days weeks months, years here monitoring posts if you desired my
participation you may have emailed the LNT request and I would have seen it
much sooner. As it was it provided an opportunity for insults behind my back,
such as cowardly flamers tend to do (i.e., tmc etc...)
Of course, I'm the bad guy here, right? Even though troll tmc and others
posted first. (btw, there was no "debate" such tmc describes. All I remember
was they sat around like anal children making bathrrom jokes like "shit on the
trail -- ha ha ha ha..." A debate? I call it toilet training for brain dead.)
t...@carrari.org (tmc) wrote in message
news:<3c6350c0....@news.la.sbcglobal.net>...
> >
> >tom phillips, call on line one
> >
> This is what kills me. After all that debate Tom had going regarding
> LNT, he didn't even once step in to steer this writer to the
> appropriate place or slam down his views on it. What a troll indeed.
> Perhaps he finally left to flee into the Winds. BUHAHAHAHAHA!
>
Or perhaps he's completed his 'Mission' here. I wonder what he thought
it was or whether it turned out to be a success or failure?
I also wonder if he'll return (he was kinda fun in a way), or if he's
dismissed us all as a bunch of ignorant heathen - or in your & my
case: planet destroyers - and just called it quits.
Stay tuned for 'The return of Tom'; back with a vengeance & with more
credentials than ever before.
---
JLG
Tom Phillips
right ahead. Free nsg.
tmc
>Of course, I'm the bad guy here, right? Even though troll tmc and others
>posted first. (btw, there was no "debate" such tmc describes. All I remember
>was they sat around like anal children making bathrrom jokes like "shit on the
>trail -- ha ha ha ha..." A debate? I call it toilet training for brain dead.)
I guess I should have written something like this instead:
"After TP came and wiped his 10 commandments on our foreheads:
1. You are all morons
2. Study and memorize Leave no Trace
3. Don't drink beer
4. Stay out of the Winds.
5. Kill all right wings
6. Don't wash your body in the waters
7. Never try and jump into a thread on usenet
8. Never carry a gun into the 'wilderness'
9. Jerry, Ruger and TMC are trolls
10. You are all asses
I can't believe he didn't respond to the writers post."
So far this is all I have read from you. To put it in your own words;
Garbage. Fuck you TP!
tmc
Tom Phillips
sbru...@indiana.edu wrote:
> I am a beginner backpacker and a magazine reporter. I am trying to
> spread the word about Leave No Trace and no-impact backpacking and
> would like any tips on how to prepare for a no-impact backpacking
> trip.
> Thanks
> Sarah
Well, it's LNT. What's the diff.
Pete Hickey
Tom Phillips <nosp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>Pete Hickey wrote:
>
>> Uh Tom.... Just a suggestion... Learn a bit about someone before
>> you flame them. Chris is a modest guy, but his credentials are
>> impressive. Take a look at his books:
>>
>> http://www.auchnarrow.demon.co.uk/books.html
>>
>> It don'T do too much for your credability to say what you did to a
>> guy like that.
>Ego or concerns about ego don't impress me, Pete. I never read backpacking or
>hiking books, how to books or where to go books. My tastes incline toward
> So I really don't care what sort of books he's written --
The point is that if you knew the content IE, what he has written
about LNT, maybe you wouldn't have responded the way you did.
>especially if they refer to this nsg.
Again... you don't know the context... Find it read what he says..
When a newbie comes and flames long-time respected posters, it says
more about the newbie than anything else.
You know, Tom, what they say about easier to catch flies with honey....
Your attitude makes me wonder if you are not really one of those
'wise use' ATVers, trying to give a bad name to those who want
to protect he land. You're doing a good job if it. Your name didn't
used to be Mel, did it?
Chick Tower
news:u66mjcn...@corp.supernews.com...
> Here's one for you: why on river corridors like the Idaho Salmon, are
> boaters required to pack out shit, but horse packers using the very same
> corridor, concentrated on the same two riverbanks, do not have to pack out
> human or horse shit? Same thing on the lower salmon... rafters are
required
> to pack it out, but any asshole jetboater can come up the river (to a
point)
> and take a crap behind a rock.
> I smell lobbyists.
>
> penny
Oh, so THAT'S what they smell like!
Chick
===================================================
E-mail: ctowerATbackpackerDOTcom
Chris Townsend
>
>Chris Townsend wrote:
>
>> In article <3C646F09...@aol.com>, Tom Phillips <nosp...@aol.com>
>> writes
>> >well penny, I thought your name was penny and I actually posted this to
>> >*jerry*, who thinks LNT is for jokes around the campfire.
>> >
>> >
>> This is an open forum not a private conversation. Anyone can post
>> replies to anything.
>
>So, I'll just start calling you jerry. or penny, which ever you prefer.
>
Chris Townsend
writes
>
>
>Pete Hickey wrote:
>
>> Uh Tom.... Just a suggestion... Learn a bit about someone before
>> you flame them. Chris is a modest guy, but his credentials are
>> impressive. Take a look at his books:
>>
>> http://www.auchnarrow.demon.co.uk/books.html
>>
>> It don'T do too much for your credability to say what you did to a
>> guy like that.
>>
>> Something else... If you are in a hiking/backpacking store check
>> out his newest bok about long distance hiking.. Look in the back.
>> at references... about Internet references.... What he says
>> about rec.backcountry... Why, one might almost think that he wrote
>> something about you.
>
>Ego or concerns about ego don't impress me, Pete.
Who said anything about ego?
> I never read backpacking or
>hiking books, how to books or where to go books.
It must be nice to be an instant expert.
> My tastes incline toward
>Leopold and Muir and other literary works.
And how do you decide what is literature and what isn't? You have no
idea what I have written.
>Instead I grew up in western US
>wilderness (all I need's a map and a compass. )
Who's showing off now? What was that about egos?
>I also don't consider that our
>remaining wilderness exists to make money off of. That's not a flame, it's my
>honest opinion. So I really don't care what sort of books he's written --
>especially if they refer to this nsg. I think such overpopularize finite
>wilderness in an effort to make a buck and generally end up doing immense
>damage to the resource. But it does depend...a good cause may popularize and
>area in order to save it.
My view is that the only way to protect wilderness is to have enough
people concerned about it. Remember Glen Canyon? The canyon no-one knew?
How was the Grand Canyon saved from being dammed? By a huge publicity
campaign, organized by David Brower.
>So, if I may ask, how much of his profits go toward
>the Wilderness Society or other conservation orgs? A lot, I hope.
That's a private matter. Though if you think I'm an outdoor writer in
order to make money you are very wrong. You don't get rich doing this. I
do it out of a commitment to the outdoors.
>
>The point is I did not follow his posts around, nor post anything to his
>attention. Never even heard of him before. He did that to me, and after the
>trolls spoke insults in my absence. So again, I think he should kindly bow out
Again, this is a newsgroup. Anyone can join in any thread. That's how it
works. If you want a private conversation with anyone take it to email.
>-- he apparently thinks said trolls who consider LNT a butt for joking around
>the virtual campfire and who favor drilling in ANWR need defending.
I certainly don't think they need defending. They are well capable of
looking after themselves.
As a participant in this group I have every right to comment if I wish
to however.
>All I can
>say is I have spent years *actually* fighting to preserve a wilderness area or
>two from the sort of nonsense Jerry and Ruger9 and tmc and few others espouse.
You are beginning to sound like Mike Vandeman.
>And I didn't get paid for it. In fact, I was part of an organization that made
>legal history here in Colorado. In short, these guys get to go see real
>wilderness thanks to the very folks they deride as "liberal wacko
>environmentalists." So no, I won't reconsider my attitude. They've earned my
>comtempt.
You don't ever think trying to persuade people your point of view might
be right could be worthwhile then? Everyone is simply on your side or
immediately to be condemned?
Listen to David Brower writing about Rush Limbaugh:
"I would also want to ask "Hod did you reach your present conclusions?"
I'd listen and try to explain how I reached mine. I'd hope to persuade
him that, as usual, I was right and he wasn't. And I'd try not to forget
tact and resort to asking how he ever developed such a mean mouth".
>
>Of course, if Chris does want to donate some $$$ I can recommend some
>deserving
>"liberal wacko environmentalists."
So can I. I support many organizations.
> BTW, I have heard of David Brower, who
>risked the Sierra Club to save the Grand Canyon. But I don't think he wrote a
>hiking guide.
I don't believe he did. But he did encourage people to visit the
wilderness and he certainly popularized it. John Muir did write
guidebooks of course.
Jerry L. Golden
Wrote:
>"Jerry L. Golden" wrote:
>> Else, as was suggested, wait for TP's answer.
>
>
I haven't seen anyone here claim to be an expert on it, except you.
The rest of us are simply sharing the practical applications of it
insofar as they relate to our own particular circumstances.
You seem to be an incredibly critical, arrogant & vain SOB.
Unfortunately for you, apparently without much justification.
BTW: many of the points you made on your post to Brian S. are either
area-specific or debatable (both generally & whether they are
appropriate for other circumstances), ie: you've taken something from
a broader policy and insist that the variant that applies to *you* is
'The True Gospel' and therefore all other variations of it must be
wrong. The world is bigger than the Winds Tom...
I could cut & paste the policy from the back of any one of hundreds
of entry permits I've saved; they'd sound very familiar. It's even
interesting so see how the policy evolved over the years. But I
suspect that you would find fault with any of them.
---
JLG
Tom Phillips
Pete Hickey wrote:
> The point is that if you knew the content IE, what he has written
> about LNT, maybe you wouldn't have responded the way you did.
All I know is he stepped into a flame war he probably shouldn't. If someone does
that, they take sides, and he didn't trake my side.
> >especially if they refer to this nsg.
>
> Again... you don't know the context... Find it read what he says..
no thanks. He started flaming me and not about LNT.
> When a newbie comes and flames long-time respected posters, it says
> more about the newbie than anything else.
I ain't no newbie. And Usenet isn't a polite tea social. I wish it were but it's
not.
> You know, Tom, what they say about easier to catch flies with honey....
> Your attitude makes me wonder if you are not really one of those
> 'wise use' ATVers, trying to give a bad name to those who want
> to protect he land. You're doing a good job if it. Your name didn't
> used to be Mel, did it?
Nope. It's really me. At least I have the courage to use my real name, unlike the
trolls ruger and tmc. And I've been in a flame war with tmc, Ruger9 and a couple
of other drill the ANWR backcountry hypocrites since they hijacked a thread I
posted to two weeks ago. Your friend Chris just stepped in and took up their
cause, apparently.
Clear it up any?
John Paul Minda
"Pete Hickey" <pe...@bitman.uottawa.ca.DELETE.ME> wrote in message
news:tB798.29673$Fj7.1...@wagner.videotron.net...
> Your name didn't
> used to be Mel, did it?
Maybe that't it!
At the very least, Tom has been one of the most successful trolls we've had
in a long time. Vandeman can only rope in newbies, Muskie too. There have
been others. But Tom has managed to do what most trolls fail at, he got long
time posters like Penny, Jerry, Christ Townsend, you and me, and even Eugene
into his arguments.
He managed to pull the capaline over everyones eyes.
Well done Tom
Tom Phillips
Chris Townsend wrote:
> In article <3C64A389...@aol.com>, Tom Phillips <nosp...@aol.com>
> writes
> >Ego or concerns about ego don't impress me, Pete.
>
> Who said anything about ego?
Your pal was touting your accomplishments whilst patronizing me. That relates to
ego, IMHO. My ego isn't related to who I am, it's about what I stand for. Which
is wilderness and wildlife preservation. I've done what I can and I don't care if
I get pissed about defending it.
> It must be nice to be an instant expert.
nope. Took me 40 years in the "backcountry." I just never felt the need to write
about places I love. Can't stand backpacker magazine....
> > My tastes incline toward
> >Leopold and Muir and other literary works.
>
> And how do you decide what is literature and what isn't? You have no
> idea what I have written.
True. I haven't read your hiking guide. But I have seen many others. A guide may
be interesting and well written., but is not literature. I majored in English so I
do think I know something in that area. A series of essays like A Sand County
Almanac by Leopold is literature.
> >Instead I grew up in western US
> >wilderness (all I need's a map and a compass. )
>
> Who's showing off now? What was that about egos?
Means exactly what I said. I don't need or use hiking guides. Never have. Just a
fact. IMO people should choose their destinations via a map and not rely on being
told where to go. That's how places get trampled to death.
> >But it does depend...a good cause may popularize and
> >area in order to save it.
>
> My view is that the only way to protect wilderness is to have enough
> people concerned about it. Remember Glen Canyon? The canyon no-one knew?
> How was the Grand Canyon saved from being dammed? By a huge publicity
> campaign, organized by David Brower.
I believe that's what I said. So we agree? feel the same about ANWR? If so, then
why not lecture Ruger9 instead of me?
> >So, if I may ask, how much of his profits go toward
> >the Wilderness Society or other conservation orgs? A lot, I hope.
>
> That's a private matter. Though if you think I'm an outdoor writer in
> order to make money you are very wrong. You don't get rich doing this. I
> do it out of a commitment to the outdoors.
Actually, I think if you make money writing about wilderness we all (at least here
in US) own it's very relevant. Yvon Chouinard, for example, gives 10% and is proud
to say and do it since he makes his living off the outdoors. I know. I gotten
grants from Patagonia. REI too. If the wilderness is going to get trampled to
death by those popularizing it, at least they can help preserve it by supporting
those who dedicate themselves to that cause. Of course, if you really make little
profit then you should support wilderness another way.
> >The point is I did not follow his posts around, nor post anything to his
> >attention. Never even heard of him before. He did that to me, and after the
> >trolls spoke insults in my absence. So again, I think he should kindly bow out
>
> Again, this is a newsgroup. Anyone can join in any thread. That's how it
> works. If you want a private conversation with anyone take it to email.
You were posting flames (well, at least patronizing and lecturing me) and
interjecting yourself into a serious ongoing flame war. You're free to do that, of
course, but you're going to get flamed back.
> As a participant in this group I have every right to comment if I wish
> to however.
And you have the right to get commented on back. I have this nasty habit: I don't
take shit from anyone. Not that I owe you any explantion (this is Usenet, after
all) FYI, this all started because I pointed out to someone their wilderness
advice was wrong. And I'm not the only one who pointed it out: everyone in the
thread did. They guy kept arguing, and then ruger, tmc, Jerry what's his ass name,
and a few others decided they would flame me into shame -- all them against me.
Then I found out several of these slugs were in fact trolling hypocrites who
routinely spout political diatribes against any who in their own perverse opine
were "liberal wacko environmentalists." I checked Ruger's posts going back a year
as to their consistency in doing this. Well, I call a trolling hypocrite a
trolling hypocrite. And now you've stepped in. And for the record, this guy whose
advice was wrong was directing people to an already very overused and over abused
backcountry destination and claiming it was "empty." That really ticked me off
because it's an area I have a personal management interest in.
So if ya wanna pick sides, then pick. Or you can simply avoid the war. I try to
ignore them but this LNT issue is a real fun flame topic for them.
> >All I can
> >say is I have spent years *actually* fighting to preserve a wilderness area or
> >two from the sort of nonsense Jerry and Ruger9 and tmc and few others espouse.
>
> You are beginning to sound like Mike Vandeman.
Don't know the guy. But I and several others did saved a very important wilderness
and if it was the only thing I ever did in my life it was worth it and I'm proud
of it. I doubt the slugs flaming me can say the same. If you want to see the court
records I can oblige.
> You don't ever think trying to persuade people your point of view might
> be right could be worthwhile then? Everyone is simply on your side or
> immediately to be condemned?
When I encounter reasonable people. But this is Usenet, not a legislative
committee. You can't reason with a Usenet troll like tmc...
> Listen to David Brower writing about Rush Limbaugh:
With respect to Brower, whose a better man than I, I have a different view of
Limbaugh, whose only purpose to humiliate "liberals" (whatever that is.) To anyone
who takes him seriously I can only say LOL. That's because his moron followers
quote him like he's God speaking to Moses. IMHO it's a waste of time to try to
reason with such.
> >Of course, if Chris does want to donate some $$$ I can recommend some
> >deserving "liberal wacko environmentalists."
>
> So can I. I support many organizations.
Good man.
> > BTW, I have heard of David Brower,... But I don't think he wrote a
> >hiking guide.
>
> I don't believe he did. But he did encourage people to visit the
> wilderness and he certainly popularized it. John Muir did write
> guidebooks of course.
I've popularized wilderness too. Used the media for that purpose. But only to save
it from the type of greedy resource development espoused by Ruger and his gang.
Miur, of course did a lot more than write guidebooks and save the Sierra. He was a
great naturalist and deduced a theory of glaciation as the origin of Yosemite land
forms.
Tom Phillips
Chris Townsend wrote:
> In article <3C64793F...@aol.com>, Tom Phillips <nosp...@aol.com>
> >So, I'll just start calling you jerry. or penny, which ever you prefer.
> >
> You don't know how newsgroups work do you
Yeah, I do. I just don't take personal offense at posts meant for other people
:)
Tom Phillips
John Paul Minda wrote:
I'd like to take credit. But can't. Besides, real trolls don't use their real,
names. They use very imaginative metaphors (te he he) like ruger. My arguments
are the real thing which is why you got into them. Sorry to burst your
illusion, I know thinking me a troll must make it easier on the gang's ego...
Jerry L. Golden
<mi...@beckman.uiuc.edu> Wrote:
>
>At the very least, Tom has been one of the most successful trolls we've had
>in a long time. Vandeman can only rope in newbies, Muskie too. There have
>been others. But Tom has managed to do what most trolls fail at, he got long
>time posters like Penny, Jerry, Christ Townsend, you and me, and even Eugene
>into his arguments.
>
of the group seems to cut across political & philosophical lines:
those of us that normally might fight tooth & nail with each other (if
we haven't just filtered each other out in disgust) are, in a somewhat
indirect way, defending each other. Even some of the habitual lurkers
have been motivated to commit and join the fray.
I suppose that it'll eventually get back to the same old routine after
Tom moves on to greener pastures, but it does exemplify a point: we
really are a community of sorts - and outsiders (and insiders too, but
I think the tolerance would be higher) that violate a certain standard
of conduct get ostracized.
Makes me want to get back to my anthropology books.
---
JLG
Bob Gross
similar morons, I just throw them into "Block Sender". That way they can do
what they like and I won't be bothered. Life is short and the mountains
await me.
---Bob Gross---
"Chris Townsend" <Ch...@auchnarrow.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:AwDcTzCT...@auchnarrow.demon.co.uk...
> Or are you just interested in attaching rec.backcountry because a few
> people here have views with which you disagree?
Bob Gross
---Bob Gross---
"Chris Townsend" <Ch...@auchnarrow.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:7ixy3TDa...@auchnarrow.demon.co.uk...
> You're a bit over sensitive, I think. People can make jokes about
> something they still believe in and practise.
Chris Townsend
writes
>
>Chris Townsend wrote:
>
>> > My tastes incline toward
>> >Leopold and Muir and other literary works.
>>
>> And how do you decide what is literature and what isn't? You have no
>> idea what I have written.
>
>True. I haven't read your hiking guide. But I have seen many others. A
>guide may
>be interesting and well written., but is not literature.
I would argue that it can be. Do you know Colin Fletcher's The Complete
Walker?
Also, I've written much more than one how-to book.
>I majored in English so I
>do think I know something in that area. A series of essays like A Sand County
>Almanac by Leopold is literature.
I have a degree in English too. I don't dispute that Sand County Almanac
is worthwhile literature.
>
>> >Instead I grew up in western US
>> >wilderness (all I need's a map and a compass. )
>>
>> Who's showing off now? What was that about egos?
>
>Means exactly what I said. I don't need or use hiking guides. Never
>have. Just a
>fact. IMO people should choose their destinations via a map and not
>rely on being
>told where to go. That's how places get trampled to death.
That's an ideal. I usually only look at trail guides after I've done a
walk to see what they say. But I have years of experience using map and
compass. Many people like to use trail guides - and these days many maps
have trail guide type information on them.
Places can get trampled whether they're on a map or not. Trampled to
death is unlikely though. The worst damage I've seen done by hikers is
minimal compared to that caused by industrial developments (mines,
quarries etc), clear-cut logging and industrial tourism. That's where
the real threats lie. And to counter those threats requires support.
Numbers matter and some of those numbers will like to use trail guides.
>
>> >But it does depend...a good cause may popularize and
>> >area in order to save it.
>>
>> My view is that the only way to protect wilderness is to have enough
>> people concerned about it. Remember Glen Canyon? The canyon no-one knew?
>> How was the Grand Canyon saved from being dammed? By a huge publicity
>> campaign, organized by David Brower.
>
>I believe that's what I said. So we agree? feel the same about ANWR? If
>so, then
>why not lecture Ruger9 instead of me?
I think we do agree. I joined in the thread because I felt you were
ignoring the positive contributions some people were making and
condemning the whole group on the basis of a few contributors. The
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge has been argued here before and will be
again I've no doubt. I don't think lecturing people helps though. No-one
is going to change Ruger9s mind. The debate is for those listening in.
>
>> >So, if I may ask, how much of his profits go toward
>> >the Wilderness Society or other conservation orgs? A lot, I hope.
>>
>> That's a private matter. Though if you think I'm an outdoor writer in
>> order to make money you are very wrong. You don't get rich doing this. I
>> do it out of a commitment to the outdoors.
>
>Actually, I think if you make money writing about wilderness we all (at
>least here
>in US) own it's very relevant. Yvon Chouinard, for example, gives 10%
>and is proud
>to say and do it since he makes his living off the outdoors. I know. I gotten
>grants from Patagonia. REI too. If the wilderness is going to get trampled to
>death by those popularizing it, at least they can help preserve it by
>supporting
>those who dedicate themselves to that cause. Of course, if you really
>make little
>profit then you should support wilderness another way.
I agree with you completely. One thing I do is to encourage people to
support those companies who do give something back - and to try and make
equipment last as long as possible and not replace it with this years
model.
I am a member of various environmental organisations (too many really, I
can't be active in all of them) but I think my writing is the most
valuable thing I can do.
>
>> >The point is I did not follow his posts around, nor post anything to his
>> >attention. Never even heard of him before. He did that to me, and after the
>> >trolls spoke insults in my absence. So again, I think he should
>> >kindly bow out
>>
>> Again, this is a newsgroup. Anyone can join in any thread. That's how it
>> works. If you want a private conversation with anyone take it to email.
>
>You were posting flames (well, at least patronizing and lecturing me) and
>interjecting yourself into a serious ongoing flame war. You're free to
>do that, of
>course, but you're going to get flamed back.
Of course. One thing I like about this group is that there are flames. I
find groups where everyone pats each other on the back rather dull.
Have a look at some of his posts. There are thousands of them, all about
banning mountain bikes from wilderness areas. His sig has a phrase in it
about how many years he spent fighting auto-dependence. Your words had
an echo of this - clearly by accident.
>But I and several others did saved a very important wilderness
>and if it was the only thing I ever did in my life it was worth it and
>I'm proud
>of it. I doubt the slugs flaming me can say the same. If you want to
>see the court
>records I can oblige.
I don't doubt you. The passion comes across.
>
>> You don't ever think trying to persuade people your point of view might
>> be right could be worthwhile then? Everyone is simply on your side or
>> immediately to be condemned?
>
> When I encounter reasonable people. But this is Usenet, not a legislative
>committee. You can't reason with a Usenet troll like tmc...
But what about all the people who might be reading your words? I
sometimes enter debates with no illusions about convincing the other
poster of my point of view. I'm posting for other people who may read
it. And for them the tone of the post can be very important.
>
>> Listen to David Brower writing about Rush Limbaugh:
>
>With respect to Brower, whose a better man than I, I have a different view of
>Limbaugh, whose only purpose to humiliate "liberals" (whatever that
>is.) To anyone
>who takes him seriously I can only say LOL. That's because his moron followers
>quote him like he's God speaking to Moses. IMHO it's a waste of time to try to
>reason with such.
Perhaps I'm more optimistic than you.
>
>> >Of course, if Chris does want to donate some $$$ I can recommend some
>> >deserving "liberal wacko environmentalists."
>>
>> So can I. I support many organizations.
>
>Good man.
>
>> > BTW, I have heard of David Brower,... But I don't think he wrote a
>> >hiking guide.
>>
>> I don't believe he did. But he did encourage people to visit the
>> wilderness and he certainly popularized it. John Muir did write
>> guidebooks of course.
>
>I've popularized wilderness too. Used the media for that purpose. But
>only to save
>it from the type of greedy resource development espoused by Ruger and his gang.
As I said, that is the point. Publicity is necessary and publicity means
that people will want to see an area, in which case information on how
to respect and look after the land is necessary too. These aren't
obvious. It's easy to assume they are when you've been doing them
automatically for years. But go out with some novices and you find that
they are likely to do all sorts of horrendous things out of ignorance.
They don't want to do any damage, they just don't know how not to.
>
>Miur, of course did a lot more than write guidebooks and save the
>Sierra. He was a
>great naturalist and deduced a theory of glaciation as the origin of
>Yosemite land
>forms.
>
A major figure indeed. I live in Scotland, where Muir was from, and am
active in the John Muir Trust, an organisation set up to promote his
views. Until the last decade Muir was little known in the country of his
birth. Now the JMT owns many wild areas in the Scottish Highlands and
does much work in spreading Muir's views.
dh
> > > And why should anyone waste intelligence on the morons in this
newsgroup?
> >
>
> Question is, why are your pals jerry and ruger here? If you think I'm
going to
> post serious thoughts when they've pissed in the thread you're wrong.
They'd
> only make posting a waste of time. But I appreciate the offer...
>
Hey, given enough practice, even THEY might learn to read...
Dan
Bob Gross
man.
I'm afraid that I don't know if he did anything of significance while he was
in the Mother Country.
I was thinking that most of his environmental conscience was originated
while he was a sheep herder in the high country of what is now Yosemite and
in the years thereafter.
By the way, my favorite was Galen Clark, who ran into Muir while walking
through Yosemite.
---Bob Gross---
"Chris Townsend" <Ch...@auchnarrow.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:vj1n3WCL...@auchnarrow.demon.co.uk...
Chris Townsend
<rwg...@compuserve.com> writes
>Granted, Muir was a Scotsman. But he came to the United States as a young
>man.
A boy in fact. He was eleven.
>
>I'm afraid that I don't know if he did anything of significance while he was
>in the Mother Country.
He didn't. He was too young. He did learn a love of nature there.
>
>I was thinking that most of his environmental conscience was originated
>while he was a sheep herder in the high country of what is now Yosemite and
>in the years thereafter.
Much of it yes. "My First Summer in the Sierra" is a key book. But many
of the themes he later developed can be found in "A Thousand Mile Walk
to the Gulf".
>
>By the way, my favorite was Galen Clark, who ran into Muir while walking
>through Yosemite.
I don't know much about him, other than that he was Yosemite's first
guardian.
Bob Gross
became very ill. His doctor told him to head west to live out his remaining
few days since the air was drier and cleaner. He did. As he passed into what
is now Yosemite, he ran into this itinerant Scotsman, Muir. Since Clark did
not think that he had much time left, he asked Muir what he could do that
would be positive toward Yosemite. Muir suggested that Clark head to the
south of Yosemite, to what is now known as the Mariposa Grove of Giant
Sequoia Trees. There, he should survey and catalog the trees, then Muir
would take that data to Sacramento (then the capital of the entire West) to
try to get legislation passed that would help protect the big trees. That is
what Clark did, and then that is what Muir did. As a result, most of the
excellent groves were protected as part of now what is called Yosemite
National Park. Clark lived on to an old age.
By the way, next time that anybody is in Yosemite Valley, then you go to the
Valley District Building of the NPS. Then go out the west door and across
the street. There is the Pioneer Cemetery, and there lies Galen Clark.
---Bob Gross---
"Chris Townsend" <Ch...@auchnarrow.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:RMdY8sBp...@auchnarrow.demon.co.uk...
Chris Townsend
<rwg...@compuserve.com> writes
>Yes, well, apparently Clark was a coal miner in the eastern US, and he
>became very ill. His doctor told him to head west to live out his remaining
>few days since the air was drier and cleaner. He did. As he passed into what
>is now Yosemite, he ran into this itinerant Scotsman, Muir. Since Clark did
>not think that he had much time left, he asked Muir what he could do that
>would be positive toward Yosemite. Muir suggested that Clark head to the
>south of Yosemite, to what is now known as the Mariposa Grove of Giant
>Sequoia Trees. There, he should survey and catalog the trees, then Muir
>would take that data to Sacramento (then the capital of the entire West) to
>try to get legislation passed that would help protect the big trees. That is
>what Clark did, and then that is what Muir did. As a result, most of the
>excellent groves were protected as part of now what is called Yosemite
>National Park. Clark lived on to an old age.
Thanks for that. Interesting stuff.
>
>By the way, next time that anybody is in Yosemite Valley, then you go to the
>Valley District Building of the NPS. Then go out the west door and across
>the street. There is the Pioneer Cemetery, and there lies Galen Clark.
I hope to be there this summer. I'll go to the cemetery. & to the
Mariposa Groves, where I've never been before.
Bob Gross
The grove may be the best place of all, in the opinion of my 90-year-old
mother. She is qualified to know.
---Bob Gross---
"Chris Townsend" <Ch...@auchnarrow.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:Ps5f0pC7$ZZ8...@auchnarrow.demon.co.uk...
Pete Hickey
Tom Phillips <nosp...@aol.com> wrote:
>> When a newbie comes and flames long-time respected posters, it says
>> more about the newbie than anything else.
>
>I ain't no newbie.
Oh, Sorry. I took your style as ignorance. Now I understand.
It's stupidity.
>Clear it up any?
thanks for clearing that up.
Ruger9
>I have figured out TP's most frequently used words.
>
>1. Moron
>2. LNT
>3. Winds
>4. Assholes
>5. Piss
>6. jerry, ruger, tmc
>
>Yeah, I got bored today at work and wrote a nice little parsing
>script.
I am honored to be in the top 6! (thanks, Tom Phillips.)
Ruger9
Jerry L. Golden
>...
>Hey, given enough practice, even THEY might learn to read...
>Dan
>
For Tom!!! What a fucking coincidence. Jeez, I never would have
suspected they might have even gotten along! Amazing.
Dan, why don't you prove to us that you're not just a cynical
pseudo-intellectual blowhard and go camping with Tom in the Winds for
a while? (it's not too far for you) Do you good. Hell, it would do the
*world* good if you were both armed, but that's besides the point: I
actually want to know if you have the stomach to be around your own
kind for any length of time.
---
JLG
Tom Phillips
Chris Townsend wrote:
> In article <3C65453D...@aol.com>, Tom Phillips <nosp...@aol.com>
> writes
> >
> >Chris Townsend wrote:
> >> And how do you decide what is literature and what isn't? You have no
> >> idea what I have written.
> >
> >True. I haven't read your hiking guide. But I have seen many others. A
> >guide may be interesting and well written., but is not literature.
>
> I would argue that it can be. Do you know Colin Fletcher's The Complete
> Walker? Also, I've written much more than one how-to book.
I think literature is generally considered to be creative writing, fiction or non.
I suppose a hiking guide could contain literary aspects, but it main purpose is to
describe to people how and where to go hiking, or present trail and equipment
descriptions, right? As I said, I don't know what you've written, only that it was
more or less described as a hiking guide. If you've written more than that, very
good.
I think of literature as dealing with the human condition illustrated by central
philosopical and spiritual ideas: poetry or Hemingway. In A Sand County Almanac
Leopold dealt with the human condition as it relates to the natural world. Of
course I've heard much of Fletcher and my understnding would be he wrote a
philosophical book on walking, not a hiking guide.
> I have a degree in English too. I don't dispute that Sand County Almanac
> is worthwhile literature.
So we agree.
> >IMO people should choose their destinations via a map and not
> >rely on being
> >told where to go. That's how places get trampled to death.
>
> That's an ideal.
Actually it's a pragmatic observation. I've seen places get swamped with people
after a how-to, where to go article appeared in Backpacker magazine or in someone's
guide book. Such may not be the only culprit, but it often is.
> Places can get trampled whether they're on a map or not. Trampled to
> death is unlikely though.
When you have serious ongoing erosion, water pollution, trash both buried and lying
about, bare and flooded ground instead of vegetated, rocks soot-black at every
turn from dozens of uncontrolled campfires, every tree stripped of every branch and
live trees cut down to "season" for future cozy campfire fuel, and in general a
foul place around a lake from both human and stock excrement, I'd call that
trampled to death. The only thing that would be worse is building a road and a
lodge. I've seen these sorts of conditions and still see them. We're talking about
too different kinds of abuse: industrial and thoughtless campers trampling fragile
wildereness ecology literally to death. In some cases people have had to be banned
or severly restricted due to the threat they pose.
> I think we do agree. I joined in the thread because I felt you were
> ignoring the positive contributions some people were making and
> condemning the whole group on the basis of a few contributors.
It may have seemed that way, but I entered this thread to read flames posted by the
trolls and I posted responses to them. I also made posts noting the *good* advice
others had provided.
> The
> Arctic National Wildlife Refuge has been argued here before and will be
> again I've no doubt. I don't think lecturing people helps though. No-one
> is going to change Ruger9s mind. The debate is for those listening in.
I think the debate should be on the hypocrisy of those presenting themselves as
backcountry lovers while calling those who oppose drilling "liberal wacko
environmentalists." If it wasn't for "liberal wackos" the morons would have no
backcountry to go to. It's a common tactic: disguise yourself as one of the
believers and infiltrate -- usually using a dully unimaginative alias instead of
your real name. That's what real trolls do.
> I agree with you completely. One thing I do is to encourage people to
> support those companies who do give something back - and to try and make
> equipment last as long as possible and not replace it with this years
> model.
>
> I am a member of various environmental organisations (too many really, I
> can't be active in all of them) but I think my writing is the most
> valuable thing I can do.
I resist sitting on boards these days. But I try to support those I consider most
effective.
> Of course. One thing I like about this group is that there are flames. I
> find groups where everyone pats each other on the back rather dull.
Well, then why am *I* being singled out here :-) Lot's of other flamers about...of
course when I see a moron I call him such, and that seems to piss just about
everyone off.
> >> You are beginning to sound like Mike Vandeman.
> >
> >Don't know the guy.
>
> Have a look at some of his posts. There are thousands of them, all about
> banning mountain bikes from wilderness areas. His sig has a phrase in it
> about how many years he spent fighting auto-dependence. Your words had
> an echo of this - clearly by accident.
Well, I do have issues with mountain bikes. but I can't waste what little time I
have on broad concerns like cars and electricity. My personal interest has been
wilderness and wildlife. I mentioned (because it marks the difference between me
and the big-mouthed trolls who only claim to be for backcountry) I've actually
spent time fighting for their right to have backcountry. i.e., I don't just talk
about. I wasn't trying tooting my own horn.
> But what about all the people who might be reading your words? I
> sometimes enter debates with no illusions about convincing the other
> poster of my point of view. I'm posting for other people who may read
> it. And for them the tone of the post can be very important.
I admit the purpose of a troll like tmc and ruger is to disrupt a thread so people
reading it will not find anything worthwhile. But people reading Usenet should not
be so naive. They have to realize flame wars go on here. In my posts I always try
to interject issue oriented criticism, and when the troll posts something totally
puerile in response, I think it's usful. It clearly identifies who the trolls are.
I think that's useful in *this* forum, though not in others.
> >I have a different view of Limbaugh, whose only purpose to humiliate "liberals"
> (whatever that
> >is.) To anyone who takes him seriously I can only say LOL. That's because his
> moron followers
> >quote him like he's God speaking to Moses. IMHO it's a waste of time to try to
> >reason with such.
>
> Perhaps I'm more optimistic than you.
I am rather pessimistic about human nature.
> >I've popularized wilderness too. Used the media for that purpose. But
> >only to save
> >it from the type of greedy resource development espoused by Ruger and his gang.
>
> As I said, that is the point. Publicity is necessary and publicity means
> that people will want to see an area,
Yeah but I think such publicity should stop once an area that is threatened is
preserved. Otherwise it does get trampled to death. This is why discussion of
management issues are important but simply never take place. In most publicity I
see, LNT and management is never mentioned. Here in the US people have a
misconception that wilderness is set aside only for their recreational pursuits
(i.e., Backpacker magazine.) That's just not the case (legally) and social
attitudes need to start reflecting less narcissistic wilderness values like most
those I've seen posted in this nsg.
> in which case information on how
> to respect and look after the land is necessary too. These aren't
> obvious. It's easy to assume they are when you've been doing them
> automatically for years. But go out with some novices and you find that
> they are likely to do all sorts of horrendous things out of ignorance.
> They don't want to do any damage, they just don't know how not to.
I believe many just don't care. But there's my pessimism again. I've noticed some
here seem to complain LNT *is* obvious, and then talk about going out in woods and
building a big roaring campfire and tossing their empties into the bushes. Sure,
pick it up in the morning, but only if you can find it. This is not useful to
novices at all, yet these are long term posters. Even Eugene Miya's panel post on
ethics left out disposal of human waste. Some also seem to be adverse to any
discussion of management issues because it's "political." Only the trolls make it
political due to their opposition of wilderness preservation and the concept of
public lands.
So, there's a lot of publicity here and little useful ethics. Hence my criticism
and the reason these trolls are after me. Ah well, they will likely get their wish
and I'll soon disappear. I have to attend to life...
> A major figure indeed. I live in Scotland, where Muir was from, and am
> active in the John Muir Trust, an organisation set up to promote his
> views. Until the last decade Muir was little known in the country of his
> birth. Now the JMT owns many wild areas in the Scottish Highlands and
> does much work in spreading Muir's views.
JMT sort of like the Nature Conservancy? My understanding is most such wild places
in Scotland are private, albiet with public access. I simply can't imaging what my
life would have been like without public lands. To me that's Muir's greatest
legacy. Without his influence even Roosevelt might not have accompished so much.
Tom Phillips
Tom Phillips
Pete Hickey wrote:
> >I ain't no newbie.
>
> Oh, Sorry. I took your style as ignorance. Now I understand.
> It's stupidity.
No, it's a style designed for smart ass comments and patronizing prose like
yours. It's not by accident I used a stigmatized contraction in my response. I
thought you'd understand that better than proper English.
Tom Phillips
Chris Townsend wrote:
> You're a bit over sensitive, I think. People can make jokes about
> something they still believe in and practise.
Not oversensitive. Just a grown up.
> I've been recommending and practising LNT techniques for years. I can
> still enjoy a joke about them. Your attitude is the one guaranteed to
> turn people off LNT techniques and any respect for the wilderness. Maybe
> that's your intention. If not, you are doing the cause you profess to
> believe in a great deal of harm.
I don't think puerile bathroom jokes about LNT are all that funny, just stupid
and moronic. Especially if you want people reading such to take LNT seriously,
which it has to be to be of public value.
Chris Townsend
The Complete Walker is both a philosophical book and a hiking guide.
Fletcher's philosophy is found throughout the book but he does tell you
how to pitch a tent, choose a sleeping bag, plan food supplies etc. Of
course he has written other books, mostly about long trips he has made,
such as The Man Who Walked Through Time, about a hike through the Grand
Canyon, which I consider one of the best books on wilderness travel.
>
>
>> Places can get trampled whether they're on a map or not. Trampled to
>> death is unlikely though.
>
>When you have serious ongoing erosion, water pollution, trash both
>buried and lying
>about, bare and flooded ground instead of vegetated, rocks soot-black at every
>turn from dozens of uncontrolled campfires, every tree stripped of
>every branch and
>live trees cut down to "season" for future cozy campfire fuel, and in general a
>foul place around a lake from both human and stock excrement, I'd call that
>trampled to death.
I'd called it pretty horrible but also, in my experience, an extreme
situation. In many thousands of mile of hiking in the USA and Canada
I've seen very few places like that and those I have seen have not
usually been caused by hikers. The most trashed place I've seen was a
recently abandoned prospectors camp in the Yukon. Others have been in
places with vehicular access.
Also such places can recover, in a way that places that are concreted
over can't. To give two examples: the Chilkoot Trail in SE Alaska was
totally trashed in the Klondike Gold Rush with thousands of people
passing back and forth, shanty towns, all the trees cut down etc. Go
there now and there's hardly any sign of this. Jump a long way south to
the Santa Rita Mountains in Arizona and you see another area that was
heavily damaged by prospectors and that has also recovered.
Here in Scotland the big problem is not walkers - eroded paths can be
repaired - but overgrazing by sheep and deer and the bulldozing of roads
so that deer and grouse hunters can drive close to their prey. This
prevents the regeneration of the forest - Scotland has just one percent
of its natural forest left.
>The only thing that would be worse is building a road and a
>lodge.
Or a ski resort. Or a mine.
> I've seen these sorts of conditions and still see them. We're talking
>about
>too different kinds of abuse: industrial and thoughtless campers
>trampling fragile
>wildereness ecology literally to death. In some cases people have had
>to be banned
>or severly restricted due to the threat they pose.
In sensitive areas there probably is justification in restricting
numbers. Certainly some areas should be closed to camping. Making access
less easy is one way to do this without actually imposing regulations.
Roads deep into the backcountry bring people. The worst damage is
usually close to trailheads. In my local area in Scotland the most
eroded trails stretch out from a high level parking area at a ski
resort.
>
>> I think we do agree. I joined in the thread because I felt you were
>> ignoring the positive contributions some people were making and
>> condemning the whole group on the basis of a few contributors.
>
>It may have seemed that way, but I entered this thread to read flames
>posted by the
>trolls and I posted responses to them. I also made posts noting the
>*good* advice
>others had provided.
One of the people you attacked as a troll, Jerry L.Golden, posted some
good LNT advice.
>
>> The
>> Arctic National Wildlife Refuge has been argued here before and will be
>> again I've no doubt. I don't think lecturing people helps though. No-one
>> is going to change Ruger9s mind. The debate is for those listening in.
>
>I think the debate should be on the hypocrisy of those presenting themselves as
>backcountry lovers while calling those who oppose drilling "liberal wacko
>environmentalists." If it wasn't for "liberal wackos" the morons would have no
>backcountry to go to. It's a common tactic: disguise yourself as one of the
>believers and infiltrate -- usually using a dully unimaginative alias
>instead of
>your real name. That's what real trolls do.
I'd rather debate the issues than personalities. I think those in favour
of development often damage their own cause by the extreme language and
insults they use. I don't think emulating them helps the wilderness
cause.
>
>>
>> I am a member of various environmental organisations (too many really, I
>> can't be active in all of them) but I think my writing is the most
>> valuable thing I can do.
>
>I resist sitting on boards these days. But I try to support those I
>consider most
>effective.
Oh, I don't like sitting on boards. I'm on one committee that meets half
a dozen times a year and that's enough. But there's other ways of being
involved in organisations - writing letters, journal articles etc.,
attending meetings and so on.
>
>> Of course. One thing I like about this group is that there are flames. I
>> find groups where everyone pats each other on the back rather dull.
>
>Well, then why am *I* being singled out here :-) Lot's of other flamers
>about...of
>course when I see a moron I call him such, and that seems to piss just about
>everyone off.
I don't think you're being singled out. There are plenty of ongoing
flame wars in this group. I note that dh (Dan) has just joined in and
been instantly attacked. He's been around awhile. And try reading some
Mike Vandeman threads - that's a flame war that has been going on for
many years.
>
>> >I have a different view of Limbaugh, whose only purpose to humiliate
>> >"liberals"
>> (whatever that
>> >is.) To anyone who takes him seriously I can only say LOL. That's
>> >because his
>> moron followers
>> >quote him like he's God speaking to Moses. IMHO it's a waste of time
>> >to try to
>> >reason with such.
>>
>> Perhaps I'm more optimistic than you.
>
>I am rather pessimistic about human nature.
We differ on this then.
>
>I believe many just don't care. But there's my pessimism again. I've
>noticed some
>here seem to complain LNT *is* obvious, and then talk about going out
>in woods and
>building a big roaring campfire and tossing their empties into the
>bushes. Sure,
>pick it up in the morning, but only if you can find it. This is not useful to
>novices at all, yet these are long term posters. Even Eugene Miya's
>panel post on
>ethics left out disposal of human waste.
This is a topic that comes up regularly and good advice is usually
given.
>Some also seem to be adverse to any
>discussion of management issues because it's "political." Only the
>trolls make it
>political due to their opposition of wilderness preservation and the concept of
>public lands.
>
>So, there's a lot of publicity here and little useful ethics. Hence my
>criticism
>and the reason these trolls are after me. Ah well, they will likely get
>their wish
>and I'll soon disappear. I have to attend to life...
You need to read the group for several months at least to get an overall
view. The "political" threads are only a small part of what goes on
here. It's a very varied group. This was the intention of my original
post. I wasn't trying the defend any particular posters but the group as
a whole.
>
>> A major figure indeed. I live in Scotland, where Muir was from, and am
>> active in the John Muir Trust, an organisation set up to promote his
>> views. Until the last decade Muir was little known in the country of his
>> birth. Now the JMT owns many wild areas in the Scottish Highlands and
>> does much work in spreading Muir's views.
>
>JMT sort of like the Nature Conservancy? My understanding is most such
>wild places
>in Scotland are private, albiet with public access. I simply can't
>imaging what my
>life would have been like without public lands. To me that's Muir's greatest
>legacy. Without his influence even Roosevelt might not have accompished
>so much.
The view of private property is very different in Scotland (and in much
of Europe) to the USA. It is generally accepted that anyone can walk on
any uncultivated land regardless of the owner so the fact that land is
private isn't a problem. This is about to become law in Scotland under
an "Access" law. (It has been a legal right in Norway and Sweden since
the 1950s). Also the government can impose strict regulations about how
land can be used. I greatly admire the USA's system of national parks
and wilderness areas but I am very ) suspicious of government ownership
of land here in Scotland. Some of the greatest damage has been done on
the land the government does own as they see it as purely there for
development in the form of ski resorts (we've just had a funicular
railway blasted up one of the major mountains in the area) and
commercial monoculture forestry plantations.
The problem in Scotland is management. Most of the big private estates
are run as shooting estates for deer and grouse and little or nothing is
done to restore and conserve the land. There are far too many red deer
for a start.
The John Muir Trust is a private organisation "guided by Muir's charge
to 'do something for wildness and make the mountains glad'. "By
acquiring and sensitively managing key wild areas, the Trust sets out to
show that the damage inflicted on the world over the centuries can be
repaired: that the land can be conserved on a sustainable basis for the
human, animal and plant communities which share it; and the great
spiritual qualities of wilderness, of tranquility and solitude, can be
preserved as a legacy for those to come".
Jerry L. Golden
<Ch...@auchnarrow.demon.co.uk> Wrote:
>...
> There are plenty of ongoing flame wars in this group.
> I note that dh (Dan) has just joined in and
>been instantly attacked. He's been around awhile.
By me; Dan and I have ...issues... that go back quite a while now
(years?). But we can coexist quite well on the same NG if he doesn't
talk to, or about, me. And vice-versa, of course. My post was just a
reminder for him to not be throwing his shit over the fence - else
I'll throw it right back. If Dan wants to contribute his own ideas
regarding the LNT philosophy then I won't be flaming him (or perhaps
even be commenting on his material) in any way.
---
JLG
Tom Phillips
Chris Townsend wrote:
> The Complete Walker is both a philosophical book and a hiking guide.
> Fletcher's philosophy is found throughout the book but he does tell you
> how to pitch a tent, choose a sleeping bag, plan food supplies etc. Of
> course he has written other books, mostly about long trips he has made,
> such as The Man Who Walked Through Time, about a hike through the Grand
> Canyon, which I consider one of the best books on wilderness travel.
Yeah, I'm familiar with his books.
> I'd called it pretty horrible but also, in my experience, an extreme
> situation. In many thousands of mile of hiking in the USA and Canada
> I've seen very few places like that and those I have seen have not
> usually been caused by hikers.
We must hike in different spots :-)
> The most trashed place I've seen was a
> recently abandoned prospectors camp in the Yukon. Others have been in
> places with vehicular access.
In CO the mining relects in or near wilderness are the usually the least of any
ecological damage done. miners didn't camp, they built a cabin. Also those mines
that are either eye sores or leach cyanide are generally located near towns. Few
miners mined in what now are wilderness areas since once ore was discovered towns
grew up around those mines. Thus, in CO most wilderness areas have limited mining
scars -- a few glory holes and such.
> Also such places can recover, in a way that places that are concreted
> over can't.
Depends on the damage and if people are strictly regulated. Of course, I'm speaking
only of legally protected wilderness as a destination. I hear in Canada the
goverment tends to sponsor resource development of unprotected areas in may
instances. But a protected place trashed by backpackers can still take decades to
recover from overuse. I know places that have recovered sufficiently to look
"pristine" again yet it's typical to find buried trash from recent campers. Plastic
and beer cans have a way of both resurfacing and not being biodegradable. Fire
scarred rocks and overhangs never recover. With water, some of the larger
backcountry lakes (like in the Winds) have very long recharage times. So if soap
and feces get into these lakes you'll be drinking it and fishing in it it for a
long long time.
> To give two examples: the Chilkoot Trail in SE Alaska was
> totally trashed in the Klondike Gold Rush with thousands of people
> passing back and forth, shanty towns, all the trees cut down etc. Go
> there now and there's hardly any sign of this. Jump a long way south to
> the Santa Rita Mountains in Arizona and you see another area that was
> heavily damaged by prospectors and that has also recovered.
>
> Here in Scotland the big problem is not walkers - eroded paths can be
> repaired - but overgrazing by sheep and deer and the bulldozing of roads
> so that deer and grouse hunters can drive close to their prey. This
> prevents the regeneration of the forest - Scotland has just one percent
> of its natural forest left.
grazing damage not only lasts but is still occurring in US as well....though the
management trend now is to retire unused allotments,. But that's only because the
sheep industry is on the skids: bad for wool growers, but good for alpine meadows.
> In sensitive areas there probably is justification in restricting
> numbers. Certainly some areas should be closed to camping. Making access
> less easy is one way to do this without actually imposing regulations.
> Roads deep into the backcountry bring people. The worst damage is
> usually close to trailheads. In my local area in Scotland the most
> eroded trails stretch out from a high level parking area at a ski
> resort.
Well I can't speak for Scotland or the Chilkoot, but here the worst damage is
usually deep in wilderness areas far from trailheads, since people don't camp at
trailheads but hike to interior destination spots made popular by hiking guides,
outfitters (who make their living hauling as many campers as possible into remote
wilderness), and yearly "go hike here" articles in rags like Backpacker. Trailheads
may be crowded, but in both Colorado and the Winds the worst damage from camping
and overuse is typically found at destinations 8 to 15 miles from trailheads.
> One of the people you attacked as a troll, Jerry L.Golden, posted some
> good LNT advice.
Good for him. But he attacked me first.
> I'd rather debate the issues than personalities. I think those in favour
> of development often damage their own cause by the extreme language and
> insults they use. I don't think emulating them helps the wilderness
> cause.
Pointing out hypocrites and what their real attitudes toward wilderness are is not
a matter of personalities, though personalities come out in any post. And in the
real world personalities amongst both professional and grass root wilderness
advocates clash all the time. You should hear some of the yelling matches I've been
privileged to in various meetings. But the issue here isn't about that.
> Oh, I don't like sitting on boards. I'm on one committee that meets half
> a dozen times a year and that's enough. But there's other ways of being
> involved in organisations - writing letters, journal articles etc.,
> attending meetings and so on.
I did that for 14 years. gets old.
> I don't think you're being singled out. There are plenty of ongoing
> flame wars in this group. I note that dh (Dan) has just joined in and
> been instantly attacked. He's been around awhile. And try reading some
> Mike Vandeman threads - that's a flame war that has been going on for
> many years.
I think it's assumed I'm bad guy here while those in the drill the ANWR gang like
ruger9 get a free pass. jerry G. may have made one good post about LNT, but he was
more interseted in flaming me and he's also made it a subject for jokes (not good
humor, btw, just childish stupidity.) There *are* some things one should always
take and present seriously, not facetiously. LNT is one. I haven't read any posts
by dh and as long as mountain bikers stay on roads and designated trails and out of
roadless areas and off hiking trails I'm not very interested in their nonsense.
> >> Perhaps I'm more optimistic than you.
> >
> >I am rather pessimistic about human nature.
>
> We differ on this then.
That's O.K.
> >Even Eugene Miya's panel post on ethics left out disposal of human waste.
>
> This is a topic that comes up regularly and good advice is usually
> given.
Then why'd he leave it out? Pretty basic stuff.
> You need to read the group for several months at least to get an overall
> view. The "political" threads are only a small part of what goes on
> here. It's a very varied group. This was the intention of my original
> post. I wasn't trying the defend any particular posters but the group as
> a whole.
Again, I find such advice somewhat patronizing. I did do some archive searches.
I've noticed a few good people here, to be sure. But all in all I've seen better
nsg and I also have limited time. For example, I actually have quite a good sense
of humor and a good newsgroup that's not full of the ignorant will bring that out
in my posts. There are a few good threads here as well. But this seems to be the
exception. You keep at it though....maybe there should be a nsg "Wilderness" where
real issues could be discussed....
> >> A major figure indeed. I live in Scotland, where Muir was from, and am
> >> active in the John Muir Trust, an organisation set up to promote his
> >> views. Until the last decade Muir was little known in the country of his
> >> birth. Now the JMT owns many wild areas in the Scottish Highlands and
> >> does much work in spreading Muir's views.
> >
> >JMT sort of like the Nature Conservancy? My understanding is most such
> >wild places
> >in Scotland are private, albiet with public access. I simply can't
> >imaging what my
> >life would have been like without public lands. To me that's Muir's greatest
> >legacy. Without his influence even Roosevelt might not have accompished
> >so much.
>
> The view of private property is very different in Scotland (and in much
> of Europe) to the USA. It is generally accepted that anyone can walk on
> any uncultivated land regardless of the owner so the fact that land is
> private isn't a problem. This is about to become law in Scotland under
> an "Access" law.
Whoa...try that in the US and you'll get yer butt full of buckshot and never get
re-elected again ! Liberal or conservative private property (i.e., no trespassing)
rights are enshrined in legal stone. Of course, you can't pollute or kill
endangered species...
> Also the government can impose strict regulations about how
> land can be used.
here that's a matter of local zoning.
> I greatly admire the USA's system of national parks
> and wilderness areas but I am very suspicious of government ownership
> of land here in Scotland. Some of the greatest damage has been done on
> the land the government does own as they see it as purely there for
> development in the form of ski resorts (we've just had a funicular
> railway blasted up one of the major mountains in the area) and
> commercial monoculture forestry plantations.
Well, we do have quite rowdy debates on uses of pubic lands, but management
decisions requires public scoping under the National Environmental Policy Act and
other federal laws. This means the gov can't simply do things minus the public's
input.
> The problem in Scotland is management. Most of the big private estates
> are run as shooting estates for deer and grouse and little or nothing is
> done to restore and conserve the land. There are far too many red deer
> for a start.
you really should read Leopold, if you haven't already. Such issues were one of his
major battle grounds and also the turning point in his life which later led him to
author the science of wildlife management.
> The John Muir Trust is a private organisation "guided by Muir's charge
> to 'do something for wildness and make the mountains glad'. "By
> acquiring and sensitively managing key wild areas, the Trust sets out to
> show that the damage inflicted on the world over the centuries can be
> repaired: that the land can be conserved on a sustainable basis for the
> human, animal and plant communities which share it; and the great
> spiritual qualities of wilderness, of tranquility and solitude, can be
> preserved as a legacy for those to come".
I have this problem with words like "recovered" and "sustained." They could easily
be used by wilderness opponents to defend uses which damage wilderness since the
wilderness can always "recover" and sustain a certain amount of modern human use. I
realize in Eurpoe there really is no such thing as primeval wilderness which has
never know modern impacts, but in North America there's still primeval wilderness
left. The idea that it should be preserved for "sustained use" is foreign to the
very concepts espoused in the 1964 Wilderness Act where "man is a visitor who does
not remain..."
Once an area does have to "recover" from previous impacts for sustainable uses, it
really is no longer primeval. But I assume that's the best philisophical and
ecological situation available in Scotland.
Chris Townsend
writes
>
>
>Chris Townsend wrote:
>
>
>> I'd called it pretty horrible but also, in my experience, an extreme
>> situation. In many thousands of mile of hiking in the USA and Canada
>> I've seen very few places like that and those I have seen have not
>> usually been caused by hikers.
>
>We must hike in different spots :-)
>
>> The most trashed place I've seen was a
>> recently abandoned prospectors camp in the Yukon. Others have been in
>> places with vehicular access.
>
>In CO the mining relects in or near wilderness are the usually the least of any
>ecological damage done. miners didn't camp, they built a cabin. Also
>those mines
>that are either eye sores or leach cyanide are generally located near
>towns. Few
>miners mined in what now are wilderness areas since once ore was
>discovered towns
>grew up around those mines. Thus, in CO most wilderness areas have
>limited mining
>scars -- a few glory holes and such.
Yes. I've hiked in Colorado a few times, including around Leadville, and
didn't see many mining scars. But what were the mining areas like when
they were working?
>
>> Also such places can recover, in a way that places that are concreted
>> over can't.
>
>Depends on the damage and if people are strictly regulated. Of course,
>I'm speaking
>only of legally protected wilderness as a destination. I hear in Canada the
>goverment tends to sponsor resource development of unprotected areas in may
>instances. But a protected place trashed by backpackers can still take
>decades to
>recover from overuse. I know places that have recovered sufficiently to look
>"pristine" again yet it's typical to find buried trash from recent
>campers. Plastic
>and beer cans have a way of both resurfacing and not being biodegradable. Fire
>scarred rocks and overhangs never recover. With water, some of the larger
>backcountry lakes (like in the Winds) have very long recharage times.
>So if soap
>and feces get into these lakes you'll be drinking it and fishing in it it for a
>long long time.
I agree these are to be deplored and prevented if at all possible. But
clear-cut logging, open cast mining, ski resorts and other developments
are much worse.
>
>>
>> Here in Scotland the big problem is not walkers - eroded paths can be
>> repaired - but overgrazing by sheep and deer and the bulldozing of roads
>> so that deer and grouse hunters can drive close to their prey. This
>> prevents the regeneration of the forest - Scotland has just one percent
>> of its natural forest left.
>
>grazing damage not only lasts but is still occurring in US as
>well....though the
>management trend now is to retire unused allotments,. But that's only
>because the
>sheep industry is on the skids: bad for wool growers, but good for
>alpine meadows.
Same here. The sheep industry has been heavily subsidized for years by
the European Union but there's still little money in it now, which is
good for the forest.
>
>> In sensitive areas there probably is justification in restricting
>> numbers. Certainly some areas should be closed to camping. Making access
>> less easy is one way to do this without actually imposing regulations.
>> Roads deep into the backcountry bring people. The worst damage is
>> usually close to trailheads. In my local area in Scotland the most
>> eroded trails stretch out from a high level parking area at a ski
>> resort.
>
>Well I can't speak for Scotland or the Chilkoot, but here the worst damage is
>usually deep in wilderness areas far from trailheads, since people
>don't camp at
>trailheads but hike to interior destination spots made popular by
>hiking guides,
>outfitters (who make their living hauling as many campers as possible
>into remote
>wilderness), and yearly "go hike here" articles in rags like
>Backpacker. Trailheads
>may be crowded, but in both Colorado and the Winds the worst damage
>from camping
>and overuse is typically found at destinations 8 to 15 miles from trailheads.
Actually, by close to trailheads I was meaning within a half day to a
day's walk. I hiked in the High Uintas Wilderness in Utah and the
Glacier Peak Wilderness in Washington State last year and once I was
more than a day away from roads I saw little damage. In the High Uintas
the only really damaged area was close to the western end, which is the
most accessible from cities and a major highway. And most of that damage
seemed to have been done by horse packers. In Glacier Peak a few areas
were closed to camping - these seemed to be recovering well. There could
have been a huge copper mine in the Glacier Peak Wilderness. That would
have really trashed the area in a way that a few over-used camp sites
don't.
>
>> I'd rather debate the issues than personalities. I think those in favour
>> of development often damage their own cause by the extreme language and
>> insults they use. I don't think emulating them helps the wilderness
>> cause.
>
>Pointing out hypocrites and what their real attitudes toward wilderness
>are is not
>a matter of personalities, though personalities come out in any post.
Pointing out the logical results of someone's attitudes can be
beneficial. But I don't think just calling people hypocrites and trolls
helps advance the argument. Other people are likely to dismiss both
sides.
> And in the
>real world personalities amongst both professional and grass root wilderness
>advocates clash all the time. You should hear some of the yelling
>matches I've been
>privileged to in various meetings. But the issue here isn't about that.
>
I'm used to clashes in meetings and in journals and on websites. Any
organisation with strong-minded, passionate people is bound to have
major disputes at times. I'm involved in one at present in fact.
>
>> I don't think you're being singled out. There are plenty of ongoing
>> flame wars in this group. I note that dh (Dan) has just joined in and
>> been instantly attacked. He's been around awhile. And try reading some
>> Mike Vandeman threads - that's a flame war that has been going on for
>> many years.
>
>I think it's assumed I'm bad guy here while those in the drill the ANWR
>gang like
>ruger9 get a free pass.
They've been involved in many flame wars in the past. They certainly
don't always get a free pass. In this thread it was you who didn't give
them one. In other threads it's other people.
> jerry G. may have made one good post about LNT, but he was
>more interseted in flaming me and he's also made it a subject for jokes
>(not good
>humor, btw, just childish stupidity.) There *are* some things one should always
>take and present seriously, not facetiously. LNT is one.
I think a little humour can always help, even about the most serious
subjects.
>I haven't read any posts
>by dh and as long as mountain bikers stay on roads and designated
>trails and out of
>roadless areas and off hiking trails I'm not very interested in their nonsense.
Well, dh has just joined in this thread and Mike Vandeman's whole
campaign is about keeping mountain bikers off trails and out of
wilderness.
>
>
>> >Even Eugene Miya's panel post on ethics left out disposal of human waste.
>>
>> This is a topic that comes up regularly and good advice is usually
>> given.
>
>Then why'd he leave it out? Pretty basic stuff.
Eugene oversees the Distilled Wisdom posts. He doesn't write them all
and to some extent what appears depends on what other people contribute.
You could add something on human waste. If you look at many of the posts
you'll see additions by others that have become part of the post.
>
>> You need to read the group for several months at least to get an overall
>> view. The "political" threads are only a small part of what goes on
>> here. It's a very varied group. This was the intention of my original
>> post. I wasn't trying the defend any particular posters but the group as
>> a whole.
>
>Again, I find such advice somewhat patronizing.
Sorry. It's not meant to be.
>I did do some archive searches.
>I've noticed a few good people here, to be sure. But all in all I've
>seen better
>nsg and I also have limited time. For example, I actually have quite a
>good sense
>of humor and a good newsgroup that's not full of the ignorant will
>bring that out
>in my posts. There are a few good threads here as well. But this seems
>to be the
>exception. You keep at it though....maybe there should be a nsg
>"Wilderness" where
>real issues could be discussed....
Maybe there should be. This one after all does cover the whole range of
activities and opinions encompassed by "recreation in the backcountry".
>
>>
>> The view of private property is very different in Scotland (and in much
>> of Europe) to the USA. It is generally accepted that anyone can walk on
>> any uncultivated land regardless of the owner so the fact that land is
>> private isn't a problem. This is about to become law in Scotland under
>> an "Access" law.
>
>Whoa...try that in the US and you'll get yer butt full of buckshot and
>never get
>re-elected again ! Liberal or conservative private property (i.e., no
>trespassing)
>rights are enshrined in legal stone. Of course, you can't pollute or kill
>endangered species...
I'm aware how different it is in the US. I'm sure some landowners here
would like to shoot hikers and others and there have been clashes over
access, including mass trespasses in the past. A powerful hiker's
organisation, the Ramblers' Association, with over 100,000 members in
the UK, has campaigned for decades to a complete right of access to
uncultivated land. Finally we have governments in Scotland and the UK
that came to power pledged to grant what's called "a right to roam".
Also, we have "public rights of way", which are footpaths across private
property that it is legal to walk on.
Scotland is better than England and Wales in that you can generally walk
and camp unhindered on any uncultivated land. This isn't so in all of
England and Wales.
>
>> Also the government can impose strict regulations about how
>> land can be used.
>
>here that's a matter of local zoning.
It's that too here. Planning is the province of the local council. But
if central government designates an area a national nature reserve or
national park then different planning regulations apply.
>
>
>> The problem in Scotland is management. Most of the big private estates
>> are run as shooting estates for deer and grouse and little or nothing is
>> done to restore and conserve the land. There are far too many red deer
>> for a start.
>
>you really should read Leopold, if you haven't already. Such issues
>were one of his
>major battle grounds and also the turning point in his life which later
>led him to
>author the science of wildlife management.
I've read him. "A Sand County Almanac" is a key book.
We also had our own experts in the same field who pioneered deer
management and forest conservation back in the 1950s. However it's only
now that their ideas are spreading beyond a very few small areas.
>
>> The John Muir Trust is a private organisation "guided by Muir's charge
>> to 'do something for wildness and make the mountains glad'. "By
>> acquiring and sensitively managing key wild areas, the Trust sets out to
>> show that the damage inflicted on the world over the centuries can be
>> repaired: that the land can be conserved on a sustainable basis for the
>> human, animal and plant communities which share it; and the great
>> spiritual qualities of wilderness, of tranquility and solitude, can be
>> preserved as a legacy for those to come".
>
>I have this problem with words like "recovered" and "sustained." They
>could easily
>be used by wilderness opponents to defend uses which damage wilderness
>since the
>wilderness can always "recover" and sustain a certain amount of modern
>human use. I
>realize in Eurpoe there really is no such thing as primeval wilderness
>which has
>never know modern impacts, but in North America there's still primeval
>wilderness
>left. The idea that it should be preserved for "sustained use" is
>foreign to the
>very concepts espoused in the 1964 Wilderness Act where "man is a
>visitor who does
>not remain..."
That's one of the big differences. You do have pristine wilderness to
preserve. There's only a few places in Europe, mostly in northern
Scandinavia where this is so. In Scotland only the tops of the mountains
are relatively untouched.
Much of the Scottish Highlands, which many people call "wilderness", is
what some ecologists call a "wet desert". Deforestation and over-grazing
have stripped most of the natural vegetation away, leaving a degraded
landscape. Conserving the land here means allowing it to recover by
reducing grazing pressure. "Conserved on a sustainable basis" means
allowed to recover and then managed in such a way that it doesn't become
degraded again.
>
>Once an area does have to "recover" from previous impacts for
>sustainable uses, it
>really is no longer primeval. But I assume that's the best philisophical and
>ecological situation available in Scotland.
>
Sadly, it is. As I said we have just 1 percent of the original forest
left.
That's one reason I spend so much time in the US and Canada.
Tom Phillips
Chris Townsend wrote:
> Yes. I've hiked in Colorado a few times, including around Leadville, and
> didn't see many mining scars. But what were the mining areas like when
> they were working?
Pretty wild -- both physically and environmentally :-)
The early mines around Leadville can actually cause more problems now than they did
then, since as underground shafts when abandoned they filled with water and thus
now leak toxic metals into rivers like the Arkansas. Tailings are also sometimes a
problem. Now if you want to see a modern mining catastrophy, next time you're in CO
check out Summitville. At over 11,000 feet in the San Juan it's an EPA Superfund
site.
But the scale of historicmining was more limited and tended to concentrate in those
areas where significant easy to dig ore was found. In those preserved wilderness
areas we have now little mining took place -- which is why we have those areas.
Miners looked these areas over pretty good and concentrated on places where rich
strikes occurred. For instance near Cripple Creek, where in the 1880's a cowboy
named Tom Walsh tripped (literally) over a surface rock and found it was a gold
nugget the size of a small boulder.
> I agree these are to be deplored and prevented if at all possible. But
> clear-cut logging, open cast mining, ski resorts and other developments
> are much worse.
yes, but those impacts don't occur in *desiginated* wilderness areas. What I am
discussing (we may be thinking of two separate issues) is the management of
existing (i.e., legal) wilderness. What you cite are definitely public lands
issues. What concerns me about those issues is the potential harm to unprotected
roadless areas. But most roadless areas in the US are unpopularized and unvisited
by the majority of backpackers and campers. Designating an area as wilderness makes
it a magnet for high use recreation and these areas are what guide books and hiking
magazines typically write about.
> Same here. The sheep industry has been heavily subsidized for years by
> the European Union but there's still little money in it now, which is
> good for the forest.
I assume you mean (where you are) that the forest can then grow back? Here, sheep
don't impact forests since we don't cut down forests for grazing.
> Actually, by close to trailheads I was meaning within a half day to a
> day's walk. I hiked in the High Uintas Wilderness in Utah and the
> Glacier Peak Wilderness in Washington State last year and once I was
> more than a day away from roads I saw little damage. In the High Uintas
> the only really damaged area was close to the western end, which is the
> most accessible from cities and a major highway. And most of that damage
> seemed to have been done by horse packers.
Agreed. But unless one is in Alaska or Northern Canada or Antarctica few wilderness
preserves are larger than a day or two's hike in and out. Of course, people hike at
different rates, so what's a day hike for me (on average 10 miles but could be 15)
is a two day hike for someone else. In the Winds I once saw about 100 people
(backpackers and climbers) camped in an upper basin which was a good 18 miles from
the nearest trailhead. In my discussions wiht Forest Service managers I often have
to point out it isn't the distance, it's the destination. This is further evidenced
from that fact that I can go just 3 to four miles into a wilderness area and not
see anyone. But there's no lake or summit there, either.
BTW, I include horse use in the same category as other backcountry users. In US
wilderness most areas are by foot *or* horseback. It's an anal retentive left over
from the old wild west Roy Rogers thing. You know, the wild west meant horses even
though horses were never naturally occurring in mountain wilderness. Backpackers
often use horses to get 15 miles into the backcountry fast.
> Pointing out the logical results of someone's attitudes can be
> beneficial. But I don't think just calling people hypocrites and trolls
> helps advance the argument. Other people are likely to dismiss both
> sides.
I think it's reasonable to point this out. So we'll have to agree to disagree.
> >I think it's assumed I'm bad guy here while those in the drill the ANWR
> >gang like ruger9 get a free pass.
>
> They've been involved in many flame wars in the past.
I have no doubts about that :-)
> They certainly
> don't always get a free pass. In this thread it was you who didn't give
> them one. In other threads it's other people.
If I were a regular participant in this nsg they would never get a free pass or I
would always ignore them. Though I would certainly kindly warn new posters about
them as being resident trolls. In most nsg that's generally common courtesy.
> >> jerry G.... more interseted in flaming me and he's also made it a subject for
> jokes
> >(not good humor, btw, just childish stupidity.)
>
> I think a little humour can always help, even about the most serious
> subjects.
So, you'd also joke about bigotry, which trashes human dignity rather than nature's
dignity? I'm just saying there are some subjects that should always be treated wiht
respect and maturity. LNT is one of those subjects.
> >I haven't read any posts
> >by dh and as long as mountain bikers stay on roads and designated
> >trails and out of
> >roadless areas and off hiking trails I'm not very interested in their nonsense.
>
> Well, dh has just joined in this thread and Mike Vandeman's whole
> campaign is about keeping mountain bikers off trails and out of
> wilderness.
Keeping MB out of wilderness is something I totally support. It's motorized access,
and the law says so. Keeping them off trails previously unmountain-biked before is
also something I support. In CO here they recently simply took over a hiking trail
through a roadless area and then claimed it was a "historic" mountain bike trail.
There were plenty of four wheel drive trails to bike on, but they whined
incessantly about not having a wilderness trail to bike on. As a result this
important area was excluded from Congressional Wilderness Designation. The average
person respects trail restrictions and wilderness. But the mountain bike
associations are lying asses interested not in preservation but only in their own
selfish recreational pursuits. But enough about MB...
> Eugene oversees the Distilled Wisdom posts. He doesn't write them all
> and to some extent what appears depends on what other people contribute.
> You could add something on human waste.
I did :-)
> You keep at it though....maybe there should be a nsg
> >"Wilderness" where real issues could be discussed....
>
> Maybe there should be. This one after all does cover the whole range of
> activities and opinions encompassed by "recreation in the backcountry".
And apparently "backcountry" means places with motorized access and a few oil
rigs...to some anyway.
> >Whoa...try that in the US and you'll get yer butt full of buckshot
>
> I'm aware how different it is in the US. I'm sure some landowners here
> would like to shoot hikers and others and there have been clashes over
> access, including mass trespasses in the past. A powerful hiker's
> organisation, the Ramblers' Association, with over 100,000 members in
> the UK, has campaigned for decades to a complete right of access to
> uncultivated land. Finally we have governments in Scotland and the UK
> that came to power pledged to grant what's called "a right to roam".
>
> Also, we have "public rights of way", which are footpaths across private
> property that it is legal to walk on.
Same here. many roads you travel on in US national forests are negotiated rights of
ways. I don't really have a problem if someone doesn't want a right of way across
his property, though. But in England I can see where public acccess is a different
issue. You don't have a lot of public lands.
> >I have this problem with words like "recovered" and "sustained."
>
> That's one of the big differences. You do have pristine wilderness to
> preserve. There's only a few places in Europe, mostly in northern
> Scandinavia where this is so. In Scotland only the tops of the mountains
> are relatively untouched.
As Leopold said, "wilderness is a resource that can shrink but not grow." Something
that's lost on the Ruger-Limbaugh crowd, unfortunately.
> Much of the Scottish Highlands, which many people call "wilderness", is
> what some ecologists call a "wet desert". Deforestation and over-grazing
> have stripped most of the natural vegetation away, leaving a degraded
> landscape. Conserving the land here means allowing it to recover by
> reducing grazing pressure. "Conserved on a sustainable basis" means
> allowed to recover and then managed in such a way that it doesn't become
> degraded again.
Conservational ecology in already used areas is important. But I don't think they
should call it wilderness. perhaps "Restored Nature Preserve."
> >Once an area does have to "recover" from previous impacts for sustainable uses,
> it
> >really is no longer primeval. But I assume that's the best philisophical and
> >ecological situation available in Scotland.
>
> Sadly, it is. As I said we have just 1 percent of the original forest
> left. That's one reason I spend so much time in the US and Canada.
nice you can jet around like that :-) Not too long ago I ran across 4 Scottish
climbers doing a fast tour of certain areas. But they had to hike through the night
in order to keep from getting behind in their schedule. Thus, I appreciate being
able to live next door to magnificent wilderness preserves and is one reason I get
so uppity with those who would advocate development. They'd rather fill their lazy
gas tanks than preserve an irreplacable treasure.
O.K, I'm done ranting for the moment.
Chris Townsend
writes
>
>
>Chris Townsend wrote:
>
>
>> I agree these are to be deplored and prevented if at all possible. But
>> clear-cut logging, open cast mining, ski resorts and other developments
>> are much worse.
>
>yes, but those impacts don't occur in *desiginated* wilderness areas. What I am
>discussing (we may be thinking of two separate issues) is the management of
>existing (i.e., legal) wilderness. What you cite are definitely public lands
>issues. What concerns me about those issues is the potential harm to
>unprotected
>roadless areas. But most roadless areas in the US are unpopularized and
>unvisited
>by the majority of backpackers and campers. Designating an area as
>wilderness makes
>it a magnet for high use recreation and these areas are what guide
>books and hiking
>magazines typically write about.
I think we were at slight cross purposes here. I would guess though that
there still needs to be vigilance so that designated wilderness areas go
on being protected.
You illustrate a difficult problem here. Protect an area and give it a
name - something wilderness area or national park - and this will
attract more people. Don't protect it and it could be lost to the
developers. This is a major management issue.
The area where I live is due to become a national park, the second in
Scotland, in the next year or so. This should protect it against any
further developments but it will also bring in more people. How this is
handled will be crucial to the future of the area.
I would rather have the people in a protected area than lose the area to
developers however.
>
>> Same here. The sheep industry has been heavily subsidized for years by
>> the European Union but there's still little money in it now, which is
>> good for the forest.
>
>I assume you mean (where you are) that the forest can then grow back?
>Here, sheep
>don't impact forests since we don't cut down forests for grazing.
Forests weren't cut down for grazing. They were felled for industry,
fuel, houses etc. But the sheep were introduced in huge numbers into the
Highlands in the early 1800s at the same time as people were cleared off
the land (and went, in many cases, to the USA and Canada). Those sheep -
Muir's "hooved locusts" - prevented the forest regenerating by eating
all the seedlings. After the sheep private estates introduced red deer
(same as your elk) for hunting and they are now the main problem in
preventing forest regeneration as there are no natural predators. Most
of the remaining natural forest is at least 200 years old, while most
regeneration is 10-15 years old at most, which leaves a big gap.
Remove the sheep and the deer and the trees start to return. It's
amazing and heartening to see an area where trees - Scots pine, silver
birch, aspen, rowan - are suddenly starting to spring up.
>
>> Actually, by close to trailheads I was meaning within a half day to a
>> day's walk. I hiked in the High Uintas Wilderness in Utah and the
>> Glacier Peak Wilderness in Washington State last year and once I was
>> more than a day away from roads I saw little damage. In the High Uintas
>> the only really damaged area was close to the western end, which is the
>> most accessible from cities and a major highway. And most of that damage
>> seemed to have been done by horse packers.
>
>Agreed. But unless one is in Alaska or Northern Canada or Antarctica
>few wilderness
>preserves are larger than a day or two's hike in and out. Of course,
>people hike at
>different rates, so what's a day hike for me (on average 10 miles but
>could be 15)
>is a two day hike for someone else. In the Winds I once saw about 100 people
>(backpackers and climbers) camped in an upper basin which was a good 18
>miles from
>the nearest trailhead. In my discussions wiht Forest Service managers I
>often have
>to point out it isn't the distance, it's the destination. This is
>further evidenced
>from that fact that I can go just 3 to four miles into a wilderness
>area and not
>see anyone. But there's no lake or summit there, either.
I do tend to avoid obvious destinations, especially for camp sites.
In the High Uintas most people (at least 80% from looking at the
trailhead registers) either go into the western basins for the fishing
and hunting because of the easy access or hike in from the north to
climb the highest peak in Utah, King's Peak. I hiked the range from end
to end and saw nobody on most days but about thirty people on the day I
crossed a shoulder of King's Peak and a few people on the last day as I
was hiking out to the trailhead. Other than a wide trail near King's
Peak and some over-used campsites near the western trailhead the only
damage I saw was a sheepherder's camp with cut boughs etc (and the huge
flock of sheep had made a fair mess of a high meadow too - and this is
in a designated wilderness).
>
>BTW, I include horse use in the same category as other backcountry users. In US
>wilderness most areas are by foot *or* horseback. It's an anal
>retentive left over
>from the old wild west Roy Rogers thing. You know, the wild west meant
>horses even
>though horses were never naturally occurring in mountain wilderness.
>Backpackers
>often use horses to get 15 miles into the backcountry fast.
Pony trekking, as it's called here, is growing in popularity in Scotland
and beginning to impact some of the trails.
I remember seeing some badly churned up trails and campsites in the Bob
Marshall Wilderness.
>
>> Pointing out the logical results of someone's attitudes can be
>> beneficial. But I don't think just calling people hypocrites and trolls
>> helps advance the argument. Other people are likely to dismiss both
>> sides.
>
>I think it's reasonable to point this out. So we'll have to agree to disagree.
Fair enough.
>> I think a little humour can always help, even about the most serious
>> subjects.
>
>So, you'd also joke about bigotry, which trashes human dignity rather
>than nature's
>dignity? I'm just saying there are some subjects that should always
>be treated wiht
>respect and maturity. LNT is one of those subjects.
It needs to be done with care though. I'm very aware of the dangers of
preaching or seeming self-righteous as I know this puts people off and
can push them in the other direction. I would draw the line at racism.
>
>> >I haven't read any posts
>> >by dh and as long as mountain bikers stay on roads and designated
>> >trails and out of
>> >roadless areas and off hiking trails I'm not very interested in
>> >their nonsense.
>>
>> Well, dh has just joined in this thread and Mike Vandeman's whole
>> campaign is about keeping mountain bikers off trails and out of
>> wilderness.
>
>Keeping MB out of wilderness is something I totally support. It's
>motorized access,
>and the law says so. Keeping them off trails previously
>unmountain-biked before is
>also something I support. In CO here they recently simply took over a
>hiking trail
>through a roadless area and then claimed it was a "historic" mountain
>bike trail.
>There were plenty of four wheel drive trails to bike on, but they whined
>incessantly about not having a wilderness trail to bike on. As a result this
>important area was excluded from Congressional Wilderness Designation.
>The average
>person respects trail restrictions and wilderness. But the mountain bike
>associations are lying asses interested not in preservation but only in
>their own
>selfish recreational pursuits. But enough about MB...
This is very much what Mike Vandeman says, only far better put. But the
way he does it puts most people off, even those who have some sympathy
with his views. He's constantly calling people liars and seems to be
pursuing a vendetta against all mountain bikers. I think he damages his
own cause and by extension others.
>
>> You keep at it though....maybe there should be a nsg
>> >"Wilderness" where real issues could be discussed....
>>
>> Maybe there should be. This one after all does cover the whole range of
>> activities and opinions encompassed by "recreation in the backcountry".
>
>And apparently "backcountry" means places with motorized access and a few oil
>rigs...to some anyway.
I'm afraid it does.
>>
>> Also, we have "public rights of way", which are footpaths across private
>> property that it is legal to walk on.
>
>Same here. many roads you travel on in US national forests are
>negotiated rights of
>ways. I don't really have a problem if someone doesn't want a right of
>way across
>his property, though. But in England I can see where public acccess is
>a different
>issue. You don't have a lot of public lands.
Virtually none.
And certainly in the Scottish Highlands the view is that the land was
held in common until it was stolen by the lairds.
>
>> >I have this problem with words like "recovered" and "sustained."
>>
>> That's one of the big differences. You do have pristine wilderness to
>> preserve. There's only a few places in Europe, mostly in northern
>> Scandinavia where this is so. In Scotland only the tops of the mountains
>> are relatively untouched.
>
>As Leopold said, "wilderness is a resource that can shrink but not
>grow." Something
>that's lost on the Ruger-Limbaugh crowd, unfortunately.
Pure pristine wilderness can only shrink yes. But restoration of damaged
areas is still worthwhile.
>
>> Much of the Scottish Highlands, which many people call "wilderness", is
>> what some ecologists call a "wet desert". Deforestation and over-grazing
>> have stripped most of the natural vegetation away, leaving a degraded
>> landscape. Conserving the land here means allowing it to recover by
>> reducing grazing pressure. "Conserved on a sustainable basis" means
>> allowed to recover and then managed in such a way that it doesn't become
>> degraded again.
>
>Conservational ecology in already used areas is important. But I don't
>think they
>should call it wilderness. perhaps "Restored Nature Preserve."
I agree. I'm careful never to call anywhere in the Scottish Highlands
wilderness. Wild land yes but not wilderness. However many people do
call it wilderness.
>
>> >Once an area does have to "recover" from previous impacts for
>> >sustainable uses,
>> it
>> >really is no longer primeval. But I assume that's the best philisophical and
>> >ecological situation available in Scotland.
>>
>> Sadly, it is. As I said we have just 1 percent of the original forest
>> left. That's one reason I spend so much time in the US and Canada.
>
>nice you can jet around like that :-)
Well, that's why I made it my line of work. You doubtless wouldn't
approve but what first attracted me to the western US was seeing a slide
show in England given by a visiting ranger from Yosemite. I just stared
at the images and thought I have to go there. Because it's so far away I
often visit for several months at a time and do a long distance hike
then write about it. I am completely in love with the wilderness areas
of the western US and Canada from the SW deserts to the Yukon.
Encouraging people to look after wilderness, to treat it with respect
and to campaign for its preservation is one way I can give something
back.
>Not too long ago I ran across 4 Scottish
>climbers doing a fast tour of certain areas. But they had to hike
>through the night
>in order to keep from getting behind in their schedule.
I try and avoid that!
>Thus, I appreciate being
>able to live next door to magnificent wilderness preserves and is one
>reason I get
>so uppity with those who would advocate development. They'd rather fill
>their lazy
>gas tanks than preserve an irreplacable treasure.
The price of wilderness is eternal vigilance.
Tom Phillips
Chris Townsend wrote:
> I think we were at slight cross purposes here. I would guess though that
> there still needs to be vigilance so that designated wilderness areas go
> on being protected.
>
> You illustrate a difficult problem here. Protect an area and give it a
> name - something wilderness area or national park - and this will
> attract more people. Don't protect it and it could be lost to the
> developers. This is a major management issue.
yep. But it doesn't help when Backpacker Magazine publishes an article on the the
"best" places to go or tells people exactly where to hike and camp. And they do it
all the time and they've done it to some very special places I know well that
became overused as a result. Many guide books are as bad.
> The area where I live is due to become a national park, the second in
> Scotland, in the next year or so. This should protect it against any
> further developments but it will also bring in more people. How this is
> handled will be crucial to the future of the area.
management is critical. Which is why it should be an important topic of discussion
so people can write letters to do-nothing park or forest managers. No public
concern and outcry, nothing gets done.
> I would rather have the people in a protected area than lose the area to
> developers however.
Yes but again that area needs to be managed properly to protect the resource, not
for "recreation." Recreation should come second.
> Forests weren't cut down for grazing. They were felled for industry,
> fuel, houses etc. But the sheep were introduced in huge numbers into the
> Highlands in the early 1800s at the same time as people were cleared off
> the land (and went, in many cases, to the USA and Canada). Those sheep -
> Muir's "hooved locusts" - prevented the forest regenerating by eating
> all the seedlings.
Not just the seedlings, Sheep churn the roots and is why they're such destructive
"hooved locusts"
> After the sheep private estates introduced red deer
> (same as your elk)
Yes, American "elk" are actually wapiti -- a separate deer species. but anyway...
> for hunting and they are now the main problem in
> preventing forest regeneration as there are no natural predators. ....
> Remove the sheep and the deer and the trees start to return.
Wolves.
> I do tend to avoid obvious destinations, especially for camp sites.
>
> In the High Uintas most people (at least 80% from looking at the
> trailhead registers) either go into the western basins for the fishing
> and hunting because of the easy access or hike in from the north to
> climb the highest peak in Utah, King's Peak. I hiked the range from end
> to end and saw nobody on most days but about thirty people on the day I
> crossed a shoulder of King's Peak and a few people on the last day as I
> was hiking out to the trailhead. Other than a wide trail near King's
> Peak and some over-used campsites near the western trailhead the only
> damage I saw was a sheepherder's camp with cut boughs etc (and the huge
> flock of sheep had made a fair mess of a high meadow too - and this is
> in a designated wilderness).
Spend most of my time in the Winds and CO areas.
> >Backpackersoften use horses to get 15 miles into the backcountry fast.
>
> Pony trekking, as it's called here, is growing in popularity in Scotland
> and beginning to impact some of the trails.
>
> I remember seeing some badly churned up trails and campsites in the Bob
> Marshall Wilderness.
Yeah. It's money driven recreation...
> >So, you'd also joke about bigotry, which trashes human dignity rather
> >than nature's dignity? I'm just saying there are some subjects that should
> always
> >be treated wiht respect and maturity. LNT is one of those subjects.
>
> It needs to be done with care though. I'm very aware of the dangers of
> preaching or seeming self-righteous as I know this puts people off and
> can push them in the other direction. I would draw the line at racism.
When I see some dumb woman washing the soap from her city-slicker hair into a
stream...well it makes Usenet flames look tame by comparison :-) Last time I
politely said "you know, you shouldn't be doing that..." I was told to shut up in
no uncertain terms. This is a common reaction. So now I just give the morons a good
tongue lashing and threaten them with a citation via citizen report (usually works
since I make it a point to know the Fed. ranger in charge.) The unfortunate reality
in my long experience is unless you call them a stupid freaking idiot to their face
they don't seem to take it to heart and think about common sense.
Psychological theory and philosophy are fine, but there's nothing like practical
experience.
> >Keeping MB out of wilderness is something I totally support. It's motorized
> access,
> >and the law says so. Keeping them off trails previously unmountain-biked before
> is
> >also something I support. In CO here they recently simply took over a hiking
> trail
> >through a roadless area and then claimed it was a "historic" mountain bike
> trail.
> >There were plenty of four wheel drive trails to bike on, but they whined
> >incessantly about not having a wilderness trail to bike on. As a result this
> >important area was excluded from Congressional Wilderness Designation.
> >The average person respects trail restrictions and wilderness. But the mountain
> bike
> >associations are lying asses interested not in preservation but only in
> >their own selfish recreational pursuits. But enough about MB...
>
> This is very much what Mike Vandeman says, only far better put. But the
> way he does it puts most people off, even those who have some sympathy
> with his views. He's constantly calling people liars and seems to be
> pursuing a vendetta against all mountain bikers. I think he damages his
> own cause and by extension others.
Mountain bike issues are management issues for the most part -- unless like my
examples above you encounter someone deliberately in violation of wilderness or
forest regulations. Frankly, with LNT I think there's simply no excuse. People dumb
enough to leave turds on trails or *joke* about doing so need to be preached at and
loudly. MB should be dealt with through another avenue -- legal or regulatory.
It's useless to butt heads over that fact that MB exist, therefore one should work
through legal or regulatory channels to restrict their impacts on public lands.
As far as preaching LNT and related flames, I actually received an email back from
the originator of this LNT thread. So I don't think she was turned off by my
preachiness. I hope all the good info posted will get into her article.
> >You don't have a lot of public lands.
>
> Virtually none.
>
> And certainly in the Scottish Highlands the view is that the land was
> held in common until it was stolen by the lairds.
Ah, the peasants vs the lairds.
> >Conservational ecology in already used areas is important. But I don't
> >think they should call it wilderness. perhaps "Restored Nature Preserve."
>
> I agree. I'm careful never to call anywhere in the Scottish Highlands
> wilderness. Wild land yes but not wilderness. However many people do
> call it wilderness.
Given it's openness compared to a more crowded English countryside, I suppose it
is, relatively speaking
> >nice you can jet around like that :-)
>
> Well, that's why I made it my line of work. You doubtless wouldn't
> approve but what first attracted me to the western US was seeing a slide
> show in England given by a visiting ranger from Yosemite.
I've used the technique to preserve an area, but not promote an area. But being a
photographer I can understand. I was first fascinated by cameras and then drawn to
landscape and nature by my experiences. Later went to photo college.
> Encouraging people to look after wilderness, to treat it with respect
> and to campaign for its preservation is one way I can give something
> back.
If that's what's you actually do, then great.
> The price of wilderness is eternal vigilance.
Sometimes it's also beating a few numskulls over the head with an ice axe,
metaphorically speaking. Occasionally in a nsg :-)
SPeacock
> Also such places can recover,
When a discussion involves damaged caused by humans on a trail, I often
wonder about the damage and complete devastation a glacier causes. The
results, years later, bring many 'oohs' and 'ahhs'
Human damage, at least a good part of it, is usually restricted to the
10 feet or so on either side of a relatively thin gossamer thread of at
trail that winds through a wilderness. For the most part that
'trashing' is restricted to the distance a human can throw an object.
Major water and species pollution is another thing, of course.
But most bemoan the retreat of a glacier.
Chris Townsend
writes
>
>
>Chris Townsend wrote:
>
>> I think we were at slight cross purposes here. I would guess though that
>> there still needs to be vigilance so that designated wilderness areas go
>> on being protected.
>>
>> You illustrate a difficult problem here. Protect an area and give it a
>> name - something wilderness area or national park - and this will
>> attract more people. Don't protect it and it could be lost to the
>> developers. This is a major management issue.
>
>yep. But it doesn't help when Backpacker Magazine publishes an article
>on the the
>"best" places to go or tells people exactly where to hike and camp. And
>they do it
>all the time and they've done it to some very special places I know well that
>became overused as a result. Many guide books are as bad.
I'm more interested in telling people how to hike and camp than where.
Though sometimes "where" can direct people into areas that can stand
more pressure and away from over-used areas.
>
>> The area where I live is due to become a national park, the second in
>> Scotland, in the next year or so. This should protect it against any
>> further developments but it will also bring in more people. How this is
>> handled will be crucial to the future of the area.
>
>management is critical. Which is why it should be an important topic of
>discussion
>so people can write letters to do-nothing park or forest managers. No public
>concern and outcry, nothing gets done.
How the Cairngorms National Park will be managed, and who will do the
managing, is a huge topic of argument and discussion at present.
>
>> I would rather have the people in a protected area than lose the area to
>> developers however.
>
>Yes but again that area needs to be managed properly to protect the
>resource, not
>for "recreation." Recreation should come second.
The problem with the word "recreation" is that it includes everything
from ski resorts to hiking. Low or minimum impact recreation should be
the aim, which rules out many forms of recreation.
>
>> Forests weren't cut down for grazing. They were felled for industry,
>> fuel, houses etc. But the sheep were introduced in huge numbers into the
>> Highlands in the early 1800s at the same time as people were cleared off
>> the land (and went, in many cases, to the USA and Canada). Those sheep -
>> Muir's "hooved locusts" - prevented the forest regenerating by eating
>> all the seedlings.
>
>Not just the seedlings, Sheep churn the roots and is why they're such
>destructive
>"hooved locusts"
When there's any roots left to churn.
>
>> After the sheep private estates introduced red deer
>> (same as your elk)
>
>Yes, American "elk" are actually wapiti -- a separate deer species. but
anyway...
Elk/wapiti and red deer are both Cervus elaphus. The Scandinavian "elg",
sometimes called elk, is the same species as the American moose. We
don't have those in Scotland.
>
>> for hunting and they are now the main problem in
>> preventing forest regeneration as there are no natural predators. ....
>> Remove the sheep and the deer and the trees start to return.
>
>Wolves.
I'm all for the reintroduction of wolves into the Highlands but you
should hear the outcry when it has been suggested. It will come but
it'll be a while.
Beaver are about to be reintroduced.
>
>>I'm very aware of the dangers of
>> preaching or seeming self-righteous as I know this puts people off and
>> can push them in the other direction. I would draw the line at racism.
>
>When I see some dumb woman washing the soap from her city-slicker hair into a
>stream...well it makes Usenet flames look tame by comparison :-) Last time I
>politely said "you know, you shouldn't be doing that..." I was told to
>shut up in
>no uncertain terms. This is a common reaction. So now I just give the
>morons a good
>tongue lashing and threaten them with a citation via citizen report
>(usually works
>since I make it a point to know the Fed. ranger in charge.) The
>unfortunate reality
>in my long experience is unless you call them a stupid freaking idiot
>to their face
>they don't seem to take it to heart and think about common sense.
>
>Psychological theory and philosophy are fine, but there's nothing like
>practical
>experience.
Oh, I've had some furious arguments out in the wilds but I do try and
avoid them. I have found many people will listen to reason.
>
>
>As far as preaching LNT and related flames, I actually received an
>email back from
>the originator of this LNT thread. So I don't think she was turned off by my
>preachiness. I hope all the good info posted will get into her article.
Good. I hope so too.
>
>> >You don't have a lot of public lands.
>>
>> Virtually none.
>>
>> And certainly in the Scottish Highlands the view is that the land was
>> held in common until it was stolen by the lairds.
>
>Ah, the peasants vs the lairds.
More the clans versus the clan leaders.
>
>> >Conservational ecology in already used areas is important. But I don't
>> >think they should call it wilderness. perhaps "Restored Nature Preserve."
>>
>> I agree. I'm careful never to call anywhere in the Scottish Highlands
>> wilderness. Wild land yes but not wilderness. However many people do
>> call it wilderness.
>
>Given it's openness compared to a more crowded English countryside, I
>suppose it
>is, relatively speaking
In a sense, yes. There are around 59 million people in the UK, which is
smaller than California. However there's only 1/2 a million in the
Highlands and Islands, which make up around 1/3 of the land mass.
I'm forty miles away from the nearest city, and that only has 10,000
people. The nearest town is 5 miles away, with 5,000 people.
>
>> >nice you can jet around like that :-)
>>
>> Well, that's why I made it my line of work. You doubtless wouldn't
>> approve but what first attracted me to the western US was seeing a slide
>> show in England given by a visiting ranger from Yosemite.
>
>I've used the technique to preserve an area, but not promote an area.
>But being a
>photographer I can understand. I was first fascinated by cameras and
>then drawn to
>landscape and nature by my experiences. Later went to photo college.
The ranger wasn't promoting Yosemite as a destination. He was on a job
exchange with a ranger from the Peak District National Park in England
and showing us the difference between the two parks. He couldn't help
but show what Yosemite is like of course.
I became a photographer because of my love for nature and wilderness. I
wanted to illustrate articles and give slide shows.
I think photos are a very powerful way of showing the beauty of a region
and therefore why it is worth preserving.
>
>> Encouraging people to look after wilderness, to treat it with respect
>> and to campaign for its preservation is one way I can give something
>> back.
>
>If that's what's you actually do, then great.
It's what I try to do.
>
>> The price of wilderness is eternal vigilance.
>
>Sometimes it's also beating a few numskulls over the head with an ice axe,
>metaphorically speaking. Occasionally in a nsg :-)
Maybe! I prefer to be more gentle :-)
>
penny s
> >As far as preaching LNT and related flames, I actually received an
> >email back from
> >the originator of this LNT thread. So I don't think she was turned off by
my
> >preachiness. I hope all the good info posted will get into her article.
you too? I had cc'd here with some of my posts. I told her to
ignore this pissing contest, and continue to inquire for info here as it's a
subject near and dear to our hearts <g>
so we'll see what happens next.
penny
Tom Phillips
Chris Townsend wrote:
> I'm more interested in telling people how to hike and camp than where.
I get that impression.
> How the Cairngorms National Park will be managed, and who will do the
> managing, is a huge topic of argument and discussion at present.
>
> The problem with the word "recreation" is that it includes everything
> from ski resorts to hiking. Low or minimum impact recreation should be
> the aim, which rules out many forms of recreation.
I've had words with with the US Park Service over this sort of thing. Even when a
park is also a designated wilderness the Park Service has often managed that
wilderness like a park, and parks "are for people." Parks are also a big
financial boon to local chambers of commerce so development pressure is even
greater. US National parks are developed for tourism. What this all means is
recreational activities are sometimes allowed which are not always compatable
with wilderness. So it's very important to define the scope of human recreation
and access allowed and limit what impacts on the resource those activies and
access will have. The Wilderness Act more or less did this for designated
wilderness areas by limiting recreation and access to "primitive" forms, but
cases have arisen when some new form of recreation is invented so that term
"primitive" has to be redefined in context. Geneally, it means historically
primitive modes of travel like walking or cross country (nordic) skiing. Better
are the new Park Service managment guidelines for wilderness (you might like
checking them out), which while not identifying every specific form of
incompatable recreation seems to make the resource the prime concern: anything
which alters, modifies, or damages the resource or the wilderness values is
incompatable.
> Elk/wapiti and red deer are both Cervus elaphus. The Scandinavian "elg",
> sometimes called elk, is the same species as the American moose. We
> don't have those in Scotland.
Not to be pedantic (which of course I am...) my references say C. elaphus is the
red deer of Europe and Asia, while C. canadensis (same genus, different species)
is the American Wapiti. In addition there are four subspecies: C. c. nelsoni; C.
c. roosevelti; C. c. manitobensis; C. c. manitobensis. Extinct is the eastern
elk, C. c. canadensis. Here in CO elk in Rocky Mountain NP were repopulated with
roosevelt, I think. "Wapiti" is the Shosone word for Cervus canadensis.
> >Wolves.
>
> I'm all for the reintroduction of wolves into the Highlands but you
> should hear the outcry when it has been suggested. It will come but
> it'll be a while.
Same story everywhere...
> Oh, I've had some furious arguments out in the wilds but I do try and
> avoid them. I have found many people will listen to reason.
Most people do have reason and common sense, others are utterly ignorant. Some
are just complete asses. I almost tossed one guy into a lake a couple years
back....
> I'm forty miles away from the nearest city, and that only has 10,000
> people. The nearest town is 5 miles away, with 5,000 people.
Lucky you.
> I became a photographer because of my love for nature and wilderness. I
> wanted to illustrate articles and give slide shows.
>
> I think photos are a very powerful way of showing the beauty of a region
> and therefore why it is worth preserving.
Good enough reason. Most nature photographers (those who are trained as
professional photographers) photograph nature for expressive reasons, though.
Thus Ansel Adams never photographed anything for environmental reasons as is
often thought, but because he was drawn to nature artistically. Me, I'll
photograph anything :-)
> >> Encouraging people to look after wilderness, to treat it with respect
> >> and to campaign for its preservation is one way I can give something
> >> back.
> >
> >If that's what's you actually do, then great.
>
> It's what I try to do.
I think Borneo could use your help...
> >> The price of wilderness is eternal vigilance.
> >
> >Sometimes it's also beating a few numskulls over the head with an ice axe,
> >metaphorically speaking. Occasionally in a nsg :-)
>
> Maybe! I prefer to be more gentle :-)
But you scottish never had James Watt to deal with :-) Now there's Gale Norton,
whom I hear replaced the Interior Dept. office artwork with pictures of oil
rigs.
Anyway it's nice talking to a real conversationalists who has real passion for
wild things.
Chris Townsend
writes
The last is a good principle. I think one problem is that national parks
the world over seem obliged to promote themselves as tourist
destinations and then to provide facilities for those tourists.
I prefer the approach of the John Muir Trust, which doesn't promote or
advertise its land. There are no big signs saying "John Muir Trust ****
Mountain Estate" or even any signs at all. Access is free to all on foot
or ski but it's not made any easier.
>
>> Elk/wapiti and red deer are both Cervus elaphus. The Scandinavian "elg",
>> sometimes called elk, is the same species as the American moose. We
>> don't have those in Scotland.
>
>Not to be pedantic (which of course I am...) my references say C.
>elaphus is the
>red deer of Europe and Asia, while C. canadensis (same genus, different
>species)
>is the American Wapiti. In addition there are four subspecies: C. c.
>nelsoni; C.
>c. roosevelti; C. c. manitobensis; C. c. manitobensis. Extinct is the eastern
>elk, C. c. canadensis. Here in CO elk in Rocky Mountain NP were
>repopulated with
>roosevelt, I think. "Wapiti" is the Shosone word for Cervus canadensis.
My natural history references - National Aubudon Society field guides
(2) and the Handbook of the Canadian Rockies simply give Cervus elaphus
for the elk. However Encyclopedia Britannica says
"Wapiti,also called AMERICAN ELK (species Cervus canadensis), North
American deer, family Cervidae (order Artiodactyla), considered by some
authorities to be of the same species as the red deer (C. elaphus) of
Eurasia. "
>
>> >Wolves.
>>
>> I'm all for the reintroduction of wolves into the Highlands but you
>> should hear the outcry when it has been suggested. It will come but
>> it'll be a while.
>
>Same story everywhere...
They're back in Yellowstone.
>
>> I'm forty miles away from the nearest city, and that only has 10,000
>> people. The nearest town is 5 miles away, with 5,000 people.
>
>Lucky you.
The advantage of being self-employed, along with the wonders of email
and electronic communication.
>
>> I became a photographer because of my love for nature and wilderness. I
>> wanted to illustrate articles and give slide shows.
>>
>> I think photos are a very powerful way of showing the beauty of a region
>> and therefore why it is worth preserving.
>
>Good enough reason. Most nature photographers (those who are trained as
>professional photographers) photograph nature for expressive reasons, though.
>Thus Ansel Adams never photographed anything for environmental reasons as is
>often thought, but because he was drawn to nature artistically. Me, I'll
>photograph anything :-)
So will I. Sometimes it's necessary to photograph the damage that is
done to wild country not just beautiful landscapes. Last autumn I
photographed the massive destruction caused by the building of a
funicular railway up a major mountain here. It was very depressing
spending half a day walking round a massive building site high on a
mountain but I felt it needed recording. I posted some of the results on
the web, along with captions taken from the developers promotional
material telling people how "sustainable" and "environmentally friendly"
the railway is. (You can see these pictures on
http://www.scotlandonline/outdoors.co.uk - just do a search on my name
or Cairngorm funicular).
>
>> >> The price of wilderness is eternal vigilance.
>> >
>> >Sometimes it's also beating a few numskulls over the head with an ice axe,
>> >metaphorically speaking. Occasionally in a nsg :-)
>>
>> Maybe! I prefer to be more gentle :-)
>
>But you scottish never had James Watt to deal with :-) Now there's
>Gale Norton,
>whom I hear replaced the Interior Dept. office artwork with pictures of oil
>rigs.
We have our own versions, unfortunately.
>
>Anyway it's nice talking to a real conversationalists who has real passion for
>wild things.
>
>
Yes it is. I'm enjoying this thread.
Chris Townsend
<Ch...@auchnarrow.demon.co.uk> writes
>>Chris Townsend wrote:
> Sometimes it's necessary to photograph the damage that is done to wild
>country not just beautiful landscapes. Last autumn I photographed the
>massive destruction caused by the building of a funicular railway up a
>major mountain here. It was very depressing spending half a day walking
>round a massive building site high on a mountain but I felt it needed
>recording. I posted some of the results on the web, along with captions
>taken from the developers promotional material telling people how
>"sustainable" and "environmentally friendly" the railway is. (You can
>see these pictures on http://www.scotlandonline/outdoors.co.uk - just
>do a search on my name or Cairngorm funicular).
Sorry. That should be:
http://www.scotlandonline.com/outdoors/cairngorm_feature/index.cfm
I shouldn't try and remember web info without checking.
Tom Phillips
Chris Townsend wrote:
> > anything
> >which alters, modifies, or damages the resource or the wilderness values is
> >incompatable.
>
> The last is a good principle. I think one problem is that national parks
> the world over seem obliged to promote themselves as tourist
> destinations and then to provide facilities for those tourists.
People's desire to so recreate is very hard to overcome.
> I prefer the approach of the John Muir Trust, which doesn't promote or
> advertise its land. There are no big signs saying "John Muir Trust ****
> Mountain Estate" or even any signs at all. Access is free to all on foot
> or ski but it's not made any easier.
Problem is, for preserving a lot of land you really need the government and it's
money.
> My natural history references - National Aubudon Society field guides
> (2) and the Handbook of the Canadian Rockies simply give Cervus elaphus
> for the elk. However Encyclopedia Britannica says
>
> "Wapiti,also called AMERICAN ELK (species Cervus canadensis), North
> American deer, family Cervidae (order Artiodactyla), considered by some
> authorities to be of the same species as the red deer (C. elaphus) of
> Eurasia. "
Biologists are rather pedantic (more so than me...) about such things as family,
genus, and species. Sometimes a dog is just a dog :) My view is if they can
sexually interact they're basically the same species.
> >> >Wolves.
>
> They're back in Yellowstone.
Thinking about it here in CO. Been mentioned several times for Rocky Mtn. NP, where
the reintroduced elk herds are way out of control since the Park Service is full of
unscientific morons who don't know how to manage wildlife. The elk are trampling
the tundra because there's not enough lower winter range and people complain about
elk in their yards...
> The advantage of being self-employed, along with the wonders of email
> and electronic communication.
Most people I know who live in the boondocks don't get eletricity, but they do have
a generator and phone line for that all important computer.
> (You can see these pictures on
> http://www.scotlandonline/outdoors.co.uk - just do a search on my name
> or Cairngorm funicular).
I get a no server response...
> >But you scottish never had James Watt to deal with :-) Now there's Gale Norton,
>
> >whom I hear replaced the Interior Dept. office artwork with pictures of oil
> rigs.
>
> We have our own versions, unfortunately.
On the bright side, when like Watt they break the mold they can cause membership
in conservation orgs to double. Ya have to love 'em for that.
> >Anyway it's nice talking to a real conversationalists who has real passion for
> >wild things.
> >
> Yes it is. I'm enjoying this thread.
Well, it does beat flaming with tmc ;-)
Tom Phillips
penny s wrote:
>
> you too? I had cc'd here with some of my posts. I told her to
> ignore this pissing contest, and continue to inquire for info here as it's a
> subject near and dear to our hearts <g>
Pretty much my advice. She asked me a couple of other questions tho...like
which LNT "step" was most important. I said they all are :-) It's the
philosophy in general...