In article <ZFUzmrS0CyvIFwB0@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
Chris Townsend <Chris@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>In message <48befc6b$1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, Eugene Miya <eugene@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>writes
>>In article <fast-CE9B6B.13414030082008@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
>>Bruce in alaska <fast@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>I always figured that if you were out, farther than two days of steady
>>>Hiking, from the nearest Road, in any direction, that connected to
>>>somewheres else, that you would be in the "BackCountry", or Bush.
>>>With that definition you would not find a lot of "BackCountry in
>>>the EU, but some in the Scandinavian Countries, and mostly in their
>>>Northern Parts. Same in Canada, and with Argentina, and Chile, except
>>>theirs would be in the Southern regions. Here in Alaska, Two days
>>>hike to the Road, puts you ON the Road System.
>>
>>I think that there are a lot of romantic Europeans who would like to
>>think they retain some degree of backcountry.
>
>The word backcountry isn't used in Europe so most people wouldn't know
>what it meant. (The spell checker for my British email programme doesn't
>even accept it as a real word). Many Europeans are romantically attached
>to "nature". There's still plenty of nature in Europe.
>
>>Your problem then becomes
>>enumerating the qualities (and the quantities) and it starts to become a
>>matter of nit picking. I think the land problem comes from areas like
>>bogs and tundra which are part time submerged, deltas, swamps, glades.
>>
>>Clearly you can get frostbite and hypothermia in Boston. Happens in
>>those areas every winter. Avalanches happen in high latitude, urban
>>steep relief areas. Does that make them backcountry? Floyd argues
Barrow is
>>backcountry. You don't have hospitals in backcountry. So enumerate
away.
>
>How far from a hospital do you have to be for it to be backcountry?
The example I gave Floyd was at the flight limits of a helo.
But in some cases a fixed wing aircraft could land close by.
> By road or by air? Time or distance?
You pretty much have to use air as a rescue/survival example.
Bruce and the legal definitions are based on roads. Take your pick.
When you take the road example you get the lower 48 distance to a road
example. None of you guys in Europe ask that question.
>>My favorite is having something which might eat you. But you need an
>>operational and legal definition (the why's and how's of what you want
>>to do).
>
>Why do you need an operational and legal definition?
Because fundamentally, we have evolved into a society of laws for people.
The requirement is that whatever cute idea you have, you have to have
"standing." You can no longer take for granted your wild lands. They
will for all other intents and purposes cease being wild. All this
started getting set up before any of us were born.
That's what goes into the legal definitions into words like Forests (as
in short for National Forests), Parks, Wilderness Areas, Refuges, etc.
It's a consequence now of zoning. It's otherwise wide open. Do you
want trees (for instance)? Sure. Let's cut a few down. Fine, in the
US, we have Forests. Can't do as easily in Parks (I know the chain saw
area in Yosemite). You may need a permit depending on use. The guys in
1870s didn't see a need for any of this. You only have Forests and
Parks in the US, because they had the foresight. You guys in Europe
only caught on later and that's why your Parks et al are late.
I'll leave off the other technical words.
You could have the situation like in the Brazilian rain forest.
Oh, lots are gone to make it rural and feed people (that's good isn't
it?). That and another contrast that guys like Langford saw, private
spectacles: that's Niagarra Falls: you have to pay to see it. You want
to see the Meteor Crater in AZ near Winslow? You have to pay to see it.
You want to see Yosemite? Now you have to pay to see it, but it at
least in public trust (you have to deal with two costs: admission which
we rationalize {your spell checker balk at the Americanization?} to
upkeep).
But some people think you have to pay a lot for hotels, camping gear, etc.
Lots of Parks, the more remote ones, don't require fees.
Unless you want to visit Joni Mitchel's tree museum.
Not only that, but the laws which created and protected this stuff have
holes: logging, hunting, mining, etc. E.g. why not go hunting in
Yosemite National Park. In fact at one time it was legal. Rangers
could do it to supplement their merger incoming. Why would any one want
to see a grizzly bear in Yosemite after all? Safer to kill them off
(extermination).
The European situation is complicated by all the different national laws.
I think what little of the story of Italy's few Natl. Parks (one might
joke
about mafia parks, but that's not fair) might be useful. But then we'd
have
to enumerate each and every country which took it upon national pride to
try to claim you have wild lands and not merely unused rural pasture
(see all these funny words we can pull out of our hats?).
And I have not even brought up species biology (things that might eat
you).
Maybe mosquitos.
Your man Orwell brought this language thing up best in 1984.
If you don't want Parks, remove them from the language.
--
|
