In message <48c197fa$1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, Eugene Miya <eugene@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
writes
>In article <ZFUzmrS0CyvIFwB0@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
>Chris Townsend <Chris@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>
>>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.
Hm. That would mean most of the Himalaya except for high altitudes
wasn't backcountry. Or Greenland.
>
>> 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.
Oh, it's asked. The distances are shorter.
>
>
>>>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.
Europe has legislation for protecting landscapes and nature without
precise definitions.
>
>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.
Not very late. The first European national parks were in Sweden in 1909.
Britain was late, not having any national parks until after WWII.
>
>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.
European parks generally don't require fees (I don't know any that do
but there might be one or two).
Rationalize is perfectly good British English! As is rationalise, which
most people would use. My spell checker accepts both.
>
>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).
Hunting is legal in many European national parks - including all British
ones.
>
>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?).
When does unused rural pasture become wild again?
How much did the sheep change Sierra meadows? Are they still wild? Are
they rural pasture?
National parks in Britain are generally seen as protecting landscapes,
which may or may not contain wild land. They're not seen as specifically
to protect wild land or to make claims that there is wild land. British
national parks have roads, towns, farms. I live in a national park! Most
of the land is privately owned too.
>
>And I have not even brought up species biology (things that might eat
you).
>Maybe mosquitos.
Midges! The season will be over soon.
>
>Your man Orwell brought this language thing up best in 1984.
>
>If you don't want Parks, remove them from the language.
But we do want Parks.
>
--
Chris Townsend
http://www.auchnarrow.demon.co.uk
|
