In article <MfNWwVUv4ZwIFwKP@[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.
That's the problem with language.
I am looking at Greenland photos in another adjacent window, then I will
head toward Tahoe this weekend. In a month, Norway.
>>> 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.
What do you think the largest radius you can get in Western Europe and
excluding parts of places like Siberia?
Distance isn't the only factor. A decent mucky, watery bog can make
short work of distance.
>>>>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 in part why I gave the Italian example. It could have been
Spanish, or ****tuguese. Or more Eastern European.
The problem with definitions is that they can in the end be merely
circular and get you no where. Meanwhile you could have succeeded in
protecting nothing. I see that you can eat whale meat in Iceland, again.
You have a reason for using these definitions (like CO2 limits).
>>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.
Parks are late.
Forests with a cap F were an im****tant stepping stone be they Sherwood
or the Schwarzwald. You wanted a Navy? You needed stout wood.
Parks are more spectacle. They have greater entertainment value. At
least until some war comes along, and you want to cut down the entire
Olympic pennisula to make trans****ts to attack Honshu, or grab
petroleum from the Naval reserve, etc. And the lack of WWIII meant the
desert SW of UT didn't have to get further mined for U.
>>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).
It doesn't have to be fees Chris. They could be quotas. They could be
other regulations (No camping, No hunting, Stay on marked trails, etc.).
>Rationalize is perfectly good British English! As is rationalise, which
>most people would use. My spell checker accepts both.
;^)
It's been programmed that way.
>>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.
But not in the vast majority of US National Parks to say nothing of
State Parks. Subsistence hunting by local natives in some Parks.
>>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?
Well, you tell me.
You are either citing a legal contradiction in terms or have different
zoning. If it's rural (misc.rural, and which can be pasture), then when
can you call it wild? Bears and wolves roam on the boundaries of
Yellowstone and Glacier in the USA, but the guy/family with the
ranch/etc. next door isn't necessarily interested in the wild if they
have herds.
>How much did the sheep change Sierra meadows? Are they still wild? Are
>they rural pasture?
I'm not certain. They were only grazed a few decades in a Park like
Yosemite. In the adjacent Forests, in some areas they are still grazed.
So you get introduction of non-native plant species. We still killed
off numerous predator species, so in that sense, they are clearly less
wild. Cow turds are all over the place in various forest areas. You
won't tend to find too many in the Parks so long as people restore
gates. Does that make a forest rural? Well agriculture is to rural as
silviculture is to forests? I'm not certain.
Actually Mtn lions and larger adult coyotes can still be problems.
Much less the areas which have wolves and bears. And alligators.
And poisonous s****s..... And ....
>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.
Well you also have that National day of trespass and a whole slew of
laws, customs, land uses etc. which aren't in the USA. You could get
shot here as you know. This is why when you use words like "wild" and
"landscape" any such user will be taken to task. Failure to do so leaves
one wide open, and this is why the US has so many lawyers (protective as
well as offensive). So wild here mostly means roadless.
>>And I have not even brought up species biology (things that might eat
you).
>>Maybe mosquitos.
>
>Midges! The season will be over soon.
Atomically mutated might make an amusing sci-fi horror movie.
>>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.
Then you have to be prepared to fight for them.
You guys have the Land Trust.
I'm out of here for the weekend Chris.
--
|
