In message <48c1bca0$1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, Eugene Miya <eugene@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
writes
>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.
Will you be seeing any "backcountry" in 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?
I've never considered that. In England it's less than 5 miles. Probably
a bit more in Scotland.
Define roads too. Public roads or are private 4WD bulldozed tracks
included?
>
>Distance isn't the only factor. A decent mucky, watery bog can make
>short work of distance.
Plenty of places in Scotland qualify due to bogs! What about steep rock
or dense forest?
>
>>>>>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).
I'd rather say this landscape has value and deserves
protection/restoration than try and make an area fit a definition. The
reason for the value can be different in different places. The Flow
Country of Caithness and Sutherland in Northern Scotland is of
international significance but it's not an area that most people would
think of as attractive let alone beautiful or attractive. And "possibly
the largest blanket bog in the world" doesn't attract hikers or
mountaineers or many people at all other than bird watchers and
botanists.
http://whc.unesco.org/en/tentativelists/1323/
http://www.rspb.org.uk/sup****ting/campaigns/flowcountry/future.asp
>
>>>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.
"Forest" in Medieval times meant a hunting area that wasn't necessarily
wooded. Hence all the tree free areas called something forest in the
Scottish mountains. Forests in the UK have mostly been managed for well
over 1000 years. There is probably more untended forest now than for
many centuries.
> You wanted a Navy? You needed stout wood.
English oak. The history of forestry is interesting in this respect.
Trees were planted to provide masts for Naval ****ps but by the time they
had grown big enough the ****ps were iron and had engines. Hard to plan
ahead with tree growth rates.
Many trees were cut down in Scottish forests in the 20th century world
wars. However research shows that the period with the lowest forest
cover was around 1700 and that the pattern of woodland hasn't changed
much since the Middle Ages. The last major change seems to have been in
Roman times.
>
>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.
Nothing is safe in the long term.
>
>>>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.).
I don't know about all of Europe for this but Scottish, Norwegian and
Scandinavian parks don't have no camping rules and allow free access -
indeed, all three countries have legal access rights to land.
Hunting is very different in much of Europe to the USA and Canada. In
many countries it's a s****t for the wealthy only and very organised.
It's the deer hunting and grouse shooting season in Scotland now, which
means that rich business people pay large sums of money to be taken out
on private estates by stalkers and keepers to shoot a stag or a brace of
grouse.
>
>>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.
Of course. But the Oxford English Dictionary agrees.
>
>>>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.
Almost immediately I would say. There are an increasing number of areas
in the Scottish Highlands where grazing pressures have been reduced and
the trees are regenerating without planting or fencing. I think of these
as wild.
>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?
We don't have that sort of zoning here. Rural often means farmed but can
sometimes mean everywhere outside cities. Countryside means everything
from fields of wheat to mountain tops. The point where the farmed
becomes the wild is a fuzzy area. Gradually bits of wildness start to
appear until at some point it dominates.
>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.
Again, I think this is an undefined area. It depends on the effect the
livestock has on the forest. How many cows? What type of trees? What
type of undergrowth? What type of soil? How many native species are
present?
>
>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 ....
We have a poisonous s****.
>
>>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.
It is very different. What we don't have is much public land.
> 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.
I think wild here often means roadless too, but the roadless area can be
quite small. Roads may be visible and a place still called wild.
>
>>>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.
You could make a horror movie without any mutations!
>
>>>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.
We do fight for them. Otherwise we wouldn't have them.
By Land Trust do you mean the National Trust? There are two - one for
England and Wales and one for Scotland. The National Trust for Scotland
does own much wild land - as well as castles, gardens and stately homes.
There is also the John Muir Trust, which owns wild land too.
>
>I'm out of here for the weekend Chris.
>
I'm back from the Mountaineering Council of Scotland AGM & Gathering
weekend. Conservation and wild land is a key topic for us.
--
Chris Townsend
http://www.auchnarrow.demon.co.uk
|
