Starting with 295 lines Chris....
>>>>>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.
>>>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.
In article <ssDuc2HWg+wIFw95@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
Chris Townsend <Chris@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>Will you be seeing any "backcountry" in Norway?
Well, as an interesting question, the Culture Shock guide, which I got
cheap, asserts that ****tions will be respectable backcountry because
among other animals, there's wolverines (ignore the net.species, the
author chose it) and other sizeable animals if in small numbers.
I intend afterward to meet with a couple of our ng members from Norway
(Terje and Morten) in Oslo while I kill time waiting for the plane back
to Iceland. I've also met with friends who are Norwegian descendents
(one of whom wrote the trans****t software we are all using) and well as
friends who did sabbaticals in Tromso and and Trondheim (originally from
AK I might note). Plus a friend from Oxford who did some early climbing
in some of the fjords. So I will likely have 2 weeks of maritime rural
Norway and may be near backcountry. But did I have much idea what this
land was like before the Sami (Laps) were there? I'm not certain. I do
know that I will be on the Russian frontier, and that several of the
****ts areas were heavily bombed in WWII. And that I would love to spend
more time in places like the Lofoten islands but that I'm lucky to even
see them. Because these have steep rock walls, do I regard this as
backcountry? I'm not certain. Society's net is likely fairly close. So
should I consider the ocean backcountry? Dispensing with the land bias,
the North and Barrents Sea are comparatively developed. None of this is
Svalbard which probably has a decent chance to be compared to say
Alaska or the Yukon (rifles encouraged because of Ed's non-net relatives).
I will not be lucky enough to visit Svalbard on this trip, but I have
friends doing glacier research there and won't rule it out for future
trips.
Oh yes, and according to Wikipedia, Norway asserts Antarctic claims and
Queen Maudland is consider Norwegian territory. It's B-c.
>>>>> 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.
You think that you can get a 9 mile roadless area in the UK? Where?
Scotland, I could see.
>Define roads too. Public roads or are private 4WD bulldozed tracks
>included?
The US has a fair number of the latter which have no official standing.
Some have berms to close those areas and let remediation take place.
The problem now is changing fire prevention issues. That those might be
more rural (a precursor to cultivation like drainage).
>>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?
Bogs and rock: perhaps yes, what's why I mention them. We can say Glades.
Forest on the other hand might merely be timber (toast, think
silvaculture).
>>>>>>something which might eat you.
>>>>>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
I've never heard the word flowcountry used before. Estuary was once
nice word which entered a more mainstream vocabulary. One assumed
restoration is possible. Few argue to bring back grizzly bears to CA.
Large carnivores (apex) are merely one part of the problem.
But you are dealing with those pretty much converted. If you want strong
opposition (real world), you will go against the traditional historic
interests
of extraction industries (which is why loop holes were placed in laws)
like mining and lumber, as well as secondary interests who want to hedge
their bets on the chance you can drain the land and place vacation
condos there (Abbey would point out Jobs!). That we only protect that
which does not greater economic value or leave national security loop
holes is a thin excuse for a park or a protected area.
>>>>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
>>>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.
Ah yes, but is the wood good enough to build Capital ****ps? 8^)
>> 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.
Yes, but plan you guys did!
>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.
Set by roads?
>>Parks are more spectacle. They have greater entertainment value. ...
>>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.
Economics. So Preservation might be doomed.
>>>>You could have the situation like in the Brazilian rain forest.
>>>>That and another contrast that guys like Langford saw, private
>>>>spectacles: that's Niagarra Falls: you have to pay to see it.
>>>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.
Are we going to have to enumerate the various forms of regulation which
is why some of our more conservative republicans and our libertarians
declare the USA to be a Nanny State? You can't camp on the side of Mt.
Blanc w/o staying inside one of the huts. But that's a municipal law
for the town of Chamonix. If you want to make a deal that hunting is
elitist, go ahead.
>>>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.
Good research those bloakes occasionally do.
>>>Hunting is legal
>>>>different national laws.
>>>>try to claim you have wild lands and not merely unused rural pasture
>>>When does unused rural pasture become wild again?
>
>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.
I'm trying to think if I could agree with that.
If it was originally your bog, and you drained it to get pasture,
did you reflood it? You might get birds back. Older large aniamls,
likely not.
>>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.
That's true here in non-legal contexts.
>>>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?
So an area can become wild in an instance.
And if I introduuce a cow in a wild area and it starts eating it
immediately makes the area non-wild. If I was the rancher I'd be
foolhardy not to have removed competing predators (to humans) like the
wolves, bears, and lions. Then we take the cows out. The predators
don't appear instantaneously. Similarly I've oversimplifying the E.coli
the cows brought and the the seeds, and plants it introduced on the
smaller scale.
>>lions >>bears. And alligators. >>And poisonous s****s..... And ....
>
>We have a poisonous s****.
Get St. Patrick.
>>>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.
Is that a warning to other countries?
The Right argues that more of it should go into private hands.
Tompkins is doing that in Chile, South America.
>>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.
I think here, we've decided to do minimum sizes for wilderness areas. A
5x4 mile wilderness area might be the minimum for a wilderness.
>>>>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!
Lots of screaming?
Mutations might be in order still. And you have to have John Williams
music.
>>>>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.
Do the Ludd thing or legally?
>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.
You have Trusts. We have Departments and Services.
>I'm back from the Mountaineering Council of Scotland AGM & Gathering
>weekend. Conservation and wild land is a key topic for us.
I just skipped out of a work party and I saw a friend from the 10th Mtn.
Div.
I just scanned an Anderson cartoon about outdoor bureaucracies
"Wait'll you see the new clipboards..." 322 lines. Edit Chris.
--
|
