In message <48c5a344$1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, Eugene Miya <eugene@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
writes
>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.
There are European brown bears in places too. Not many though. I've seen
a wolverine in Norway - and tracks a few times. Plus moose (called elg
in Norway).
>
>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.
The Sami have been there thousands of years. They probably had a similar
effect to Native Americans on Canada and Alaska.
> 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.
I've only seen the Lofoten Islands from the air. Very dramatic but with
many small habitations. The remotest areas of Norway, outside of
Svalbard, are on the mainland in the far north.
>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.
I led a ski tour on Spitsbergen, the main island of Svalbard, many years
ago. We carried a rifle. No polar bears - it was an inland trip, not
coastal. Spitsbergen may be like the arctic coast of the Yukon. Northern
Norway is very similar to the Yukon - coniferous forest, boggy tundra,
rolling hills.
>
>Oh yes, and according to Wikipedia, Norway asserts Antarctic claims and
>Queen Maudland is consider Norwegian territory. It's B-c.
That's interesting.
>
>>>>>> 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.
Definitely Scotland. Probably the Monadh Liath area. Maybe the northern
Cairngorms.
>
>>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).
Here 4WD tracks are built by private estates for stalking (deer
hunting). They have no official standing. There's rarely any fire
prevention problems. It's too wet.
>
>>>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).
Much of Scotland's forests are timber - Sitka spruce plantations - but
there is an increasing amount of regenerating natural forest.
>
snip
>>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.
It's specific to the area and usually capitalised.
>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.
There are proposals to reintroduce bears and wolves to Scotland though I
doubt much will come of these for some time if ever. Beavers have just
been reintroduced and there have been successful reintroductions of sea
eagles and red kites.
>
>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!).
Private deer stalking estates are traditional opposition here. They
don't want regenerating forests or predators. Traditional extraction
industries aren't a problem in the Highlands but energy extraction in
the form of wind farms, hydro schemes and associated power lines is.
>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.
Protected areas have value outside economics or national security but
many people don't see that.
>
>>>>>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^)
Probably not. Yet.
>
>>> 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!
Indeed. Plans that became meaningless before they came to fruition.
>
>>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?
In part. To march armies around and crush the Celts. Also the spread of
agriculture, especially in southern England.
>
>>>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.
Something always survives. So far. The northern Europe areas we are
trying to conserve are all less than 11,000 years old - post the last
Ice Age. Geologically they barely exist.
>
snip
>>
>>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.
It's not regulation that makes hunting elitist, it's private land
owner****p.No hunting without permission. No permission without a large
fee, booked dates and hunting guides.
>
>
>>>>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.
Some bogs were drained for pasture, though few in the Highlands. When
trees were cut down the land was either just left or replanted with
non-native species that were felled in turn after 30-40 years. Smaller
mammals are returning with the natural forest - pine martin, red
squirrel, roe deer.
>
>>>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.
I think when an area is "rewilded" to use the current in word it becomes
a new type of wild area. The past cannot be recreated. In Britain large
mammals arrived when the land was connected to mainland Europe. There's
no way for them to get here now.
>
>>>lions >>bears. And alligators. >>And poisonous s****s..... And ....
>>
>>We have a poisonous s****.
>
>Get St. Patrick.
It is curious why Ireland has so s****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.
>
>Is that a warning to other countries?
It's true across much of Europe. Land was in private hands before there
were powerful states to own it.
>The Right argues that more of it should go into private hands.
>Tompkins is doing that in Chile, South America.
As are the National Trusts, John Muir Trusts, Royal Society for the
Protection of Birds and other bodies - all private.
>
>>>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.
We have a few areas that would fit into that.
>
>>>>>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?
And people tearing at their skin and running wildly around, falling off
cliffs and into lakes.
>Mutations might be in order still. And you have to have John Williams
music.
Of course.
>
>>>>>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?
Both have happened. More legally recently.
>
>>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.
But the Trusts are private.
>
>>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.
I am editing. It's still longer!
--
Chris Townsend
http://www.auchnarrow.demon.co.uk
|
