In article <OrjWd+DTAoxIFwQJ@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
Chris Townsend <Chris@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
Starting with 399 lines Chris....
>>Starting with 295 lines Chris....
>>>>>>>How far from a hospital do you have to be for it to be backcountry?
>>>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
>
>There are European brown bears in places too. Not many though.
Well the Swiss Capitol is named after bears, and there's one of their
Cantonal flag. This is not lost to me, because we have a brown
(grizzly) bear on our State flag (hunted to extintion) even if
designated the State mammal. Well, working one day in the SF Swiss
Consulate I noticed they didn't have a CA flag. Most of them are from
the Vaud. They have a different flag. So since I was working in
Sacramento occasionally I got a CA State flag which flew over the CA
State Capitol and presented it to the old Consul General (Rolland, now
retired). And there it sits in the CG's office in SF.
I'm not certain of the extent of brown bears in Europe other than as far
North in Norway and Russia, French Alps (possibly the Pyrenees), etc.
>I've seen a wolverine in Norway - and tracks a few times.
Lucky you! 8^) I have a hat, used ruffs, zoos, etc.
>Plus moose (called elg in Norway).
Big deal in the US. VP candidate shoots them. Dresses them, eats them.
Slurp.
>>I intend afterward to meet with a couple of our ng members from Norway
>
>The Sami have been there thousands of years. They probably had a similar
>effect to Native Americans on Canada and Alaska.
I have a Swedish friend, and we were going over Scandinavian history
last evening driving up to the City: "So why did your people repress the
Norwegians? ..." It was fun putting them on the hot seat. I am
uncertain yet of the comparison. I have to think about it more. I've
heard it before.
>>****t areas were heavily bombed in WWII.
>>more time in places like the Lofoten islands but that I'm lucky to even
>
>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.
I get part of a day up and part of a day back. One of those in the dark.
I've love to spend a couple of days there. Maybe some future even more
expensive trip. I'm aware of Ed Webster's climbing guide. I'm not
asking Chessler for any guide books or additional literature. This is
supposed to be a relaxing tourist vacation trip.
>>Because these have steep rock walls, do I regard this as backcountry?
>>I'm not certain. Society's net is likely fairly close.
>>should I consider the ocean backcountry? Dispensing with the land bias,
....
>>Svalbard probably has a decent chance to be compared to say
>>Alaska or the Yukon (rifles encouraged because of Ed's non-net
relatives).
>
>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.
A friend was running his cryobot experiments on glaciers.
He has polar bear photos. Our camp's bear (PB) walked in 150 miles.
I've seen photos in the Kirkenes area. I think, Palin, when he did Pole
to Pole, did land fall around here.
Was the rifle your responsibility or did you have a licensed guide with
it?
>>Oh yes, and according to Wikipedia, Norway asserts Antarctic claims and
>>Queen Maudland is consider Norwegian territory. It's B-c.
>
>That's interesting.
The United States choses not to recognize the claims of other countries
and choses not to assert its own claims for international reasons.
>>>>>>> By road or by air? Time or distance?
>>>>>>You pretty much have to use air as a rescue/survival example.
>>>>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.
Harder to say.
>Maybe the northern Cairngorms.
Maybe.
I did put a scale up to the map, it depends on the small road sample
(really
need OS scale).
>>>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.
No burning peat bogs?
>>>>Distance isn't the only factor. A decent mucky, watery bog can make
>>>>short work of distance.
>>>Plenty of places Scotland 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.
Cut for expedience.
>>>The Flow
>>>Country of Caithness and Sutherland in Northern Scotland is of
>>I've never heard the word flowcountry used before.
>
>It's specific to the area and usually capitalised.
OK. I can believe you. We make all kinds of new words.
>>Estuary was once
>>bring back grizzly bears to CA.
>
>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.
Locally we've run into beavers again last winter in floods. People only
take so much nature.
>>extraction industries
>
>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.
No cover?
Use herbicides, kill it off off and give the deer nothing to hide behind.
Talk to Martha's Vineyard about wind..... It only goes so far.
>>economic value
>
>Protected areas have value outside economics or national security but
>many people don't see that.
"It's the economy, stupid," Bill Clinton.
Yes and no. It's time horizon. Most money based economics has a short
time horizon.
>>>>>>legal definitions into words like Forests (as
>>>>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
>>
>>Ah yes, but is the wood good enough to build Capital ****ps? 8^)
>
>Probably not. Yet.
I just heard a story about Oxford forests. Some one thought ahead.
>>>> You wanted a Navy? You needed stout wood.
>>>English oak. The history of forestry is interesting in this respect.
....
>>>ahead with tree growth rates.
>>Yes, but plan you guys did!
>
>Indeed. Plans that became meaningless before they came to fruition.
That might be what happens to our Parks and Forests.
>>>Many trees were cut down in Scottish forests in the 20th century world
....
>>>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.
Oh those Romans.
>>>>Parks are more spectacle. They have greater entertainment value. ...
>>>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.
So far. Ice sheets are mostly gone.
>>>Hunting is very different in much of Europe to the USA and Canada. In
>>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?...
>>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.
I think you have different opinions.
>>>>>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.
I would argue that since drainage, the bog started to get civil.
Wildness was reduced.
>>>>can you call it wild?
>>>We don't have that sort of zoning here.
>>>>>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.
>>>>introduction of non-native plant species.
>>>>Cow turds
>>>>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 introduce a cow in a wild area and it starts eating it
>
>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.
I have to think about rewild.
>>>>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.
St. Patrick.
>>>>>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.
Not the the guy in yonder castle?
>>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.
Can be nationalized?
>>>>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.
Ye, but they also sit in the middle of road lacking forest area. 5x4
surrounded by roads is another. A lot of road kill..
>>>>>>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.
Equiped with lazer beams? (Dr. Evil)
>>Mutations might be in order still. And you have to have John Williams
music.
>Of course.
Oh, sounds good.
>>>>>>Your man Orwell brought this language thing up best in 1984.
>>>>>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.
Both?! Oh! We just had trees cut in Berkeley. Not a Park.
>>>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.
>>You have Trusts. We have Departments and Services.
>
>But the Trusts are private.
Advantages and disadvantages.
>>>I'm back from the Mountaineering Council of Scotland AGM & Gathering
>>>weekend. Conservation and wild land is a key topic for us.
>>"Wait'll you see the new clipboards..." 322 lines. Edit Chris.
>
>I am editing. It's still longer!
More Chris. More.
365 lines. Cut Chris, cut.
--
|
