Yeah, 11000 acres 20 minutes from home in Southern Ohio !Originally Posted by kyratshooter
Yeah, 11000 acres 20 minutes from home in Southern Ohio !
Native Americans have been living and thriving, not just surviving, in North America for 10's of thousands of years. Their "gear" was not heavy and bulky, to them it was what it was and if they needed something carry something they would. If they couldnt, they would make another when they got to their new destination. Most of the tribes were friendly to each other, trading and marrying with each other all the time. Where did you get your opinion of them?
He was banned so I don't thing he'll be answering you.
So....we know that taint has been banned, right?
Read his other posts...if you feel like you have extra brain cells you want to kill off.
I've taken a vow of poverty. To annoy me, send money.
http://www.youtube.com/user/FinallyMe78?feature=mhee
I didn't know he was banned
Don't worry, he'll be back.
Different name, different IP address, but the same guy, over and over and over, telling us how we could really build a good forum here if we would just let him run it.
If you didn't bring jerky what did I just eat?
The Indians were masters at using nature to their own advantage. They traveled very light and knew how to almost be invisible. Wow, a real Indian expert...........LOL
It depends on Perspective and how you define Wilderness. Wilderness to humans is like beauty- it is relative and in the eye of the beholder.
From an urban human perspective- wilderness can be found anywhere. You can get lost and have amazing wilderness experiences in lots of places. In particular the less one knows about the outdoors the more places are available to them to find Wilderness adventure and solitude...
But, there is another perspective. That is from the view of charismatic mega fauna- particularly large predators and the seasonal migratory ungulates they prey upon. From that perspective there is really not much wilderness left in the contiguous USA. Elk, bison, wolves and Grizzly bears simply do not have enough wild lands in the lower 48 states to allow the species to live and thrive in the wild without human management. There is not enough public land to truly support these species . The natural seasonal cycle for elk and bison is to migrate from higher elevations to the prairie- due to private lands and concerns about diseases this is not allowed anymore. These animals are essentially held captive on Federal lands. Grizzlies and wolves also try to move to the low lands during certain parts of the year as well- this is not allowed- they are managed (killed) by the government when they encroach into human areas.
So we can pretend there is wilderness in the lower 48, but that is really just a short sighted human mental construct.
The way of the canoe is the way of the wilderness and of a freedom almost forgotten- Sigurd Olson
Give me winter, give me dogs... you can keep the rest- Knud Rasmussen
I'm gonna have to get a sandwich, a drink and think on that a bit.
The term 'wilderness' can certainly be used in different ways, and not necessarily be applied incorrectly. But I tend to think that 'wilderness' refers, not just to the existence of some plants or animals, and not just to a given person's familiarity with or knowledge of a place...but to an expanse of geography wherein non-human species and their ecosystems rule much more than humans, and there is very little or no climate control taking place.
The pessimist complains about the wind;
The optimist expects it to change;
The realist adjusts the sails.
- William Arthur Ward
The term "wilderness" has a legal definition, and it does not eliminate the entire lower 48 states.
http://www.wilderness.net/nwps/legisact
If you skip down to section 2c you will find the three part summary as defined by the U.S. government.
They don't really care what our opinion happens to be.
If you didn't bring jerky what did I just eat?
From my understanding that is the classic definition of wilderness. From the Webster dictionary: an area essentially undisturbed by human activity together with its naturally developed life community
By that definition there is little wilderness, or perhaps no "true" wilderness left in the lower 48 states. Animals that need deep "wilderness" in order to survive- wolverines, lynx, mountain caribou are all about gone from the lower 48. There are some remnant populations but their numbers are so few they will not survive without humans re-introducing more. Then the larger carnivores- grizzly bears and wolves only inhabit a tiny fraction of their historic ranges. Grizzly Bears don't even have a resident, breeding population in the largest designated Wilderness Area in the lower 48 states. The places that do have resident populations of large carnivores (Yellowstone and Glacier National Parks and the surrounding Wilderness Areas) are so heavily managed, that the animals can't hardly leave the public lands and move about naturally upon the landscape without being killed, or relocated. If a Grizzly leaves Federal land in the lower 48 it is almost always killed- thats pretty much the same for wolves.
The rest of the west- Colorado, most of Wyoming, and Idaho, New Mexico etc...do not have all their historic native predators- so they are not "in-tact ecosystems" so although they have designated Wilderness Areas- by the classic definition, they can't truly be wilderness areas....
So, like I said in the earlier posts- we may think places are wild- but to the historic native species that belong their, they are inhabitable due to humans
The way of the canoe is the way of the wilderness and of a freedom almost forgotten- Sigurd Olson
Give me winter, give me dogs... you can keep the rest- Knud Rasmussen
(kyratshooter) That's not a bad definition. Agree with dogman also, etc.
It should be obvious that if we get too technical, it becomes gray. For some elements of a wilderness, it's gone or is more like their "reservation" that we try to confine them to. Others...their ranges and lifestyle extends into the human world successfully. And still others...wouldn't be there in the first place if it weren't for humans - aren't "native". So wilderness is still affected by humans in some way. However, there should still be some kind of threshold beyond which we say that it's a wilderness, and before which we say that it isn't. Even though that threshold can be a bit fuzzy.
One might even use the definitive of whether or not a human can survive within said area for any extended period by use of any permanent or semi permanent facility placed in the area by humans.
Last edited by WalkingTree; 05-23-2016 at 05:01 PM.
The pessimist complains about the wind;
The optimist expects it to change;
The realist adjusts the sails.
- William Arthur Ward
so from that site: "A wilderness, in contrast with those areas where man and his own works dominate the landscape, is hereby recognized as an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man"....
So now- prove me wrong. Find places in the lower 48 that have all their plant and animal communities in-tact. Places that humans have not driven plant or animal communities to extinction or at least out of that area...By their own definition- wilderness areas aren't true wilderness- simply because the natural communities have trammeled by humans
The way of the canoe is the way of the wilderness and of a freedom almost forgotten- Sigurd Olson
Give me winter, give me dogs... you can keep the rest- Knud Rasmussen
You guys are stopping at the first section of the definition and not considering parts 2,3,4.
(2) has outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation; (3) has at least five thousand acres of land or is of sufficient size as to make practicable its preservation and use in an unimpaired condition; and (4) may also contain ecological, geological, or other features of scientific, educational, scenic, or historical value.
Number 2 has no specification for distance from the nearest town and describes a host of areas in the eastern U.S.
Number 3 is #2 with 5000 acres.
That 4th definition is a real kicker and might include a half acre apple orchard with historical value!
By including a requirement for lack of habitation you fellows are actually confusing the definition of wilderness with the definition of a frontier, which is an area with less then 2 people per square mile.
Lack of human intrusion get one back to the old thing about "If a tree falls in the woods and there is not one there does it make any noise?"
If no one is allowed to go there it is of no use to anyone because no one can enter to use it. According to your definition as soon as a human enters the area it is no longer a wilderness.
Last edited by kyratshooter; 05-23-2016 at 05:32 PM.
If you didn't bring jerky what did I just eat?
Did not. I read it all.
Not mine. Huh-uh. I said "whether or not a human can survive within said area for any extended period by use of any permanent or semi permanent facility placed in the area by humans".
I usually think of a frontier as a place which doesn't have human law-and-order of a certain fashion. "Wild" in that way. But also a kind of wilderness.
But anyway. You're right. We all are right. There are legal definitions, which is to say that a certain authority or body deemed such-and-such, and there are other ways to think of things...subjective to what is being talked about and what the intention is.
But, I may never think of a half acre apple orchard with historical value...as a wilderness area. No matter what the official legal definition is. Besides, I don't think it implies that said orchard would be a wilderness...but that an orchard may be within a wilderness area.
Last edited by WalkingTree; 05-23-2016 at 05:51 PM.
The pessimist complains about the wind;
The optimist expects it to change;
The realist adjusts the sails.
- William Arthur Ward
Let's just hope this remains fiction:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TckJBvl_uT0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6WVspvb3c3o
The pessimist complains about the wind;
The optimist expects it to change;
The realist adjusts the sails.
- William Arthur Ward
That's some heavy ship man. Am I drivin' okay?
Like wow, when this Silent Running (1972) film came out I managed to miss it
- I had begun living in a Third World village where people lived on taro from the plantation and fish from the reef. They had not yet advanced to MacDonalds and Walmart, but they are steadily catching up.
The Bruce Dern character seems a bit intense, but I can see his point. It is hard to convince people who think fruit comes wrapped in cellophane that a cantaloupe could come from a seed, soil, sun and rain.
Thank for posting the film clip.
I'm not sure of exactly who you are talking to here, because the definition I used does not state, "that as soon as a human enters the area it is no longer a wilderness"
However, I would like to go deeper into the issue regardless ...
First off- you are using the 1964 Federal Wilderness Act to define Wilderness. However, that is short-sighted because Wilderness existed before 1964- before the act... Prior to that, wilderness was defined as I stated earlier. Basically primordial wild lands unaltered by humans, lands containing their natural plant and animal communities. Then the act, set aside certain areas as "designated wilderness areas" with the intent to preserve them, and to even rehabilitate them in certain circumstances- to try and return them to their primordial state. Not all lands in the act where seen as "wilderness" they just were thought to have enough Wilderness character that they could perhaps some day return to their natural state. At the time the act was passed virtually all the lands in the lower 48 included had roads through them, mines, signs of logging etc. But it was believed if human inhabitation and exploitation was banned then they would return to their natural state on their own. So, by the act - many lands that are now called Federal "Wilderness Areas" are protected as wilderness, but actually don't meet the classic definition of "wilderness" yet...
Now back to what the original poster said, "there is very little Wilderness left in the lower 48 states"...he did not say "Federally designated Wilderness Areas". So, by the classic definition I tend to agree with him.
This year 1,000 Bison were slated to be culled near Yellowstone by the Federal Government - because they are not allowed to follow their natural migrations in and out of the Nationa Parks and Wilderness areas of the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Each year 20-50 grizzly bears are killed in the Northern Rockies due to management and human interactions- even though they are still on the Endangered Species list. Since the act was passed wolverines, Lynx and caribou have all but vanished from the wilderness areas of the Rockies. Why? Because there simply aren't enough wild lands to maintain their populations.
We can continue to keep our heads in the sand, and believe that there is true wilderness in the lower 48, or we can open our eyes and begin to understand the importance of large track conservation and perhaps still save our countries wildlife heritage in the process...
The way of the canoe is the way of the wilderness and of a freedom almost forgotten- Sigurd Olson
Give me winter, give me dogs... you can keep the rest- Knud Rasmussen
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks