Do you enjoy your freedom?

[tipitover]

Senator Barbara Boxer is trying to pass a wilderness bill that will close land to the public to perserve wildlife. These land closures close the land to all motorized access, horses, mountain bikes, and I have heard star gazers. The plan is to close 2.5 million acres in Ca. She will not stop at that however. They brainwash people into thinking that it is good to close the land and trick them into thinking that they will still be allowed access. So please do me a favor and vote no on this bill here http://www.petitiononline.com/NOonBOXR/petition.html
Please pass it on to your friends and loved ones and urge them to sign it. Even if it is just so your children may oneday see the great sights America has to offer!

[beskeptical]

Sorry, sounds like a distorted description of the bill. Can't trust someone who isn't honest. And, I enjoy those wilderness areas that are closed to motors.

[John Kierein]

I got an invite to a Perseid party near Boulder. I was warned that there are several bears around. There are deer everywhere. You don't seem to have to close the land to protect wildlife.

[GrapesOfWrath]

On 2002-08-02 02:36, tipitover wrote:
These land closures close the land to all motorized access, horses, mountain bikes, and I have heard star gazers.

You have heard?

That's pretty convenient--otherwise, this would be totally off-topic, wouldn't it?

I suspect you just made that one up. You're going to have to defend that.

[Argos]

"Star Gazer"

This expression spares you from getting this thread locked, upon being totally off-topic.

Nevertheless, if this can help in defending liberty, I wish you luck in your crusade.

And welcome!

[Rift]

Actually, I have to disagree with this.

I think there should be areas that are for only wildlife, without any human intrusion at all. But I'm probably a very small minority.

Of course, I live in Kansas, and even with 4 major prisons nearby with their dang search lights, I have pretty dark skies...

[GrapesOfWrath]

On 2002-08-02 04:31, beskeptical wrote:
Sorry, sounds like a distorted description of the bill. Can't trust someone who isn't honest. And, I enjoy those wilderness areas that are closed to motors.

That petition link doesn't say anything about star gazers--it doesn't even say anything about restricting horses. I think the OP has it wrong.

The bill has language in it that says "Nothing in this Act shall preclude horseback riding, or the entry of recreational saddle or pack stock into wilderness areas and wild, scenic, and recreational rivers designated by this Act."

<font size=-1>[Added bill language]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: GrapesOfWrath on 2002-08-02 10:53 ]</font>

[beskeptical]

On 2002-08-02 10:46, GrapesOfWrath wrote:

On 2002-08-02 04:31, beskeptical wrote:
Sorry, sounds like a distorted description of the bill. Can't trust someone who isn't honest. And, I enjoy those wilderness areas that are closed to motors.

That petition link doesn't say anything about star gazers--it doesn't even say anything about restricting horses. I think the OP has it wrong.

The bill has language in it that says "Nothing in this Act shall preclude horseback riding, or the entry of recreational saddle or pack stock into wilderness areas and wild, scenic, and recreational rivers designated by this Act."

Told ya so. My guess is the guy, (and I guess he is a guy, we girls are more sensitive than that [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img] ), just posted this same message to all the BBs he could, like junk mail. I'll be surprised if he ever reads our responses.

But now I finally know what OP is. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

[tipitover]

Four-wheelers, snowmobilers, dirt-bikers, and mountain-bikers would be banned from this Wilderness. Rafters, kayakers, miners, campers, HORSE-RIDERS, and fishermen would also suffer dramatically decreased access ....
did you guys read it or what?
Yes, I do read your posts.
Yes I heard from a co-worker that his dad and all his star-watchers(or what ever the hell you call yourselves) don't like the land closures because it restricts them. Yes it is hearsay, I will look for more evidence. But don't any of you have disabled grand-parents or small children that you like to bring w/ you. No mechanized access means no wheelchairs. Plus, doesn't the US have plenty of wilderness wherepeople are already not permitted to go.
No this is not junk mail, thought you guys would be interested but I guessed wrong. Sorry for the inconvienence you by posting a paragragh for you all to read.

[beskeptical]

On 2002-08-04 04:11, tipitover wrote:
Four-wheelers, snowmobilers, dirt-bikers, and mountain-bikers would be banned from this Wilderness. Rafters, kayakers, miners, campers, HORSE-RIDERS, and fishermen would also suffer dramatically decreased access ....

Yes I heard from a co-worker that his dad and all his star-watchers(or what ever the hell you call yourselves) don't like the land closures because it restricts them. ...

But don't any of you have disabled grand-parents or small children that you like to bring w/ you. No mechanized access means no wheelchairs.

Plus, doesn't the US have plenty of wilderness wherepeople are already not permitted to go.

No this is not junk mail, thought you guys would be interested but I guessed wrong. Sorry for the inconvienence you by posting a paragragh for you all to read.

Sour grapes have we now? I happen to love the wilderness. Aren't there enough places for "four-wheelers, snowmobilers, dirt-bikers, and mountain-bikers " without taking every last one of the few natural areas that are left?

And you are exaggerating the consequences.

Perhaps you haven't walked into a wilderness area before. It's a mighty fine experience. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

[GrapesOfWrath]

On 2002-08-04 04:11, tipitover wrote:
did you guys read it or what?

Yes. You said "These land closures close the land to all motorized access, horses, mountain bikes, and I have heard star gazers," but in fact they won't close the land to horses or star gazers.

Glad you came back to defend your post. Ask your coworker which astronomy club will be impacted. I'm interested in finding out. Some astronomers appear to have been in conflict with wilderness designations, competing for mountain sites, but other star gazers appear to like the isolation that wilderness areas allow.

<font size=-1>[Added another URL]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: GrapesOfWrath on 2002-08-04 05:49 ]</font>

[Jigsaw]

Just wanna point out that you don't have to go all the way to the [quote unquote] "wilderness" to see stars, so not being able to drive your Granny and her wheelchair into the [quote unquote] "wilderness" wouldn't mean she couldn't look at stars anymore.

You can just take her down to the nearest state park or state forest campground that happens to have no electrical hookups for campers. Park anywhere in the campground, get out of the car, and look up.

[tipitover]

They want to take areas that are already four-wheel drive accessable. It is not the other way around, we just want to keep the areas we are already allowed in. It says that it WILL RESTRICT horse riders, fisherman, hikers, campers, etc.
How am I exaggerating? I am quoting from the petition and I will ask about the club.

[GrapesOfWrath]

People who ride horses would not be able to drive their horse trailers into the wilderness area. So that is a restriction on them, but the restriction is on driving, not on riding. Your first post said that the land would be closed to horses--that doesn't seem to be the case.

[Jim]

From the petition:

This bill, if passed, would result in closure of nearly 25,000 acres of Nevada County public lands to mechanized public use -- effectively shutting out 95% of the public from the ruggedly beautiful high country in the Grouse Lakes and Castle Peak areas.

25,000 acres... that's 0.095% of the BLM's total land, 0.025% of CA's, and 0.0004% of the US's. A nice sized chunkl to own, but not too much of the total. (Is all the other land in CA being used for something more important? Couldn't they find another 0.025% somewhere?)

I doubt that "95% of the public" would ever get to those areas anyway. Besides, the idea is to preserve that very "ruggedly beautiful high country."

Four-wheelers, snowmobilers, dirt-bikers, and mountain-bikers would be banned from this Wilderness.

Doesn't go far enough for me. I'd just outlaw the d%$# things outright! (Except the "mountain bikes" if they mean the people-powered kind.) I love it when folks cry about losing access to nature, when to them access means driving in on a pollution-spewing, noisy contraption, speeding through as fast as possible, running over any plant or animal foolish enough to get in their way, leaving their trash behind... Ah, yes, the thrill of enjoying nature first hand!

Rafters, kayakers, miners, campers, horse-riders, and fishermen would also suffer dramatically decreased access .... All but the most-fit individuals would be out of hiking range of their destinations...

Isn't that kinda like leaving your air-conditioned office and taking your air-conditioned car to your air-conditioned gym so you can work up a sweat? The members of those groups (how did "miners" make the list) who aren't fit enough to go into the wilderness shouldn't be there in the first place. Try one of the touristy, dude-places instead.

... even though these lands have supported these multiple uses -- many for decades, and some, for more than a century.

Ah, yes, let's uphold tradition.

Of course, those areas were wilderness for several centuries before they became recreation areas. Maybe we should give that tradition a chance?

One of the primary effects of Wilderness designation is the reduction of access especially for recreation -- but the "no mechanized transport" rules also prevent use of bulldozers, trucks, and helicopters, which will severely restrict the ability of the Forest Service to fight fires...

Say what?! Is anyone seriously saying that emergency vehicles would be banned? Oh, pshaw! Shoiw me the wording in the Boxer bill that would do that.

Without mechanized means of access, land managers cannot patrol these public lands, or the reservoirs and resources within the Wilderness boundaries.

Ain'y buyin' it. The Forest Service (one of me step-brothers was a Ranger for awhile) do just fine on horseback. And I'm willing to bet that the bill does not forbid them making any necessary motorized patrols.

Designating these lands as Wilderness will result in reduced revenue from tourism...

So, it's economics?

... increased resource-loading on the few remaining areas open to managed multiple-use access...

This could be a vaild (the only valid) point. Our parks are overcrowded, and in danger of being ruined by too many visitors (many on those d%$# ATVs). But the answer isn't in keeping wilderness areas open; it's in creating more parks [and wilderness areas.

... and magnify the risk of wildfires even as it reduces the ability of the Forest Service to respond to and contain wildfires.

No, reducing the frivolous traffic (those who are out for a good ride and don't really appreciate nature) and the motorized traffic could actually reduce the chance of a manmade wildfire. And, as I said above, I don't think anyone would try to use this bill to prevent firefighters from putting out a forest fire.

I found no mention of stargazers in the petition.

[tipitover]

O.k sorry about my misconception of what my co-worker told me. I guess the deal is that his dad is w/ the san jose astronomy association and the gov't closed down fremont peak in Ca. So this bill does not include star people. Though, his club I was told might be into signing the bill. I didn't know which club he was with though.
And to Jim, I am positive that you have NEVER set foot in a place where responsible people go to ride their dirt bikes and trucks. If you go to those places you would see other people being involved in tread lightly, and yes there are the bad apples out there, but the majority of people want to retain the access. We have trail clean-ups where clubs put on a run and everyone goes and cleans the trail. Try http://www.friendsoftherubicon.com for all the trail clean-up dates. I will look into her bill more to debate w/ you at lunch.
-jesse

[beskeptical]

On 2002-08-05 14:18, tipitover wrote:
O.k sorry about my misconception of what my co-worker told me. .....
And to Jim, I am positive that you have NEVER set foot in a place where responsible people go to ride their dirt bikes and trucks. If you go to those places you would see other people being involved in tread lightly, and yes there are the bad apples out there, but the majority of people want to retain the access. We have trail clean-ups where clubs put on a run and everyone goes and cleans the trail. Try http://www.friendsoftherubicon.com for all the trail clean-up dates. I will look into her bill more to debate w/ you at lunch.
-jesse

Thankyou for improving your tone and I'm glad to hear you have concern for the environment. It also sounds like you are speaking of a specific site you'd like to see remain open to recreation that you currently enjoy. If a person wants to present an appeal for backing on an issue, it doesn't usually help one's cause to exaggerate or to overgeneralize.

It would be nice if there was room for all of us on this planet but resources are finite. That means when you want an area for a particular type of recreation that doesn't easily coexist with other uses there will be two sides to the issue.

To be fair, I recommend you look at the total local area that is designated wilderness and the total that is open to the use you are looking for, rather than the loss of your favorite place or whatever it is you stand to lose.

There really are very few accessible places that you can go to get away from man-made noise. When I say accessible, I mean within a couple hundred miles of one's home and a 1/2 day or so hike in. Someplace inaccessible would be the Alaskan wilderness or something. ATVs, snowmobiles, and motorized bikes are horribly noisy.

When I'm in the wilderness its incredible to think that I'm in a place that was the same thousands of years ago. Animal noises are part of the experience. Obnoxious noisy motors do ruin the experience.

There are so few places around the Bay area where you can get away from the city. Without too much thought I can guess that B. Boxer is trying to save one of the few remaining places. And, no matter how much effort your group spends restoring trails or packing out litter, you can't have a wilderness if you allow unrestricted use.

In my experience, horse packers have left the most litter, motorbikes the most trail damage, and snowmobilers, the most noise. And I have spent a tremendous amount of time on trails and in the wilderness.

[Jim]

On 2002-08-05 14:18, tipitover wrote:
And to Jim, I am positive that you have NEVER set foot in a place where responsible people go to ride their dirt bikes and trucks. If you go to those places you would see other people being involved in tread lightly, and yes there are the bad apples out there, but the majority of people want to retain the access. We have trail clean-ups where clubs put on a run and everyone goes and cleans the trail.

Maybe I haven't. Most of my experience with ATVs, et al has been with the type I described above... the type who are not responsible, who do not seem to care about anyone or anything beyond themselves and their own enjoyment.

I'm very willing to admit that these are the "bad apples" you mention and that there are many - I certainly hope more - "good apples" willing to be responsible stewards of the environment.

Those "good apples" have to realize that their reputations have been tarnished and the way to remedy that is not to shout long and loud about their rights and others be damned. (Oh, cleaning up afterward is only part of it; minimizing the damage is the other. Picking up the trash is nice, but if you've just ridden your ATVs through the last patch of blue maidenhead fern in North America, it's not enough.)

Why not get together a group to work with Boxer to set aside separate areas? Why not push for legislation that would establish strong penalties for the irresponsible? Why not do those things that would show people that you realize the wilderness was there first and that it is a valuable resource which needs to be maintained in a pristine condition in at least some areas? Show you can be good and responsible stewards and not just spoiled kids who throw a fit when told you'll have to take your toys and play elsewhere?

Note, this is not intended as an attack on you. You seem to have a very reasonable and responsible attitude. But, the bad apples are getting all the press.

I'll go back to my first suggestion: Get together a group with your attitude and approach Boxer. Ask how you can help her help both sides win.

On 2002-08-05 22:19, beskeptical wrote:

It would be nice if there was room for all of us on this planet but resources are finite.

There may be enough resources for both sides. The problem is that both sides want many of the same areas.

There really are very few accessible places that you can go to get away from man-made noise. ... ATVs, snowmobiles, and motorized bikes are horribly noisy.

When I'm in the wilderness ... Animal noises are part of the experience. Obnoxious noisy motors do ruin the experience.

That's my point! Thank you.

Add to that, animals and people usually watch where they step. Motorized vehicles don't really care.

In my experience, horse packers have left the most litter, motorbikes the most trail damage, and snowmobilers, the most noise. And I have spent a tremendous amount of time on trails and in the wilderness.

I'll yield to your knowledge of horse packers. But, my experience is that those who are capable, willing and desirous of backpacking into a wilderness have enough respect for it to minimize the damage and to clean up after themselves.

It's the "day crowd" that usually causes the most damage, probably because it's just a quick outing to them and they won't be around to see the consequences.

Well, until a few years later, when they return, see the mess they and their ilk have made, and get down on the Parks people for allowing it to happen.

[Bozola]

This really irritated me.

Senator Barbara Boxer is trying to pass a wilderness bill that will close land to the public to perserve wildlife. These land closures close the land to all motorized access, horses, mountain bikes, and I have heard star gazers. The plan is to close 2.5 million acres in Ca.

Here's the actual text of the bill:
http://www.friendsoftheriver.org/S2535/Bill.html
Seems pretty damn reasonable to me.

She will not stop at that however.

I should hope not! She's after Enron in a big way, and all those greasy little swine who's raping and pillaging of our economy is the real threat to all of us. It's hard to afford to a hobby of astronomy when you're reduced to flipping burgers because some CEO stole your retirement fund, or Congress gave your science grant to Tom Ridge to buy new thumbscrews for the his Gestapo boys.

They brainwash people into thinking that it is good to close the land and trick them into thinking that they will still be allowed access.

Bull. Read it. It's pretty damn clear what the intent is.

So please do me a favor and vote no on this bill here http://www.petitiononline.com/NOonBOXR/petition.html Please pass it on to your friends and loved ones and urge them to sign it. Even if it is just so your children may oneday see the great sights America has to offer!

Stop the bill that wants to preserve what little wilderness we have left so that future generations may enjoy it? You're got slight problem with your logic here. Without the bill the wilderness areas will become either clear cuts, strip malls, or housing developments (especially in Nevada county!); future generations will think that wilderness is a gas station without a mini-market, at this rate.

Look at it this way; every acre put aside for wilderness is an acre that isn't contributing to light pollution.

And to Jim, I am positive that you have NEVER set foot in a place where responsible people go to ride their dirt bikes and trucks.

Would you care to point out a single wilderness area where motor vehicles are allowed where only responsible riders go? Let's see...I've been riding bikes for probably longer than you've been alive, and I've raced 'em too. You can close every park and monument to motor vehicles in this country and I still can find fabulous roads to ride on. Don't you think that the million or so miles of road in this country is enough?

[tipitover]

Front page of the San Diego Union-Tribune!

Jon

---------------------------------
Boxer's wilderness bill spurs fire concerns


By Dana Wilkie
COPLEY NEWS SERVICE

August 3, 2002


WASHINGTON – It's the most ambitious environmental protection plan California has seen in almost a decade – one that would cover vast stretches of wilderness and give Sen. Barbara Boxer something to trumpet when she runs for re-election in two years.

But a chorus of concern is growing that Boxer's Wild Heritage Wilderness Act would make it harder to fight fires in California's backcountry, which is already a virtual tinderbox.

This week's Pines fire has destroyed more than 20,000 acres of mountain and canyon land near Julian and is a good example, say some of the bill's critics, of why Boxer should not place 2.5 million acres in California under the Wilderness Act of 1964. In areas protected by the act, trucks and equipment that prevent or fight fires can be forbidden.

The Pines fire has been problematic because layers of brittle grass, brush and light timber have made the fire particularly hot. Periodically getting rid of such growth – by clearing it out or burning it off – is one way of preventing fires. About 20,000 acres in Boxer's plan border Cuyamaca Rancho State Park, which was threatened by fire Wednesday.

"To allow (long-dried layers of vegetation) to lie on the ground and not be managed just puts us into a cycle of continual fires over the years," said San Diego County Supervisor Bill Horn, who opposes Boxer's bill.

A spokesman for U.S. Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-El Cajon, said the congressman has similar concerns.

"There are tons of wilderness areas in California," said spokesman Mike Harrison. "What concerns the congressman is that the people who are pushing this are never satisfied. Every time they get one place designated as wilderness, they want five or six more."

Tom Bohigian, Boxer's deputy state director, said the Democratic senator's bill would allow the federal agencies controlling the wilderness – whether the Forest Service or the Bureau of Land Management – to deal with fires and fire prevention as they see fit. If that means using firetrucks, bulldozers or chain saws, he said, that's fine.

"The senator believes that human safety and the protection of property are very important," said Bohigian, adding that Boxer worked for two years with local communities to eliminate as much opposition as possible. "That isn't to say you automatically go to the most intense response if that isn't called for. This is on a case-by-case basis."

But Jim Wright, deputy director of fire protection for the California Department of Forestry, said it's not that simple. He has seen wilderness fires grow because federal officials would not use a bulldozer to carve out a firebreak.

And while most federal agencies like the Forest Service are willing to negotiate on firefighting tactics – especially when fires threaten state-owned land – Wright has often agreed to tactics less aggressive than he would normally use.

"Once (a fire) is in a wilderness area, it's going to get bigger because of the prohibitions you have," Wright said. "You cannot . . . get right next to the fire line and work it directly with fire engines."

Most of the San Diego County land that Boxer wants protected lies in the district of county Supervisor Diane Jacob, who supports the bill, as does the San Diego City Council. A Jacob spokeswoman said it was her impression that "the fire concern is addressed in the bill."

"One of the things we said was, 'Look, that land gets pretty dry out there,' " said spokeswoman Jennifer Stone. "One of the conditions of my boss' supporting it was that the fire personnel were on board."

The state Department of Forestry has no position on the bill. Bohigian's assurances have not persuaded the Regional Council of Rural Counties to drop its opposition to Boxer's plan. The council's 29 members represent half of the state's 58 counties.

"I had a fire in my district, and when it went into (federal) wilderness areas, we had to just watch it go up the sides of the mountain," said council Chairwoman Linda Arcularius, who is also chairwoman of the Inyo County Board of Supervisors. "The engines couldn't go in, and a lot of their field crews couldn't go in."

There are also worries that Boxer's plan might hurt local property tax revenue by putting more land under the public domain, and would prevent mountain bikers and others from enjoying the areas.

"I think the bill is going to have to be tailored down somewhat," said Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the state's senior senator and a member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, which will have jurisdiction over the legislation, SB 2535. "There are a number of concerns that have to be worked out."

Statewide, Boxer would add 2.5 million acres to the 14 million acres already protected by the federal Wilderness Act of 1964. The act forbids expanded logging, mining or livestock grazing, and prohibits new roads, motorized vehicles and non-motorized vehicles such as mountain bikes. Using chain saws – as firefighters often do to clear growth that might ignite – is forbidden.

More than 40,000 acres in San Diego County would fall under Boxer's plan, including land upstream of the El Capitan reservoir known as the Eagle Peak Complex, desert areas in the Sawtooth Mountains and Carrizo Gorge, and the so-called Hauser additions in the Barrett Lake area.

The last time a lawmaker attempted such an ambitious environmental protection plan was when Feinstein in 1994 won passage of a bill protecting 6.6 million acres of California desert. Some who work with Boxer said the wilderness protection bill would give Boxer a similar accomplishment to point to when she campaigns for re-election in 2004.

Copyright 2002 Union-Tribune Publishing Co.
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/...ws_1n3wild.html

[tipitover]

Here are some quotes for you:

Supervisor Bill Dennison of Plumas County:

"Some people may be encouraged by the provisions that the draft bill permits mechanized and motorized equipment for fuels treatment, or fire management, where necessary .........The operative words are “Where necessary” will be the deciding factor and determined by those who do not wish to have any forest management in California. That is disingenuous and unacceptable."

Congressman John Doolitte:

"Ironically, rather than preserve the pristine areas we all treasure, wilderness designations actually threaten the areas chance of both surviving and recovering from fire. When wildfire spreads out of control, it destroys wildlife habitat, burns fertile topsoil, and opens the door to massive erosion that can severely harm entire watersheds. Without allowing motorized vehicles access to remove dead trees and begin reforestation efforts, such lands are often left scarred for decades. Furthermore, much of our national forests are already overcrowded with undergrowth and small trees conditions that invite insect infestation and heightened fire risk. In most locations, the environmentally-sound solution is to greatly increase mechanical thinning treatments, not preclude them. Unfortunately, Wilderness Areas even ban helicopter access. This not only prohibits ecologically-sensitive helicopter logging, but it also prevents local water agencies from performing required monitoring during the winter and hampers search and rescue efforts. "

"I had a fire in my district, and when it went into (federal) wilderness areas, we had to just watch it go up the sides of the mountain," said council Chairwoman Linda Arcularius, who is also chairwoman of the Inyo County Board of Supervisors. "The engines couldn't go in, and a lot of their field crews couldn't go in."

it seems like some double talk to me....roads are not allowed to be constructed in wilderness areas, but wheeled equipment is allowed to be used....you tell me how a fire truck gets to a fire without a road, or how a hand crew gets to a fire without cutting a "line" (trail)....

[tipitover]

Why not do those things that would show people that you realize the wilderness was there first and that it is a valuable resource which needs to be maintained in a pristine condition in at least some areas? Show you can be good and responsible stewards and not just spoiled kids who throw a fit when told you'll have to take your toys and play elsewhere?


http://www.delalbright.com/rubicon_outlaws.htm
that is the link that shows how we are taking away the bad apples on the trails. There is a patrol set up to report the bad apples to the authorities.

[tipitover]

Oh yeah, some say my description is distorted, but what about jim's which states that we all drive over plants and animals that get in the way. Most of the trails I go on in the sierra are slow trails where we drive on granite and we never get out of first gear. I never have seen a dead animal on the trail. Now, what about the millions of miles of hwy that I always see dead animals on. In fact this morning not an hour ago there was a deer dead in the road that I couldn't see because it was hit so bad and blood was splattered everywhere.
And like I said, we are starting to enforce the tread lightly.

[MongotheGreat]

If the wilderness so needs our help to survive, how did it get there in the first place? Wilderness needs no help from man to maintain. Sounds like a bunch of politicians worried about their jobs. Not an issue. And not astronomy either.
Mongo

[Jim]

On 2002-08-06 12:07, MongotheGreat wrote:
If the wilderness so needs our help to survive, how did it get there in the first place? Wilderness needs no help from man to maintain. Sounds like a bunch of politicians worried about their jobs. Not an issue. And not astronomy either.
Mongo

It got along fine w/o us for thousands of years. The Native Americans managed to coexist with it for thousands more.

The wilderness doesn't need our help to survive. All it needs is for us to leave it alone.

[Kaptain K]

I am in agreement with Mongo and Jim on this one. One reason that fires burn so fiercely now is that the policy has been to agressively fight every fire that starts. Fire is part of the natural cycle in the wilderness. It clears out the undergrowth that (if allowed to accumulate) contributes to the intensity of the eventual fire. The cones of many of the conifers don't open unless there is a fire to clear out the undergrowth and give the seedlings room to grow.
One thing that struck me as rather ironic was the hysterical headlines recently that fires were going to destroy the redwood forests unless agressively controlled.
Excuse me?
Many of those trees are over 2000 years old. They were surviving forest fires long before we got here and if we don't destroy them first, they will still be surviving forest fires long after we're gone.

[tipitover]

Exactly, leave it be and let the people there maintain it by being there. It doesn't need people being all greenie for it. I am sure that was not what you guys meant, but that is what I think. SO if you guys want, you would have already signed the bill and if not, then don't.

[beskeptical]

Lest I be misunderstood on the littering horse packers, I am talking about my experience, not a scientific data collection. Anecdotal evidence has lots of value, but it is not something to draw conclusions from, only hypotheses.

To state the limitations of my anecdotal evidence, I will add, my experience with horse packers probably includes a larger proportion of hunters than the whole population of horse packers might contain. (I am not against hunting as long as the meat is consumed and gun safety is a priority.)

Also, the fact that the packers often left large amounts of litter stood out and therefore may appear to be more common than it is due to the effect of selective memory. I was quite shocked at the piles of food cans and other garbage left at campsites since it would have been so easy to pack it back out.

I'm not bringing all this boring stuff up to defend what I said. I just thought it would be a good opportunity to show how one might think about personal experience and conclusions drawn.

I think personal experience is one of the major reasons pepole have distorted perceptions of evidence. Maybe if we learned more about how perceptions lead to faulty conclusions, it would be easier to convince people when the evidence contradicts what they believe.

Tipitover, I grew up in LA and I have traveled all over California. There are hardly any places left that are wilderness areas. Yosemite so overused that cars had to be banned years ago and people now ride on buses into the park. The Redwoods, one of the most incredible trees in the entire world, are preserved on small discontinuous pieces of land. You can't get to any real wilderness around LA or the Bay area without driving hundreds of miles.

What I'm trying to say is if you don't look at both sides of the issue, those on the other side will just be defensive when you present your case.

[GrapesOfWrath]

On 2002-08-06 14:52, beskeptical wrote:
Also, the fact that the packers often left large amounts of litter stood out and therefore may appear to be more common than it is due to the effect of selective memory. I was quite shocked at the piles of food cans and other garbage left at campsites since it would have been so easy to pack it back out.

That is one positive about horses--people are often apt to pack out their garbage. Of course, as you noticed, they can pack so much more in!

25 years ago, I heard a story from some packhorse guides that a pack string had passed a hiker on the trail, and two of their horses fell over dead, their stomachs slit open with a surgical knife. I'm not sure if the story is true, but it illustrates how contentious was the debate at the time.

[Jigsaw]

Er, I'd like to know what any of this has to do with astronomy. I thought the "star gazer" tie-in was tenuous at best, but now all that's happening is a discussion of horsepacking and wilderness access.

So, huh? [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_confused.gif[/img]