Trail(er) trash

Why is it necessary to have federally protected wilderness areas anyway?

If people or groups want to protect areas they can purchase the land
themselves with their own cash.

It reminds me of that 'protest' in California where all the ''movie stars'
and 'recording artists' are sitting in a tree preventing a vacant lot from
being improved into industrial storage.

They get on TV every day saying the city should buy it and how evil the
landowner is but the truth is that if they were sincere each one of them can
afford individually to purchase the land outright but they 'demand' the
government buy it.




"Mike" > wrote in message
...
>
> "R. Lander" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>> Tom "Greening" wrote:
>>
>>> Pretty pictures you've got there but pretty much useless without the
>>> legend of what the colors actually mean.
>>
>> (http://www.mongabay.com/images/media/footprint.jpg)
>>
>> That map is useful if you want it to be.
>
> That exactly the point. Without any legend it can be anything you want
> it to be. I call it misleading.
>
>
> It easily debunks the claim
>> that we only use 2 or 3 percent of the land. Those DARK green areas are
>> the only lands that have barely been touched. Lighter green areas are
>> veined with roads and other intrusions. Unbroken wilderness is always
>> under more pressure.
>>
>> At http://nationalatlas.gov/ you can map layers of different land
>> types. It's interactive so I can't post a static link. Go to Map-Maker,
>> choose "Boundaries" and "Wilderness..." to see how sparse it is. Check
>> out the "Agriculture" zones, too. All of it disproves your mythology of
>> endless bounty.
>
>
> I tried the above but there is no "Wilderness" check box. The only one
> that comes close is "Widerness Preservation System Areas". While it sounds
> close it is not the same thing. So the map is only showing protected
> wilderness areas, not just any wilderness area. Just because a
> "wilderness" area is not "protected" doesn't change the fact that it is
> still wilderness. I can see why you are so confused now. My advice is to
> forget the maps and the internet. Shut off your computer and go outside so
> that you can see for yourself it's not as bad as your maps show.
>
>
>
>>
>>> Looking at you pretty coloring book would have us believe that almost
>>> the entire eastern US is literally covered in people. Your world map is
>>> no different. What do the color graduations signify?
>>
>> Of course it's not literally covered with people but the land is highly
>> appropriated. Most of the East was cleared of major forests to
>> introduce agriculture. Online satellite galleries offer definitive
>> proof if you don't trust maps. Then again, it's impossible to convince
>> an anthropocentric that any of it matters. All evidence will be met
>> with "who cares - it's all about people and money."
>
>
> Most of the east coast????? You make it soumd like there are little to
> no trees left on the east coast. This couldn't be farther from the truth.
> I've hiked up and down most of the east coast in forested areas. Most were
> labled wilderness or wildlife areas. I've personally been there so I know
> they exist. Funny thing is they don't show up on your map.You really need
> to get outside more so you can see things for yourself.
>
>
>
>>> Let's take India for example, you CAN pick it out without resorting to a
>>> world atlas can't you?
>>
>> I'm the uneducated one around here? An error like "75 million" (below)
>> shows that population/land-use is not something you think about much.
>>
>>> Based on colors alone one might believe that
>>> India is absolutely covered in humanity, and population numbers might
>>> lead you to think the same thing. After all, their population is right
>>> on a par with China at around 2 billion souls, give or take a few
>>> hundred million. The thing is, I've BEEN to India and I've seen a fair
>>> portion of it, and while the cities themselves can be absolutely
>>> crawling with people, the biggest hunk of the country is pretty much
>>> free of significant numbers of them.
>>
>> That's because much of it is used to grow crops to feed them, and much
>> is desert or high mountains. They also don't have the consumption
>> footprint of the average American (but they're working on it,
>> unfortunately). People have taken over just about all land that offers
>> easy living and ample water. When land is truly empty it's usually for
>> lack of water or harsh climate and terrain.
>>
>> This is what's really happening in India:
>> http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/indiaenv.html
>>
>> "India's ongoing population explosion has placed great strain on the
>> country's environment. This rapidly growing population, along with a
>> move toward urbanization and industrialization, has placed significant
>> pressure on India's infrastructure and its natural resources.
>> Deforestation, soil erosion, water pollution and land degradation
>> continue to worsen and are hindering economic development in rural
>> India, while the rapid industrialization and urbanization in India's
>> booming metropolises are straining the limits of municipal services and
>> causing serious air pollution problems."
>>
>>> The US is approximately 3.5 million square miles with a population of
>>> approximately 75 million people which works out to about 78 people per
>>> square mile.
>>
>> 75 million was surpassed back in the 1890s! The U.S. population will
>> reach 300 million by 2007, with ~3 million added annually (census.gov).
>> Average density matters less than the type of land and how many
>> resources are taken from it. Many areas are already overburdened and
>> must draw water and food from great distances. That's why you keep
>> seeing news about water shortages, fishery declines and old growth
>> facing the axe. Go ahead, pretend none of it matters. It would fit
>> right in with your general myopia.
>>
>>> A fair number of those are actually concentrated in the
>>> major cities so that makes their density greater, but the density of the
>>> rest of the country less. I'm betting a fairly substantial portion of
>>> the city folk never get any closer to nature than the zoo and local
>>> water park, so their impact on the environment is minimal, not counting
>>> the emissions from their mini-vans.
>>
>> Again, it takes a lot of land to support city infrastructure. Over 90%
>> of U.S. forests have been worked over to that end. Agriculture occupies
>> huge swaths of land. People keep wanting more of what's left for
>> recreation and blaming everyone but themselves for crowds therein.
>>
>>> Their indirect impact based on resources used in their behalf and
>>> what-not might be a bit harder to judge, but unless you're willing to be
>>> the first in line to be euthanized to minimize the impact to poor mother
>>> earth I'd suggest you shut up about population issues.
>>
>> Have you ever heard of birth control? Every time this issue is bought
>> up, some high-school dropout/Catholic assumes population control means
>> genocide.
>
>
> So tell everyone just how you would implement such a plan ? Who would
> control such a thing ? How would you determine how many chidren one is
> allowed ? It just sounds like such a dumb assed idea.
>
>
>
> You cited the U.S. population at a quarter of its actual
>> size. How many other facets of this issue don't you understand?
>>
>>> There are about 4 million miles of roads in the US. For the sake of
>>> argument lets say 1 mile of road for every square mile of real estate in
>>> the country. If you laid them all end to end and side by side...well,
>>> you should get the picture. A road isn't all that wide compared to a
>>> mile of real estate is it? I'd guess the real estate is about, ohhh,
>>> 5,200 feet and change wider. IOW the overall impact of a road, on the
>>> land, is pretty negligible.
>>
>> Roads are significant because they bring more impact and break the land
>> into smaller sectors. Once you build a road (paved or dirt) an area is
>> never the same. Millions of dead animals don't appreciate them, either.
>> I don't want to abolish roads but I'd like to see an end to new
>> construction. We might actually have time to fix potholes.
>>
>>> And besides which, what is your point? Do you seriously think there is
>>> anything, short of total global sterilization, that man can do to this
>>> planet that is going to make any kind of lasting impact? Man, and
>>> whatever impact we might have is going to be less than blip on the radar
>>> that is the life cycle of this planet.
>>
>> That's another bogus argument (we can't destroy the whole thing,
>> therefore we're harmless). Man-made damage is extensive compared to
>> what once existed in terms of pristine land, now-extinct species and a
>> lack of pollution. If you keep lowering the bar for acceptable damage,
>> you can excuse almost anything.
>>
>> R. Lander
>>
>
>

This is why we have government in the first place. I cannot afford my own
police force, road crew, or annoying bureaucrats to pester my neighbors, so
I get together with everyone else, pay taxes, and together we can buy a host
of both good and bad things. There is, after all, a form of representative
government in most places, so what it buys is, after a fashion, "what
everyone wants".

The same argument, that you are using, could be applied to the city parks
that your children or grandchildren play in, the roads that you drive on or
the school where you learned to read. I imagine that your Hollywood
celebrities would like to see their tax dollars spent on something
worthwhile, as would we all.

Earle

"billy ray" > wrote in message
...
> Why is it necessary to have federally protected wilderness areas anyway?
>
> If people or groups want to protect areas they can purchase the land
> themselves with their own cash.
>
> It reminds me of that 'protest' in California where all the ''movie stars'
> and 'recording artists' are sitting in a tree preventing a vacant lot from
> being improved into industrial storage.
>
> They get on TV every day saying the city should buy it and how evil the
> landowner is but the truth is that if they were sincere each one of them
can
> afford individually to purchase the land outright but they 'demand' the
> government buy it.
>
>
>
>
> "Mike" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "R. Lander" > wrote in message
> > oups.com...
> >> Tom "Greening" wrote:
> >>
> >>> Pretty pictures you've got there but pretty much useless without the
> >>> legend of what the colors actually mean.
> >>
> >> (http://www.mongabay.com/images/media/footprint.jpg)
> >>
> >> That map is useful if you want it to be.
> >
> > That exactly the point. Without any legend it can be anything you want
> > it to be. I call it misleading.
> >
> >
> > It easily debunks the claim
> >> that we only use 2 or 3 percent of the land. Those DARK green areas are
> >> the only lands that have barely been touched. Lighter green areas are
> >> veined with roads and other intrusions. Unbroken wilderness is always
> >> under more pressure.
> >>
> >> At http://nationalatlas.gov/ you can map layers of different land
> >> types. It's interactive so I can't post a static link. Go to Map-Maker,
> >> choose "Boundaries" and "Wilderness..." to see how sparse it is. Check
> >> out the "Agriculture" zones, too. All of it disproves your mythology of
> >> endless bounty.
> >
> >
> > I tried the above but there is no "Wilderness" check box. The only
one
> > that comes close is "Widerness Preservation System Areas". While it
sounds
> > close it is not the same thing. So the map is only showing protected
> > wilderness areas, not just any wilderness area. Just because a
> > "wilderness" area is not "protected" doesn't change the fact that it is
> > still wilderness. I can see why you are so confused now. My advice is to
> > forget the maps and the internet. Shut off your computer and go outside
so
> > that you can see for yourself it's not as bad as your maps show.
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >>> Looking at you pretty coloring book would have us believe that almost
> >>> the entire eastern US is literally covered in people. Your world map
is
> >>> no different. What do the color graduations signify?
> >>
> >> Of course it's not literally covered with people but the land is highly
> >> appropriated. Most of the East was cleared of major forests to
> >> introduce agriculture. Online satellite galleries offer definitive
> >> proof if you don't trust maps. Then again, it's impossible to convince
> >> an anthropocentric that any of it matters. All evidence will be met
> >> with "who cares - it's all about people and money."
> >
> >
> > Most of the east coast????? You make it soumd like there are little
to
> > no trees left on the east coast. This couldn't be farther from the
truth.
> > I've hiked up and down most of the east coast in forested areas. Most
were
> > labled wilderness or wildlife areas. I've personally been there so I
know
> > they exist. Funny thing is they don't show up on your map.You really
need
> > to get outside more so you can see things for yourself.
> >
> >
> >
> >>> Let's take India for example, you CAN pick it out without resorting to
a
> >>> world atlas can't you?
> >>
> >> I'm the uneducated one around here? An error like "75 million" (below)
> >> shows that population/land-use is not something you think about much.
> >>
> >>> Based on colors alone one might believe that
> >>> India is absolutely covered in humanity, and population numbers might
> >>> lead you to think the same thing. After all, their population is
right
> >>> on a par with China at around 2 billion souls, give or take a few
> >>> hundred million. The thing is, I've BEEN to India and I've seen a
fair
> >>> portion of it, and while the cities themselves can be absolutely
> >>> crawling with people, the biggest hunk of the country is pretty much
> >>> free of significant numbers of them.
> >>
> >> That's because much of it is used to grow crops to feed them, and much
> >> is desert or high mountains. They also don't have the consumption
> >> footprint of the average American (but they're working on it,
> >> unfortunately). People have taken over just about all land that offers
> >> easy living and ample water. When land is truly empty it's usually for
> >> lack of water or harsh climate and terrain.
> >>
> >> This is what's really happening in India:
> >> http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/indiaenv.html
> >>
> >> "India's ongoing population explosion has placed great strain on the
> >> country's environment. This rapidly growing population, along with a
> >> move toward urbanization and industrialization, has placed significant
> >> pressure on India's infrastructure and its natural resources.
> >> Deforestation, soil erosion, water pollution and land degradation
> >> continue to worsen and are hindering economic development in rural
> >> India, while the rapid industrialization and urbanization in India's
> >> booming metropolises are straining the limits of municipal services and
> >> causing serious air pollution problems."
> >>
> >>> The US is approximately 3.5 million square miles with a population of
> >>> approximately 75 million people which works out to about 78 people per
> >>> square mile.
> >>
> >> 75 million was surpassed back in the 1890s! The U.S. population will
> >> reach 300 million by 2007, with ~3 million added annually (census.gov).
> >> Average density matters less than the type of land and how many
> >> resources are taken from it. Many areas are already overburdened and
> >> must draw water and food from great distances. That's why you keep
> >> seeing news about water shortages, fishery declines and old growth
> >> facing the axe. Go ahead, pretend none of it matters. It would fit
> >> right in with your general myopia.
> >>
> >>> A fair number of those are actually concentrated in the
> >>> major cities so that makes their density greater, but the density of
the
> >>> rest of the country less. I'm betting a fairly substantial portion of
> >>> the city folk never get any closer to nature than the zoo and local
> >>> water park, so their impact on the environment is minimal, not
counting
> >>> the emissions from their mini-vans.
> >>
> >> Again, it takes a lot of land to support city infrastructure. Over 90%
> >> of U.S. forests have been worked over to that end. Agriculture occupies
> >> huge swaths of land. People keep wanting more of what's left for
> >> recreation and blaming everyone but themselves for crowds therein.
> >>
> >>> Their indirect impact based on resources used in their behalf and
> >>> what-not might be a bit harder to judge, but unless you're willing to
be
> >>> the first in line to be euthanized to minimize the impact to poor
mother
> >>> earth I'd suggest you shut up about population issues.
> >>
> >> Have you ever heard of birth control? Every time this issue is bought
> >> up, some high-school dropout/Catholic assumes population control means
> >> genocide.
> >
> >
> > So tell everyone just how you would implement such a plan ? Who would
> > control such a thing ? How would you determine how many chidren one is
> > allowed ? It just sounds like such a dumb assed idea.
> >
> >
> >
> > You cited the U.S. population at a quarter of its actual
> >> size. How many other facets of this issue don't you understand?
> >>
> >>> There are about 4 million miles of roads in the US. For the sake of
> >>> argument lets say 1 mile of road for every square mile of real estate
in
> >>> the country. If you laid them all end to end and side by side...well,
> >>> you should get the picture. A road isn't all that wide compared to a
> >>> mile of real estate is it? I'd guess the real estate is about, ohhh,
> >>> 5,200 feet and change wider. IOW the overall impact of a road, on the
> >>> land, is pretty negligible.
> >>
> >> Roads are significant because they bring more impact and break the land
> >> into smaller sectors. Once you build a road (paved or dirt) an area is
> >> never the same. Millions of dead animals don't appreciate them, either.
> >> I don't want to abolish roads but I'd like to see an end to new
> >> construction. We might actually have time to fix potholes.
> >>
> >>> And besides which, what is your point? Do you seriously think there
is
> >>> anything, short of total global sterilization, that man can do to this
> >>> planet that is going to make any kind of lasting impact? Man, and
> >>> whatever impact we might have is going to be less than blip on the
radar
> >>> that is the life cycle of this planet.
> >>
> >> That's another bogus argument (we can't destroy the whole thing,
> >> therefore we're harmless). Man-made damage is extensive compared to
> >> what once existed in terms of pristine land, now-extinct species and a
> >> lack of pollution. If you keep lowering the bar for acceptable damage,
> >> you can excuse almost anything.
> >>
> >> R. Lander
> >>
> >
> >
>
>



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

R. Lander wrote:
> This is for people who claim there's plenty of wilderness left for [whatever purpose]
>
> http://www.mongabay.com/images/media/footprint.jpg
>


That map suffers from scale. It's relatively useless other than to
establish an extremely general sense of what you're talking about. For
example, the portions of northern Maine with which I'm familiar and
which would show green on your map are far below the resolution of most
monitors. Nice thought, but it suffers in delivery; better there should
be a map such as this with links to more detailed scale regional
representations.

Agreed, the "footprint of man" is a more apt term than fingerprint or
handprint.

Pete H

R. Lander wrote:

>
> Here's a "footprint" map of the entire world. Notice how densely packed
> Europe is. That same blight is creeping across America and it doesn't
> need help from the off-road lobby.
>
> http://www.mongabay.com/images/exter...-11-30_wcs.jpg
>

What are the criteria of the scale beneath the map? As it sits, they are
meaningless numbers unless some referent be given. And, as with the
North America map, scale prevents any but the most general inferences to
be drawn. Despite "how densely packed" Europe is, it's a richer and more
stable region than, say, India or southeastern China.

Generalities are fine for starters but pretty soon in such a discussion
finer detail is needed.

Pete H

R. Lander wrote:
>
> That map is useful if you want it to be. It easily debunks the claim
> that we only use 2 or 3 percent of the land. Those DARK green areas are
> the only lands that have barely been touched.

See my comment about resolution at the scale of the map provided. The
map seems to provide a "goodish" blob of dark green in northern Maine
yet there are only a few hundred acres (in scattered plots) of truly
virgin, old-growth forest; similarly, we have NOWHERE in northern Maine
that is more than five or six miles from the nearest driveable road.
Under those criteria, the map is not a useful item.

Yours in the north Maine woods,
Pete Hilton (Reg. Me. Guide) aka The Ent

In article >,
billy ray > wrote:
>Why is it necessary to have federally protected wilderness areas anyway?

Precisely because for the same reason that a group of slave owners
argued that slavery was fine, that women didn't need the right to vote,
and loggers and later miners ran rough shod over lands before the early
1800s.

Do us a favor.
If you come down with cancer don't take taxol. It came from a Federally
protected area.

>If people or groups want to protect areas they can purchase the land
>themselves with their own cash.

This has proven insufficient. It's like buying slaves for their
freedom.

>It reminds me of that 'protest' in California where all the ''movie stars'
>and 'recording artists' are sitting in a tree preventing a vacant lot from
>being improved into industrial storage.

Well yes, this part is stupid.

And complete attribution of 160+ lines is unnecessary.


--

Earle,

As you know I live in a small village in the center of a protected
wilderness area.

What you may not know is that every few years there are announcements of
park expansion not by governmental seizures of private property but by the
donations by individuals.

But we are not talking about community police and fire protection we are
discussing 'celebrities' demanding the local government buy or seize private
property in the center of an commercial/industrial zone. The owner is
willing to sell and will gladly sell but the most recent offer I heard was
less than 40% of the lands value.

If Joan Baez, Darryl Hannah, Ben Harper, Laura Dern and Danny Glover were
truly committed to the preservation of this particular walnut tree they
would donate the monies to purchase it. Each alone could afford to do it
even without the tax breaks they would receive.

Worse yet is the local police refuse to remove, or arrest these 'stars'
despite a court order for eviction.



"Earle Horton" > wrote in message
.. .
> This is why we have government in the first place. I cannot afford my own
> police force, road crew, or annoying bureaucrats to pester my neighbors,
> so
> I get together with everyone else, pay taxes, and together we can buy a
> host
> of both good and bad things. There is, after all, a form of
> representative
> government in most places, so what it buys is, after a fashion, "what
> everyone wants".
>
> The same argument, that you are using, could be applied to the city parks
> that your children or grandchildren play in, the roads that you drive on
> or
> the school where you learned to read. I imagine that your Hollywood
> celebrities would like to see their tax dollars spent on something
> worthwhile, as would we all.
>
> Earle
>
> "billy ray" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Why is it necessary to have federally protected wilderness areas anyway?
>>
>> If people or groups want to protect areas they can purchase the land
>> themselves with their own cash.
>>
>> It reminds me of that 'protest' in California where all the ''movie
>> stars'
>> and 'recording artists' are sitting in a tree preventing a vacant lot
>> from
>> being improved into industrial storage.
>>
>> They get on TV every day saying the city should buy it and how evil the
>> landowner is but the truth is that if they were sincere each one of them
> can
>> afford individually to purchase the land outright but they 'demand' the
>> government buy it.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> "Mike" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > "R. Lander" > wrote in message
>> > oups.com...
>> >> Tom "Greening" wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> Pretty pictures you've got there but pretty much useless without the
>> >>> legend of what the colors actually mean.
>> >>
>> >> (http://www.mongabay.com/images/media/footprint.jpg)
>> >>
>> >> That map is useful if you want it to be.
>> >
>> > That exactly the point. Without any legend it can be anything you
>> > want
>> > it to be. I call it misleading.
>> >
>> >
>> > It easily debunks the claim
>> >> that we only use 2 or 3 percent of the land. Those DARK green areas
>> >> are
>> >> the only lands that have barely been touched. Lighter green areas are
>> >> veined with roads and other intrusions. Unbroken wilderness is always
>> >> under more pressure.
>> >>
>> >> At http://nationalatlas.gov/ you can map layers of different land
>> >> types. It's interactive so I can't post a static link. Go to
>> >> Map-Maker,
>> >> choose "Boundaries" and "Wilderness..." to see how sparse it is. Check
>> >> out the "Agriculture" zones, too. All of it disproves your mythology
>> >> of
>> >> endless bounty.
>> >
>> >
>> > I tried the above but there is no "Wilderness" check box. The only
> one
>> > that comes close is "Widerness Preservation System Areas". While it
> sounds
>> > close it is not the same thing. So the map is only showing protected
>> > wilderness areas, not just any wilderness area. Just because a
>> > "wilderness" area is not "protected" doesn't change the fact that it is
>> > still wilderness. I can see why you are so confused now. My advice is
>> > to
>> > forget the maps and the internet. Shut off your computer and go outside
> so
>> > that you can see for yourself it's not as bad as your maps show.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >>> Looking at you pretty coloring book would have us believe that almost
>> >>> the entire eastern US is literally covered in people. Your world map
> is
>> >>> no different. What do the color graduations signify?
>> >>
>> >> Of course it's not literally covered with people but the land is
>> >> highly
>> >> appropriated. Most of the East was cleared of major forests to
>> >> introduce agriculture. Online satellite galleries offer definitive
>> >> proof if you don't trust maps. Then again, it's impossible to convince
>> >> an anthropocentric that any of it matters. All evidence will be met
>> >> with "who cares - it's all about people and money."
>> >
>> >
>> > Most of the east coast????? You make it soumd like there are little
> to
>> > no trees left on the east coast. This couldn't be farther from the
> truth.
>> > I've hiked up and down most of the east coast in forested areas. Most
> were
>> > labled wilderness or wildlife areas. I've personally been there so I
> know
>> > they exist. Funny thing is they don't show up on your map.You really
> need
>> > to get outside more so you can see things for yourself.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >>> Let's take India for example, you CAN pick it out without resorting
>> >>> to
> a
>> >>> world atlas can't you?
>> >>
>> >> I'm the uneducated one around here? An error like "75 million" (below)
>> >> shows that population/land-use is not something you think about much.
>> >>
>> >>> Based on colors alone one might believe that
>> >>> India is absolutely covered in humanity, and population numbers might
>> >>> lead you to think the same thing. After all, their population is
> right
>> >>> on a par with China at around 2 billion souls, give or take a few
>> >>> hundred million. The thing is, I've BEEN to India and I've seen a
> fair
>> >>> portion of it, and while the cities themselves can be absolutely
>> >>> crawling with people, the biggest hunk of the country is pretty much
>> >>> free of significant numbers of them.
>> >>
>> >> That's because much of it is used to grow crops to feed them, and much
>> >> is desert or high mountains. They also don't have the consumption
>> >> footprint of the average American (but they're working on it,
>> >> unfortunately). People have taken over just about all land that offers
>> >> easy living and ample water. When land is truly empty it's usually for
>> >> lack of water or harsh climate and terrain.
>> >>
>> >> This is what's really happening in India:
>> >> http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/indiaenv.html
>> >>
>> >> "India's ongoing population explosion has placed great strain on the
>> >> country's environment. This rapidly growing population, along with a
>> >> move toward urbanization and industrialization, has placed significant
>> >> pressure on India's infrastructure and its natural resources.
>> >> Deforestation, soil erosion, water pollution and land degradation
>> >> continue to worsen and are hindering economic development in rural
>> >> India, while the rapid industrialization and urbanization in India's
>> >> booming metropolises are straining the limits of municipal services
>> >> and
>> >> causing serious air pollution problems."
>> >>
>> >>> The US is approximately 3.5 million square miles with a population of
>> >>> approximately 75 million people which works out to about 78 people
>> >>> per
>> >>> square mile.
>> >>
>> >> 75 million was surpassed back in the 1890s! The U.S. population will
>> >> reach 300 million by 2007, with ~3 million added annually
>> >> (census.gov).
>> >> Average density matters less than the type of land and how many
>> >> resources are taken from it. Many areas are already overburdened and
>> >> must draw water and food from great distances. That's why you keep
>> >> seeing news about water shortages, fishery declines and old growth
>> >> facing the axe. Go ahead, pretend none of it matters. It would fit
>> >> right in with your general myopia.
>> >>
>> >>> A fair number of those are actually concentrated in the
>> >>> major cities so that makes their density greater, but the density of
> the
>> >>> rest of the country less. I'm betting a fairly substantial portion
>> >>> of
>> >>> the city folk never get any closer to nature than the zoo and local
>> >>> water park, so their impact on the environment is minimal, not
> counting
>> >>> the emissions from their mini-vans.
>> >>
>> >> Again, it takes a lot of land to support city infrastructure. Over 90%
>> >> of U.S. forests have been worked over to that end. Agriculture
>> >> occupies
>> >> huge swaths of land. People keep wanting more of what's left for
>> >> recreation and blaming everyone but themselves for crowds therein.
>> >>
>> >>> Their indirect impact based on resources used in their behalf and
>> >>> what-not might be a bit harder to judge, but unless you're willing to
> be
>> >>> the first in line to be euthanized to minimize the impact to poor
> mother
>> >>> earth I'd suggest you shut up about population issues.
>> >>
>> >> Have you ever heard of birth control? Every time this issue is bought
>> >> up, some high-school dropout/Catholic assumes population control means
>> >> genocide.
>> >
>> >
>> > So tell everyone just how you would implement such a plan ? Who would
>> > control such a thing ? How would you determine how many chidren one is
>> > allowed ? It just sounds like such a dumb assed idea.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > You cited the U.S. population at a quarter of its actual
>> >> size. How many other facets of this issue don't you understand?
>> >>
>> >>> There are about 4 million miles of roads in the US. For the sake of
>> >>> argument lets say 1 mile of road for every square mile of real estate
> in
>> >>> the country. If you laid them all end to end and side by
>> >>> side...well,
>> >>> you should get the picture. A road isn't all that wide compared to a
>> >>> mile of real estate is it? I'd guess the real estate is about, ohhh,
>> >>> 5,200 feet and change wider. IOW the overall impact of a road, on
>> >>> the
>> >>> land, is pretty negligible.
>> >>
>> >> Roads are significant because they bring more impact and break the
>> >> land
>> >> into smaller sectors. Once you build a road (paved or dirt) an area is
>> >> never the same. Millions of dead animals don't appreciate them,
>> >> either.
>> >> I don't want to abolish roads but I'd like to see an end to new
>> >> construction. We might actually have time to fix potholes.
>> >>
>> >>> And besides which, what is your point? Do you seriously think there
> is
>> >>> anything, short of total global sterilization, that man can do to
>> >>> this
>> >>> planet that is going to make any kind of lasting impact? Man, and
>> >>> whatever impact we might have is going to be less than blip on the
> radar
>> >>> that is the life cycle of this planet.
>> >>
>> >> That's another bogus argument (we can't destroy the whole thing,
>> >> therefore we're harmless). Man-made damage is extensive compared to
>> >> what once existed in terms of pristine land, now-extinct species and a
>> >> lack of pollution. If you keep lowering the bar for acceptable damage,
>> >> you can excuse almost anything.
>> >>
>> >> R. Lander
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
>

In article >,
billy ray > wrote:
>Okay Eugene... let me get this straight.

Sure.

>According to you my opposition to Darryl Hanna and Joan Baez sitting in a
>tree on private property in a commercial/industrial zone is the same as
>justifying slavery and denying women the vote?

Not too far off.

>I will refrain from writing what is going through my mind at this
>comparison. Perhaps we should attribute my disbelief in your sincerity to
>my being a middle aged, middle class, college educated, midwestern male and
>you are obviously a nut.

That's amusing as a middle aged, middle class, college educated,
western-US, non-white male and you are obviously the nut.


>It is doubtful that I will ever be taking Taxol as it is indicated for
>breast cancer which is not all that common in men and, as you should know,

Well pity the guys who do get breast cancer and the other uses of taxol.

>it is your messiah AlGore who wants wrote in his 1992 masterpiece that his
>preference is that women should suffer a horrible and painful death rather
>than take the bark from one tree to make a dose her lifesaving medication.
>
>Please note that these trees are a renewable resource and the Pacific Yew is
>commonly found from northern California to Alaska and as far inland as
>Nevada according to government issued information.
>
>It is not, as far as I am aware, historically, currently, or prospectively a
>federally protected species.

I didn't say protected species.
I said:
>>from a Federally protected area.

>As far as loggers and miners are concerned...... Until you, Teddy, Hilary,
>and John start living in caves and scavenging for food to eat and wearing
>fallen leaves for clothing, and walking for transportation my belief is that
>'you' (collective wackos) are hypocrites. If I own a parcel of land and I
>want to use it or a purpose within the law I expect to be allowed to use it
>even if that use offends you.

Yes, Wal-mart tried that and they got defeated by Manifest Destiny.
Of course they are appealing.


>You want to seize what I have worked to buy and give it to people who refuse
>to work because they have been enslaved by your political beliefs.

I personally have no intention on enslaving you, but I want the Union
(in Lincoln's term) to reserve certain rights.


>Yes, I said enslaved. No one who has gone through a public school in the
>past 50 years has any excuse for not being able to read and write standard
>English, perform simple mathematics, or have a medial command of history.

Oh one of those 3Rs guys? Fine with me.
Get outsourced. It's the 21st century, not the 20th centory any more.

>Your affiliates never had any interest in women's rights or civil rights
>until the scheme was devised to enslave the disenfranchised by paying them
>to make themselves unemployable in exchange for the promise of a government
>check in return for their votes.

Naw, because guys like you put US citizens like my Mom in concentration camps.


--

This sounds a little like the ski area operator here, who is actually
running an operation on government land. A neighbor doesn't want skiers and
avalanche control crews on his owned land, so the ski area operator is
getting the County to condemn it for him.

Why pay for something, when you can get it for free?

Earle

"billy ray" > wrote in message
...
> Earle,
>
> As you know I live in a small village in the center of a protected
> wilderness area.
>
> What you may not know is that every few years there are announcements of
> park expansion not by governmental seizures of private property but by the
> donations by individuals.
>
> But we are not talking about community police and fire protection we are
> discussing 'celebrities' demanding the local government buy or seize
private
> property in the center of an commercial/industrial zone. The owner is
> willing to sell and will gladly sell but the most recent offer I heard was
> less than 40% of the lands value.
>
> If Joan Baez, Darryl Hannah, Ben Harper, Laura Dern and Danny Glover were
> truly committed to the preservation of this particular walnut tree they
> would donate the monies to purchase it. Each alone could afford to do it
> even without the tax breaks they would receive.
>
> Worse yet is the local police refuse to remove, or arrest these 'stars'
> despite a court order for eviction.
>
>
>
> "Earle Horton" > wrote in message
> .. .
> > This is why we have government in the first place. I cannot afford my
own
> > police force, road crew, or annoying bureaucrats to pester my neighbors,
> > so
> > I get together with everyone else, pay taxes, and together we can buy a
> > host
> > of both good and bad things. There is, after all, a form of
> > representative
> > government in most places, so what it buys is, after a fashion, "what
> > everyone wants".
> >
> > The same argument, that you are using, could be applied to the city
parks
> > that your children or grandchildren play in, the roads that you drive on
> > or
> > the school where you learned to read. I imagine that your Hollywood
> > celebrities would like to see their tax dollars spent on something
> > worthwhile, as would we all.
> >
> > Earle
> >
> > "billy ray" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> Why is it necessary to have federally protected wilderness areas
anyway?
> >>
> >> If people or groups want to protect areas they can purchase the land
> >> themselves with their own cash.
> >>
> >> It reminds me of that 'protest' in California where all the ''movie
> >> stars'
> >> and 'recording artists' are sitting in a tree preventing a vacant lot
> >> from
> >> being improved into industrial storage.
> >>
> >> They get on TV every day saying the city should buy it and how evil the
> >> landowner is but the truth is that if they were sincere each one of
them
> > can
> >> afford individually to purchase the land outright but they 'demand'
the
> >> government buy it.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> "Mike" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >
> >> > "R. Lander" > wrote in message
> >> > oups.com...
> >> >> Tom "Greening" wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>> Pretty pictures you've got there but pretty much useless without
the
> >> >>> legend of what the colors actually mean.
> >> >>
> >> >> (http://www.mongabay.com/images/media/footprint.jpg)
> >> >>
> >> >> That map is useful if you want it to be.
> >> >
> >> > That exactly the point. Without any legend it can be anything you
> >> > want
> >> > it to be. I call it misleading.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > It easily debunks the claim
> >> >> that we only use 2 or 3 percent of the land. Those DARK green areas
> >> >> are
> >> >> the only lands that have barely been touched. Lighter green areas
are
> >> >> veined with roads and other intrusions. Unbroken wilderness is
always
> >> >> under more pressure.
> >> >>
> >> >> At http://nationalatlas.gov/ you can map layers of different land
> >> >> types. It's interactive so I can't post a static link. Go to
> >> >> Map-Maker,
> >> >> choose "Boundaries" and "Wilderness..." to see how sparse it is.
Check
> >> >> out the "Agriculture" zones, too. All of it disproves your mythology
> >> >> of
> >> >> endless bounty.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > I tried the above but there is no "Wilderness" check box. The only
> > one
> >> > that comes close is "Widerness Preservation System Areas". While it
> > sounds
> >> > close it is not the same thing. So the map is only showing protected
> >> > wilderness areas, not just any wilderness area. Just because a
> >> > "wilderness" area is not "protected" doesn't change the fact that it
is
> >> > still wilderness. I can see why you are so confused now. My advice is
> >> > to
> >> > forget the maps and the internet. Shut off your computer and go
outside
> > so
> >> > that you can see for yourself it's not as bad as your maps show.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >>> Looking at you pretty coloring book would have us believe that
almost
> >> >>> the entire eastern US is literally covered in people. Your world
map
> > is
> >> >>> no different. What do the color graduations signify?
> >> >>
> >> >> Of course it's not literally covered with people but the land is
> >> >> highly
> >> >> appropriated. Most of the East was cleared of major forests to
> >> >> introduce agriculture. Online satellite galleries offer definitive
> >> >> proof if you don't trust maps. Then again, it's impossible to
convince
> >> >> an anthropocentric that any of it matters. All evidence will be met
> >> >> with "who cares - it's all about people and money."
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Most of the east coast????? You make it soumd like there are
little
> > to
> >> > no trees left on the east coast. This couldn't be farther from the
> > truth.
> >> > I've hiked up and down most of the east coast in forested areas. Most
> > were
> >> > labled wilderness or wildlife areas. I've personally been there so I
> > know
> >> > they exist. Funny thing is they don't show up on your map.You really
> > need
> >> > to get outside more so you can see things for yourself.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >>> Let's take India for example, you CAN pick it out without resorting
> >> >>> to
> > a
> >> >>> world atlas can't you?
> >> >>
> >> >> I'm the uneducated one around here? An error like "75 million"
(below)
> >> >> shows that population/land-use is not something you think about
much.
> >> >>
> >> >>> Based on colors alone one might believe that
> >> >>> India is absolutely covered in humanity, and population numbers
might
> >> >>> lead you to think the same thing. After all, their population is
> > right
> >> >>> on a par with China at around 2 billion souls, give or take a few
> >> >>> hundred million. The thing is, I've BEEN to India and I've seen a
> > fair
> >> >>> portion of it, and while the cities themselves can be absolutely
> >> >>> crawling with people, the biggest hunk of the country is pretty
much
> >> >>> free of significant numbers of them.
> >> >>
> >> >> That's because much of it is used to grow crops to feed them, and
much
> >> >> is desert or high mountains. They also don't have the consumption
> >> >> footprint of the average American (but they're working on it,
> >> >> unfortunately). People have taken over just about all land that
offers
> >> >> easy living and ample water. When land is truly empty it's usually
for
> >> >> lack of water or harsh climate and terrain.
> >> >>
> >> >> This is what's really happening in India:
> >> >> http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/indiaenv.html
> >> >>
> >> >> "India's ongoing population explosion has placed great strain on the
> >> >> country's environment. This rapidly growing population, along with a
> >> >> move toward urbanization and industrialization, has placed
significant
> >> >> pressure on India's infrastructure and its natural resources.
> >> >> Deforestation, soil erosion, water pollution and land degradation
> >> >> continue to worsen and are hindering economic development in rural
> >> >> India, while the rapid industrialization and urbanization in India's
> >> >> booming metropolises are straining the limits of municipal services
> >> >> and
> >> >> causing serious air pollution problems."
> >> >>
> >> >>> The US is approximately 3.5 million square miles with a population
of
> >> >>> approximately 75 million people which works out to about 78 people
> >> >>> per
> >> >>> square mile.
> >> >>
> >> >> 75 million was surpassed back in the 1890s! The U.S. population will
> >> >> reach 300 million by 2007, with ~3 million added annually
> >> >> (census.gov).
> >> >> Average density matters less than the type of land and how many
> >> >> resources are taken from it. Many areas are already overburdened and
> >> >> must draw water and food from great distances. That's why you keep
> >> >> seeing news about water shortages, fishery declines and old growth
> >> >> facing the axe. Go ahead, pretend none of it matters. It would fit
> >> >> right in with your general myopia.
> >> >>
> >> >>> A fair number of those are actually concentrated in the
> >> >>> major cities so that makes their density greater, but the density
of
> > the
> >> >>> rest of the country less. I'm betting a fairly substantial portion
> >> >>> of
> >> >>> the city folk never get any closer to nature than the zoo and local
> >> >>> water park, so their impact on the environment is minimal, not
> > counting
> >> >>> the emissions from their mini-vans.
> >> >>
> >> >> Again, it takes a lot of land to support city infrastructure. Over
90%
> >> >> of U.S. forests have been worked over to that end. Agriculture
> >> >> occupies
> >> >> huge swaths of land. People keep wanting more of what's left for
> >> >> recreation and blaming everyone but themselves for crowds therein.
> >> >>
> >> >>> Their indirect impact based on resources used in their behalf and
> >> >>> what-not might be a bit harder to judge, but unless you're willing
to
> > be
> >> >>> the first in line to be euthanized to minimize the impact to poor
> > mother
> >> >>> earth I'd suggest you shut up about population issues.
> >> >>
> >> >> Have you ever heard of birth control? Every time this issue is
bought
> >> >> up, some high-school dropout/Catholic assumes population control
means
> >> >> genocide.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > So tell everyone just how you would implement such a plan ? Who
would
> >> > control such a thing ? How would you determine how many chidren one
is
> >> > allowed ? It just sounds like such a dumb assed idea.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > You cited the U.S. population at a quarter of its actual
> >> >> size. How many other facets of this issue don't you understand?
> >> >>
> >> >>> There are about 4 million miles of roads in the US. For the sake
of
> >> >>> argument lets say 1 mile of road for every square mile of real
estate
> > in
> >> >>> the country. If you laid them all end to end and side by
> >> >>> side...well,
> >> >>> you should get the picture. A road isn't all that wide compared to
a
> >> >>> mile of real estate is it? I'd guess the real estate is about,
ohhh,
> >> >>> 5,200 feet and change wider. IOW the overall impact of a road, on
> >> >>> the
> >> >>> land, is pretty negligible.
> >> >>
> >> >> Roads are significant because they bring more impact and break the
> >> >> land
> >> >> into smaller sectors. Once you build a road (paved or dirt) an area
is
> >> >> never the same. Millions of dead animals don't appreciate them,
> >> >> either.
> >> >> I don't want to abolish roads but I'd like to see an end to new
> >> >> construction. We might actually have time to fix potholes.
> >> >>
> >> >>> And besides which, what is your point? Do you seriously think
there
> > is
> >> >>> anything, short of total global sterilization, that man can do to
> >> >>> this
> >> >>> planet that is going to make any kind of lasting impact? Man, and
> >> >>> whatever impact we might have is going to be less than blip on the
> > radar
> >> >>> that is the life cycle of this planet.
> >> >>
> >> >> That's another bogus argument (we can't destroy the whole thing,
> >> >> therefore we're harmless). Man-made damage is extensive compared to
> >> >> what once existed in terms of pristine land, now-extinct species and
a
> >> >> lack of pollution. If you keep lowering the bar for acceptable
damage,
> >> >> you can excuse almost anything.
> >> >>
> >> >> R. Lander
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
> >
>
>



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

"R. Lander" wrote:
>
> The "respect" for nature shown by offroad enthusiasts is documented by
> all the cans, bottles and wrappers they toss on scenic trails. The
> Rubicon near Lake Tahoe shows how these anthropocentric mouth-breathers
> view the land. They can't be bothered carrying a trash bag and packing
> it out. No room in the Jeep or some other excuse.

Actually, some of the worst places for trash are in wilderness areas,
where the backpackers can't be bothered to carry out a few extra pounds.

Many years ago, I worked for a guy who used to fly his float plane into
some of the alpine lakes around Snoqualmie Pass. He would meet some
people doing trail maintenance (usually a Boy Scout troop) and fly
hundreds of pounds of garbage out. Other than float planes, this area
was inaccessible to vehicular traffic. Then, they converted it to a
wilderness area. No more float planes allowed. Now, the area is like a
cesspool/garbage dump.


--
Paul Hovnanian
------------------------------------------------------------------
Senior staff curmudgeon.