[pct-l] the Solitude Log - anyone?

[Jon Danniken]

Carl, the Wilderness Act of 1964 obviously required human interaction (via 
legislative action), and I apologize for not making my post clear enough to 
convey that I was not questioning such a basic and obvious concept as that.

Jon

"Carl Siechert" wrote:
>
> Unfortunately, the choice isn't merely one of "pristine, untouched
> wilderness" vs. "recreational commodity wilderness." Without human
> interaction by the legislature (at the urging of folks like The Wilderness
> Society <http://www.tws.org/>) and by wilderness-loving landowners, you 
> have
> to add "rapacious development" to the list of choices. And because
> proponents of the latter option stand to gain financially, they too often
> keep fighting until they get their way. Wilderness *will* lose its status
> unless we actively work to keep it (relatively) wild.
>
> Cheers,
> Carl
>
>
> On 6/14/07, Jon Danniken <danniken at comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> Wilderness does not exist, nor was it created, as a recreational
>> commodity.
>> As such, it does not depend on any human interaction to maintain it's
>> status.
>>
>> As far as human interaction, the more people go on a trail, or into a
>> wilderness, the less of a wild experience it becomes.  One only has to
>> look
>> at the "drunken partygoer" mentality of some certain individuals who
>> backpack certain trails to bear this out.
>>
>> Jon
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Tortoise"
>> >
>> > If only a very, very few of us go into the wilderness or the back
>> > country; then we will have a very difficult time persuading 
>> > legislatures
>> > and the populace that trails, back country, wilderness is important.
>>
>>
>