[pct-l] Wilderness

[Junaid Dawud]

Hey everybody,

If some serious steps to turn the tide on Global
Warming aren't taken VERY soon, then our wilderness
areas are going to be Severely disrupted/destroyed by
the changes in precipitation patterns, including:
droughts, floods, and severe storms.  Add to that the
loss of species (more than 1/3 of the planets species
will be consigned to extinction by 2050 if the status
quo continues) and the virtual collapse of major
ecosystems that will ensue.  

Our wilderness is in far greater danger than simply a
few back country lodges being built or more people
than we would like to see during 'our wilderness
experience' using these areas.  They and thier
inhabitants are at risk of being altered and destroyed
beyond anything we have seen before.

We had better all join the fight to save the planet,
and stop being part of the problem.  

--------------Speshul41 


--- Jon Danniken <danniken at comcast.net> wrote:

> 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.
> >>
> >>
> > 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> pct-l mailing list
> pct-l at backcountry.net
> unsubscribe or change options:
> http://mailman.hack.net/mailman/listinfo/pct-l
> 



       
____________________________________________________________________________________
Get the Yahoo! toolbar and be alerted to new email wherever you're surfing.
http://new.toolbar.yahoo.com/toolbar/features/mail/index.php