46% of the Worlds Land mass is still wilderness

Day Hiking & general trail related

Moderator: HAZ - Moderators

Linked Guides none
Linked Areas none
User avatar
tracker
Posts: 64
Joined: Sep 23 2002 9:31 am
City, State: Chandler, AZ

46% of the Worlds Land mass is still wilderness

Post by tracker » Dec 05 2002 9:30 am

I saw this article online and would like to share it with you.

http://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/ ... 662024.htm
"My pack weighs less than a hotel room, simple........."

User avatar
desertgirl
Posts: 197
Joined: Mar 31 2002 5:44 pm
City, State: Chandler, AZ

46% of the Worlds Land mass is still wilderness

Post by desertgirl » Dec 05 2002 10:08 am

Just returned from an India trip. I am truly amazed at the development ( or ruin depends on how you look at it) just 2 years can bring. While all the tour guides tout India a great destination - the hordes of travellers to the land while bringing in revenue also promote massive growth in hotels and othe tourism related industries that only bring ravage to the pristine wilderness (What little is left) as the industry tries to recreate a "small piece of home".

I grew up in the beautiful Western mountains near Bombay. Access was limited (long hard hikes) to the best of the area. Most of the trails we took are now lined with resorts and hotels and "nature" is reserved for tourists. Most areas now have roads and anything beautiful now has a club/hotel.

Wonder how long the tropical regions will remain "wild and untouched" !

User avatar
tracker
Posts: 64
Joined: Sep 23 2002 9:31 am
City, State: Chandler, AZ

Post by tracker » Dec 05 2002 10:21 am

Well.. with 5 billion people on this planet and 46% of the landmass is still wilderness.. Thats pretty good.

I guess I look at the glass half full
"My pack weighs less than a hotel room, simple........."

User avatar
scottmackey
Posts: 51
Joined: Oct 10 2002 2:27 pm
City, State: Tempe, AZ

Post by scottmackey » Dec 05 2002 2:08 pm

At the year of 2000, the United States [lower 48] only 15% of the forest land remains of what was here when the Pilgrims first settled.

User avatar
tracker
Posts: 64
Joined: Sep 23 2002 9:31 am
City, State: Chandler, AZ

Post by tracker » Dec 05 2002 2:11 pm

Yeah.. but look at how many more people live in N. America now. If we would of had alternative fuels back then we would of had more trees.
"My pack weighs less than a hotel room, simple........."

User avatar
scottmackey
Posts: 51
Joined: Oct 10 2002 2:27 pm
City, State: Tempe, AZ

Post by scottmackey » Dec 05 2002 2:52 pm

Exactly, the world's human population is out of control and out of balance with nature. The majority of the logging has been done within the past 80 years.

User avatar
tracker
Posts: 64
Joined: Sep 23 2002 9:31 am
City, State: Chandler, AZ

Post by tracker » Dec 05 2002 3:16 pm

Out of control? I'm a conservationist and love nature as everyone on this site. However, I'm not a enviromentalist wacko. We should preserve land for our future, but we can't save everything. If we did that then there would be no place to live or work.
"My pack weighs less than a hotel room, simple........."

User avatar
tracker
Posts: 64
Joined: Sep 23 2002 9:31 am
City, State: Chandler, AZ

Post by tracker » Dec 05 2002 3:20 pm

Speaking of logging. If we had better forest management , then the huge wildfires that occured this past year would not have gotten out of control. The forest needs to be harvested to induce proper growth and reduce the risk of huge fires. Fire is a natural player in the environment, but not the extent that it has been. Logging has its place IMHO :)
"My pack weighs less than a hotel room, simple........."

User avatar
scottmackey
Posts: 51
Joined: Oct 10 2002 2:27 pm
City, State: Tempe, AZ

Post by scottmackey » Dec 05 2002 3:37 pm

You're right, 100 years of mis-management by the US Forest Service (zero-tolerance for fires) has brought us into the situation we're at right now. However, logging isn't the answer. Natural fires are low, cool-burning fires that sweep through the forest quickly, only burning the 'litter' (as in small shrubs, cones, pine needles, etc. They do not get hot nor high enough to affect larger pines and firs which are adapted these fires which, until the last 80-100 years, burned every 7-13 years. Logging companies are only after the large, old-growth trees which brings them money but leaves nothing for the forest besides the litter that will burn in the fire.

I agree with you though, we can't save every tree and every acre of forest but we need to try to save as much as we possibly can. We're already lost most of our forests, all we can try to do now is sustain what little we have left. I'm not sure if you've heard any of the propaganda from Jane Hull who blamed the recent forest fires on 'radical environmentalists' but she has no idea what she's talking about.

User avatar
tracker
Posts: 64
Joined: Sep 23 2002 9:31 am
City, State: Chandler, AZ

Post by tracker » Dec 05 2002 3:51 pm

I totally understand about the "cool" natural fires. The forest does need them. Jane Hull was just talking bluster about the Clinton's "liberal" administration. He really bent over backwards for the "greens" and environmentalist. What strikes me is that most, if not all, of the "greens" don't live near or in the forest areas. They want to save every single pine cone and won't compromise. The people who live in the forest/wilderness areas, I think, know best on how to manage their area. They don't want to ruin their environment.

:)
"My pack weighs less than a hotel room, simple........."

User avatar
CindyC
Posts: 334
Joined: Apr 23 2002 12:17 pm

Post by CindyC » Dec 05 2002 7:26 pm

scottmackey wrote:Exactly, the world's human population is out of control and out of balance with nature. The majority of the logging has been done within the past 80 years.
I cringe when I hear that. Having a large family, that topic can get as heated with me as the gun issue. Out of balance? I agree. But that has more to do with how we as individuals and a society have chosen to live. My children and I, and there are 8 of us, live a very low impact life. My son-in-law worked for Sierra Club for awhile. He was amazed that with all they were suppose to stand for, that just one of them were more 'destructive' to the environment than my entire household. He soon quit. I believe it is not how many of us there are, but how well educated we become and make that a part of our everyday life. 8)
'Achievement lies within the reach of those who reach beyond themselves'

User avatar
CindyC
Posts: 334
Joined: Apr 23 2002 12:17 pm

Post by CindyC » Dec 05 2002 7:39 pm

I almost forgot, thanks for the article Tracker :)
'Achievement lies within the reach of those who reach beyond themselves'

User avatar
ck_1
Posts: 421
Joined: Feb 04 2002 9:30 am
City, State: Mesa, AZ

Post by ck_1 » Dec 05 2002 9:33 pm

What chaps me with environmental issues is that the green groups or the liberals get blamed for not understanding the need to have balance and to allow for local control, but in reality...the 104th Congress did more to remove power from local communities and allow for corporate control, businesses that weren't located anywhere near the areas in question, businesses that weren't even American owned....that congress, if you remember, was lead by Republican Newt Gingrich.

Sure, let's use what we have more wisely...I agree. The majority of trees logged in Alaska go where? Japan, who pays less than $20 per tree...we're talking old growth trees here, with market values at 1000 times that amount. The largest mineral deposit located in the Unities States, in Nevada, was discovered by a Canadian company who's only payment to the US for the huge cache it discovered was to pay for the land the minerals were located on, for like $12 per acre...these aren't examples of wise use.

It's just like anything else, with money as the key denominator. There's no money in developing alternative fuels, not when they'd have to compete in a market dominated by fossil fuels. Hell, we have a president obsessed with removing the leader of Iraq from office, a leader who's country lives by oil revenue, oil revenue that comes from, among others, companies that contribute heavily to our president's party...there's some irony.

The US is the world's largest consumer of resources and producer of toxic wastes. Today we use ten times the amount of pesticidies we did when we discovered the dangers of DDT. One out of every four community drinking water systems violates at least one federal health standard. Cancer rates among farmers and their childern exposed to pesticies are six times the normal rate, and at present there are 500 new species of bugs that are pesticide resistant. American industry produces 275 million tons of hazardous waste per year.

Population estimates are that the world population will begin to taper when it hits the 11 billion mark...yea, I'd say we need to start using what we have in a much more efficient, environmentally friendly way.

ok...stepping off my soapbox now...
Image
'The Journey is the Destination!'

User avatar
ck_1
Posts: 421
Joined: Feb 04 2002 9:30 am
City, State: Mesa, AZ

Post by ck_1 » Dec 05 2002 9:43 pm

Hey Tracker..thanks for posting that article, it was interesting...sorry to have run off at the mouth ( I get fired up with environmental issues)...so if you take the Antarctica and the Arctic circle out, what's left, about 33%? I can't do the math...regardless...I was surprised by the amount of land still considered wilderness.
Image
'The Journey is the Destination!'

User avatar
Wiz
Posts: 302
Joined: May 22 2002 3:15 am
City, State: Phoenix, AZ

Post by Wiz » Dec 06 2002 6:06 am

Well, this is a happy little thread!

The main problem here is that we all basically agree, and are preaching to the choir.
"The older I get, the better I was."

User avatar
Snick33
Posts: 329
Joined: Feb 03 2002 10:18 am
City, State: Scottsdale, AZ

Post by Snick33 » Dec 06 2002 6:40 am

CK1 I hope you meant to say 500 species became prsticide resistant, you'll have Darwin rolling in his grave with 500 new species suddenly appearing.
500 new species of bugs that are pesticide resistant.
Mother nature seems to like humans, and not just because they taste like chicken

User avatar
tracker
Posts: 64
Joined: Sep 23 2002 9:31 am
City, State: Chandler, AZ

Post by tracker » Dec 06 2002 8:27 am

I come from the conservative side of politics and I do understand the "liberal" point of view. I really believe that the environmentalist wacko's have hijacked the Democratic party for their own twisted agenda. Most of the Greens live in urban area and don't have a clue about wilderness or the cycle of nature.

Our economy runs on commerce.. plain and simple... Yes the government is not the sharpest knife in the drawer. That's why governement should get out of the business of environment and let the states (who may know just a little better) run the show. It's mostly the western states, with their huge tracts of empty spaces and government controlled lands that gets the "hold-up" from Washington.

Clinton let the "Wacko's" run wild at BLM and Dept of the Interior. Don't touch this tree or that shrub. No management = disaster (Ask the rim country communities)

:?
"My pack weighs less than a hotel room, simple........."

User avatar
Snick33
Posts: 329
Joined: Feb 03 2002 10:18 am
City, State: Scottsdale, AZ

Post by Snick33 » Dec 06 2002 8:38 am

I can't quote the percentage, but I've heard that something like 60% of the DNR's budget goes for litigation expenses due to all of the pending lawsuits and injunctions.
Mother nature seems to like humans, and not just because they taste like chicken

User avatar
tracker
Posts: 64
Joined: Sep 23 2002 9:31 am
City, State: Chandler, AZ

Post by tracker » Dec 06 2002 8:41 am

Hug a tree .... win a prize! :twisted:
"My pack weighs less than a hotel room, simple........."

User avatar
ellehcim
Posts: 96
Joined: Dec 01 2002 8:38 pm
City, State: Mesa, AZ

Post by ellehcim » Dec 06 2002 8:52 am

scottmackey wrote:Exactly, the world's human population is out of control and out of balance with nature. The majority of the logging has been done within the past 80 years.
I would agree that in certain places the human population is out of control... ER: Starvation and poverty on some continents.

But, unless you have some guideline to present showing other planets or something, isnt it hard to say anything scientific about wether the population is out of control or not? The human population is part of nature wether you like to think so or not.

Post Reply

Return to “Trail Chat”


cron