Question:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Someone has got to lead the way! Bush’s give-away of our national forests to the rich will, hopefully be stopped in it’s tracks. Protect what we have left before the lower 48 looks like Europe! (Don’t laugh, it happened to them and now there’s next to nothing left over there) Jerry Next to nothing left over there? I prefer hiking in Europe because they do such a great job of preserving their forests. Unlike the U.S., they know the meaning of "sustainability". How much time have you spent there? I’ve lived in the Alps since ‘72 and have cycled and walked most of the continent. I’ve heard that the Alps are one of the last vestiges of "wilderness" left in Europe. I’ve heard that from more than one source, through newsgroup discussions in the past. But it seems there is not much more there to offer when it comes to a wilderness experience. And hopefully the U.S. can save some of the wilderness in the lower 48 for future generations—not to mention our own. Have you hiked the U.S.? I’m just wondering how it compares to your experiences in Europe. And when you say "sustainability" are you talking "management"? Are the Alps so managed that they are no longer wilderness? Jerry
I agree with you about the lack of wilderness in Europe. Wilderness hasn’t as high a priority with me as with others. Walking up through a ski field to get to a hiking area is something I accept. I do like the easy accessability, virtually hopping off a train or bus and being almost at a trailhead. Beats 20 miles over washboard roads for hikes I’ve done in the Rockies and Sierras in the past five years. Another basic difference is more "social" in my opinion. Europeans are more willing to sacrifice for the common good. Most of the mountains outside of the villages are in public hands. No ATV’s or dirt bikes allowed, except for the odd shepherd who tends his flocks there. I was disappointed with the discovery of the amount of land in private hands in New England. Colorado was better in this respect. As far as "sustainability" goes, the landscape in the Alps won’t change that much for the coming generations. Well, the glaciers will have disappeared… But there is a stop on building new resorts, vacation homes. Any trees cut down must be replaced. I’ve read comments here from a certain builder that say the U.S. has so much wilderness, a little "development" won’t be noticed. Well, I think it’s being noticed right now. Whole acquifers have disappeared. Ground water is being contaminated from heavy metals in landfills. Europeans realised the limits to development long ago and are more active in protecting their environment. Some cities take their drinking water from the Rhine. I highly recommend sampling both environments and forming your own impressions. Steve B.
Response:
" Next to nothing left over there? I prefer hiking in Europe because they do such a great job of preserving their forests. Unlike the U.S., they know the meaning of "sustainability". How much time have you spent there? I’ve lived in the Alps since ‘72 and have cycled and walked most of the continent. Steve B.
Yes, next to nothing. Compared to the Bob Marshall, River of No Return and other crown wilderness areas in this country, Europe has nothing. Just because it "looks pretty" doesnt mean it is wild. Europe has very few if any roadless areas left, even worse than here.
Response:
" Next to nothing left over there? I prefer hiking in Europe because they do such a great job of preserving their forests.
I didn’t know thay HAD forests!! I’ve been in Europe, and every time they said "forest" I saw, not a forest, but a hideous, horrible, tree farm. No forest at all. Unlike the U.S., they know the meaning of "sustainability". How much time have you spent there? I’ve lived in the Alps since ‘72 and have cycled and walked most of the continent.
There are NO FORESTS anywhere near the Alps. Perhaps there are true forests in Scandanavia, I’ve not been there. Perhaps in the British Isles. Doug McDonald
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I agree with you about the lack of wilderness in Europe. Wilderness hasn’t as high a priority with me as with others. Walking up through a ski field to get to a hiking area is something I accept. I do like the easy accessability, virtually hopping off a train or bus and being almost at a trailhead. Beats 20 miles over washboard roads for hikes I’ve done in the Rockies and Sierras in the past five years. Another basic difference is more "social" in my opinion. Europeans are more willing to sacrifice for the common good. Most of the mountains outside of the villages are in public hands. No ATV’s or dirt bikes allowed, except for the odd shepherd who tends his flocks there. I was disappointed with the discovery of the amount of land in private hands in New England. Colorado was better in this respect. As far as "sustainability" goes, the landscape in the Alps won’t change that much for the coming generations. Well, the glaciers will have disappeared… But there is a stop on building new resorts, vacation homes. Any trees cut down must be replaced. I’ve read comments here from a certain builder that say the U.S. has so much wilderness, a little "development" won’t be noticed. Well, I think it’s being noticed right now. Whole acquifers have disappeared. Ground water is being contaminated from heavy metals in landfills. Europeans realised the limits to development long ago and are more active in protecting their environment. Some cities take their drinking water from the Rhine. I highly recommend sampling both environments and forming your own impressions. Steve B.
Thanks, Steve, for the information. I think I don’t have to visit Europe to sample both conditions because we have plenty of areas in the U.S. that are close to what you describe in Europe. We, fortunately, have other, wilderness areas where we can still recreate and "get away from it all". I hope we can learn from the experiences of Europe and save what we do have left. Have a great day. Jerry
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I’ve hiked extensively in both Europe and the US (I live in Scotland) and I must say that Europe has little wilderness left and virtually none of any size in the Alps (and all above timberline). I stopped going to the Alps due to the over-development there, especially huge ski resorts. If you want manicured trails, lodges with meals and drinks every night and plenty of manmade structures the Alps are fine. There are very few "natural" forests left. Wild camping is discouraged or forbidden in many places too. For wilderness Norway and Sweden still have some, especially in the arctic, though even in these countries most forests are heavily managed. There is little old growth left. There is nothing in Europe (western Europe that is, I’m not familiar with the east) to compare with the wilderness areas in the US or Canada. A main reason for this, I think, is that the idea of preserving wilderness only arose in the nineteenth century and by then it was too late for most of Europe. I agree with most of what you wrote, Chris. But I’m not a bushwhacker and appreciate maintained trails. I enjoy hiking from hut to hut in the Alps and the cameraderie of taking a meal there.
US wilderness areas are full of trails. Few huts though, which I prefer. But I am frightened at the rate resources are being squandered in the U.S. And judging from what I’ve read and heard I don’t expect this to change.
I agree it sounds alarming. But the USA still has protected wilderness on a scale we can’t envisage in Europe.
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I’ve hiked extensively in both Europe and the US (I live in Scotland) and I must say that Europe has little wilderness left and virtually none of any size in the Alps (and all above timberline). I stopped going to the Alps due to the over-development there, especially huge ski resorts. If you want manicured trails, lodges with meals and drinks every night and plenty of manmade structures the Alps are fine. There are very few "natural" forests left. Wild camping is discouraged or forbidden in many places too. For wilderness Norway and Sweden still have some, especially in the arctic, though even in these countries most forests are heavily managed. There is little old growth left. There is nothing in Europe (western Europe that is, I’m not familiar with the east) to compare with the wilderness areas in the US or Canada. A main reason for this, I think, is that the idea of preserving wilderness only arose in the nineteenth century and by then it was too late for most of Europe.
I agree with most of what you wrote, Chris. But I’m not a bushwhacker and appreciate maintained trails. I enjoy hiking from hut to hut in the Alps and the cameraderie of taking a meal there. But I am frightened at the rate resources are being squandered in the U.S. And judging from what I’ve read and heard I don’t expect this to change. Steve B.
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Someone has got to lead the way! Bush’s give-away of our national forests to the rich will, hopefully be stopped in it’s tracks. Protect what we have left before the lower 48 looks like Europe! (Don’t laugh, it happened to them and now there’s next to nothing left over there) Jerry Next to nothing left over there? I prefer hiking in Europe because they do such a great job of preserving their forests. Unlike the U.S., they know the meaning of "sustainability". How much time have you spent there? I’ve lived in the Alps since ‘72 and have cycled and walked most of the continent.
I’ve heard that the Alps are one of the last vestiges of "wilderness" left in Europe. I’ve heard that from more than one source, through newsgroup discussions in the past. But it seems there is not much more there to offer when it comes to a wilderness experience. And hopefully the U.S. can save some of the wilderness in the lower 48 for future generations—not to mention our own. Have you hiked the U.S.? I’m just wondering how it compares to your experiences in Europe. And when you say "sustainability" are you talking "management"? Are the Alps so managed that they are no longer wilderness? Jerry
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Someone has got to lead the way! Bush’s give-away of our national forests to the rich will, hopefully be stopped in it’s tracks. Protect what we have left before the lower 48 looks like Europe! (Don’t laugh, it happened to them and now there’s next to nothing left over there) Jerry Next to nothing left over there? I prefer hiking in Europe because they do such a great job of preserving their forests. Unlike the U.S., they know the meaning of "sustainability". How much time have you spent there? I’ve lived in the Alps since ‘72 and have cycled and walked most of the continent. I’ve heard that the Alps are one of the last vestiges of "wilderness" left in Europe. I’ve heard that from more than one source, through newsgroup discussions in the past. But it seems there is not much more there to offer when it comes to a wilderness experience. And hopefully the U.S. can save some of the wilderness in the lower 48 for future generations—not to mention our own. Have you hiked the U.S.? I’m just wondering how it compares to your experiences in Europe. And when you say "sustainability" are you talking "management"? Are the Alps so managed that they are no longer wilderness?
I’ve hiked extensively in both Europe and the US (I live in Scotland) and I must say that Europe has little wilderness left and virtually none of any size in the Alps (and all above timberline). I stopped going to the Alps due to the over-development there, especially huge ski resorts. If you want manicured trails, lodges with meals and drinks every night and plenty of manmade structures the Alps are fine. There are very few "natural" forests left. Wild camping is discouraged or forbidden in many places too. For wilderness Norway and Sweden still have some, especially in the arctic, though even in these countries most forests are heavily managed. There is little old growth left. There is nothing in Europe (western Europe that is, I’m not familiar with the east) to compare with the wilderness areas in the US or Canada. A main reason for this, I think, is that the idea of preserving wilderness only arose in the nineteenth century and by then it was too late for most of Europe.
Response:
Someone has got to lead the way! Bush’s give-away of our national forests to the rich will, hopefully be stopped in it’s tracks. Protect what we have left before the lower 48 looks like Europe! (Don’t laugh, it happened to them and now there’s next to nothing left over there) Jerry
Next to nothing left over there? I prefer hiking in Europe because they do such a great job of preserving their forests. Unlike the U.S., they know the meaning of "sustainability". How much time have you spent there? I’ve lived in the Alps since ‘72 and have cycled and walked most of the continent. Steve B.
Response:
Someone has got to lead the way! Bush’s give-away of our national forests to the rich will, hopefully be stopped in it’s tracks. Protect what we have left before the lower 48 looks like Europe! (Don’t laugh, it happened to them and now there’s next to nothing left over there) Jerry
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Fed up with the administration’s refusal to protect our forests, more then 170 members of Congress announced their own Forest Protection Bill. Dubya, if you can’t lead, then get the hell out of the way!! Forest Protection Bill Announced As the Bush administration continues to unravel protections for America’s wild forests, more than 170 members of Congress stepped forward to ensure that the last wild areas of National Forests are protected for all Americans to enjoy. The National Forest Roadless Area Conservation Act is bipartisan legislation that would protect nearly 60 million acres of pristine National Forest lands from most logging and roadbuilding. The proposed legislation codifies the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, one of the most sweeping land conservation measures in a generation. The rule was approved following years of scientific study and more than 600 public meetings across the country. To date the Forest Service has received more than 2.2 million comments favoring roadless protection. This outpouring of public response is almost ten times greater than that of any other rule in history. Despite the overwhelming public support for protecting America’s wild forests, the Bush Administration has been moving toward logging in the last wild areas of our National Forests — including Alaska’s Tongass Rainforest. Wild forests have some of the highest-quality fish and wildlife habitat, backcountry recreation opportunities and clean water supplies in the country. Our last wild forests should be protected for future generations, not sacrificed for short-term profit. More than half of our National Forest land has already been hammered by logging, roadbuilding and other destructive activities. In a statement today, Sierra Club Executive Director Carl Pope said: "Americans deserve this strong bill to protect forests from the Tongass in Alaska to Virginia’s Blue Ridge Mountains. These increasingly scarce unspoiled places are crucial for providing quality hunting and fishing, for protecting watersheds that supply clean drinking water, for offering magnificent scenery and providing backcountry recreation, for our families, for our future."
Response:
Fed up with the administration’s refusal to protect our forests, more then 170 members of Congress announced their own Forest Protection Bill. Dubya, if you can’t lead, then get the hell out of the way!! Forest Protection Bill Announced As the Bush administration continues to unravel protections for America’s wild forests, more than 170 members of Congress stepped forward to ensure that the last wild areas of National Forests are protected for all Americans to enjoy. The National Forest Roadless Area Conservation Act is bipartisan legislation that would protect nearly 60 million acres of pristine National Forest lands from most logging and roadbuilding. The proposed legislation codifies the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, one of the most sweeping land conservation measures in a generation. The rule was approved following years of scientific study and more than 600 public meetings across the country. To date the Forest Service has received more than 2.2 million comments favoring roadless protection. This outpouring of public response is almost ten times greater than that of any other rule in history. Despite the overwhelming public support for protecting America’s wild forests, the Bush Administration has been moving toward logging in the last wild areas of our National Forests — including Alaska’s Tongass Rainforest. Wild forests have some of the highest-quality fish and wildlife habitat, backcountry recreation opportunities and clean water supplies in the country. Our last wild forests should be protected for future generations, not sacrificed for short-term profit. More than half of our National Forest land has already been hammered by logging, roadbuilding and other destructive activities. In a statement today, Sierra Club Executive Director Carl Pope said: "Americans deserve this strong bill to protect forests from the Tongass in Alaska to Virginia
If you like this post and would like to receive updates from this blog, please subscribe our feed.