Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Earth's Remaining Wilderness

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Earth's Remaining Wilderness

    Given how many of us here like the outdoors and another smaller subset of us really like the idea of true wilderness, I thought I would share this recent report. It's nothing new, Earth's true wilderness areas are diminishing, but it solidifies the data regarding the impact humans are having on the planet so I just thought I would share it. There's probably nothing to discuss, except that this makes me want to go to places like Cohutta and Western Canada even more (i.e. before they are no longer).

    https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-07183-6

  • #2
    Thank You!

    That's a very good read, thanks for sharing. Straight forward with no tears of hysteria, just the facts from which we draw our own conclusions.

    But I would like to speak briefly to the term "wilderness". When early Europeans first came to the Americas they saw the both continents as "wilderness" because it did not look like Europe, not to mention there were all these non-Christians running around. An interesting if controversial book is "1491" describing both continents and the native populations.

    For some, wilderness means an area never touched by humans. This is almost mythical except for when the first humans arrived in the Americas either by a northern land/ice bridge or sailed here from Asia. Even Yellowstone cannot escape with the Native Americans living there for centuries and of course a constant flow of tourists. But you mention the Cohuttas as a wilderness area. It is now, but it was once clear cut as evidenced by the trails and old logging roads.n But it went back to the public domain and is not a wilderness ""in recovery". Very much the same for SMNP. That whole area was clear cut, burned and mud-flooded over the course of two generations. The land became worthless so old FDR managed to buy it for a song and put the CCC to work cleaning the place up! So is GSMNP really "wilderness"? I have my own views but I think it is a reasonable facsimile and serves as a clear demonstration that while an untouched wilderness may be a memory, if we have the public will to seize opportunities to return land to the public domain and restore that land to near wilderness conditions. I do not know in this age if we have the public will to value wilderness, but I have hope seeing all the people out bird watching, fishing, hiking and trail riding. But having the will is useless unless we also provide the funds to acquire and rebuild, and then we must have patience. We have to work today for a wilderness our grand kids will enjoy - think 50 to 75 years out.

    And as a reminder, please continue to support The Wild and Scenic River act here on it's 50th birthday!

    Comment


    • #3
      Can someone tell me how less governmental regulation will fix this in the current reality we live in?
      #JBNavy

      "Everyday is a new life to a wise man."
      -Chinese Proverb

      “At sunrise everything is luminous but not clear.”
      -Norman Maclean

      "We are what we hunt."
      -PH

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Philhutch80 View Post
        Can someone tell me how less governmental regulation will fix this in the current reality we live in?


        I think we all know the answer to that one


        Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
        "I don't hate trout fishing, just the people who trout fish."
        -Our friend Nam, but secretly Ret

        "Stop Whining"

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Philhutch80 View Post
          Can someone tell me how less governmental regulation will fix this in the current reality we live in?
          I'll bite.

          It won't. But, we need to beware of governmental regulation that is dressed up as if to protect the environment but in fact does not, or does so at the expense of perceived opposing philosophical points of view concerning the role of government in people's lives.

          Said another way, only regulations that clearly benefit wilderness, and not just some portion of people that happen to vote the same way, or live in the same geographical area (actually, who DON'T live in the same area, the one to be saved), will get the job done. Ideally, this regulation would be pan-governmental, so as to avoid this often intended consequence of said regulations. Given human nature, it is hard to imagine how such regulation gets put in place or enforced on a global scale.

          FM
          The tug is the drug!

          "Grow a pear!" - Groundpounder

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by fishmonger View Post
            I'll bite.

            It won't. But, we need to beware of governmental regulation that is dressed up as if to protect the environment but in fact does not, or does so at the expense of perceived opposing philosophical points of view concerning the role of government in people's lives.

            Said another way, only regulations that clearly benefit wilderness, and not just some portion of people that happen to vote the same way, or live in the same geographical area (actually, who DON'T live in the same area, the one to be saved), will get the job done. Ideally, this regulation would be pan-governmental, so as to avoid this often intended consequence of said regulations. Given human nature, it is hard to imagine how such regulation gets put in place or enforced on a global scale.

            FM
            Boom. Could not have been articulated any better FM.
            #JBNavy

            "Everyday is a new life to a wise man."
            -Chinese Proverb

            “At sunrise everything is luminous but not clear.”
            -Norman Maclean

            "We are what we hunt."
            -PH

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by fishmonger View Post
              I'll bite.

              It won't. But, we need to beware of governmental regulation that is dressed up as if to protect the environment but in fact does not, or does so at the expense of perceived opposing philosophical points of view concerning the role of government in people's lives.

              Said another way, only regulations that clearly benefit wilderness, and not just some portion of people that happen to vote the same way, or live in the same geographical area (actually, who DON'T live in the same area, the one to be saved), will get the job done. Ideally, this regulation would be pan-governmental, so as to avoid this often intended consequence of said regulations. Given human nature, it is hard to imagine how such regulation gets put in place or enforced on a global scale.

              FM
              Bingo..History shows us that the government is not very efficient and is subject to the whims of special interest groups. Lets all vote our conscience, and be good stewards for our environment without wishing for some governmental intervention. That rarely works.
              Last edited by jonmo; 11-09-18, 09:22 AM.
              Tight lines!!

              Doc

              Comment


              • #8
                Really?

                Really? Do you hope to make points with derogatory comments like "tree huggers" and "snowflakes"? If you have a point to make, try it without flaming others.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Philhutch80 View Post
                  Can someone tell me how less governmental regulation will fix this in the current reality we live in?
                  Sure. Federal regulation prevents the state from doing their job. For example, it takes a mountain of paperwork and permits for a state biologist (not bubba with a minnow bucket and a chainsaw) to study the environmental impact of habitat improvement structures in brookie streams. It's slowing our ability to properly manage the resources we have left.

                  It can be argued that some areas of wilderness actually receive *less* disturbance because of human impact...
                  The first thing scripture tells us about man is that we're made in the image of God. The second thing it says is that man should have dominion over the fishes of the sea.

                  The right flies at the right time: Monthly Fly

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Federal and State Management

                    Our streams and rivers rarely remain within the confines of one state - those dotted lines on a map just are not obeyed by rivers! Or the wind, or the rain, or the birds and deer and elk and etc, etc, etc, ....... TU has adopted a regional approach to our conservation work which follows the same logic, that rivers - think of the Chattooga's three state borders - need cooperative management. This is difficult for the states to manage due to lack of resources and often not recognizing that everyone lives downstream of someone else. Again, the Chattooga, if it were okay in NC to build a junkyard on the banks in NC, then the impact would be felt in SC and GA. It was legal in NC so they have no recourse. Now think about management of brook trout, especially if removal and restoration is underway. So yes, many times federal management is the best way to go. If it takes a little longer, we have to be patient. Remember it took 100 years of no management to harm a lot of streams, so restoration will take a while.

                    Counterpoint is something like Smithgall Woods. I often point to this unique creation by the State of Georgia in creating an opportunity for trophy fishing and hunting by acquiring this property and making it a public treasure. All of the Georgia State Parks show what can be done when state government does have it's head where the sun don't shine!

                    Briefly, there is no single "best way" for resource management but when that resource crosses one or more state lines, then federal management is a good solution.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by JOHNKIES View Post
                      Our streams and rivers rarely remain within the confines of one state - those dotted lines on a map just are not obeyed by rivers! Or the wind, or the rain, or the birds and deer and elk and etc, etc, etc, ....... TU has adopted a regional approach to our conservation work which follows the same logic, that rivers - think of the Chattooga's three state borders - need cooperative management. This is difficult for the states to manage due to lack of resources and often not recognizing that everyone lives downstream of someone else. Again, the Chattooga, if it were okay in NC to build a junkyard on the banks in NC, then the impact would be felt in SC and GA. It was legal in NC so they have no recourse. Now think about management of brook trout, especially if removal and restoration is underway. So yes, many times federal management is the best way to go. If it takes a little longer, we have to be patient. Remember it took 100 years of no management to harm a lot of streams, so restoration will take a while.

                      Counterpoint is something like Smithgall Woods. I often point to this unique creation by the State of Georgia in creating an opportunity for trophy fishing and hunting by acquiring this property and making it a public treasure. All of the Georgia State Parks show what can be done when state government does have it's head where the sun don't shine!

                      Briefly, there is no single "best way" for resource management but when that resource crosses one or more state lines, then federal management is a good solution.
                      Yeah I'd hate for the brookies they introduce in the upper Hooch drainage to cause problems for the fine folks in Florida. And God forbid the feds actually...you know...work with the state agencies that actually do most of the management...
                      The first thing scripture tells us about man is that we're made in the image of God. The second thing it says is that man should have dominion over the fishes of the sea.

                      The right flies at the right time: Monthly Fly

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        If You Say So ........

                        " ........... And God forbid the feds actually...you know...work with the state agencies that actually do most of the management... "

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by fishinbub View Post
                          Yeah I'd hate for the brookies they introduce in the upper Hooch drainage to cause problems for the fine folks in Florida. And God forbid the feds actually...you know...work with the state agencies that actually do most of the management...
                          Great points fishnbub...
                          Tight lines!!

                          Doc

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            What If?

                            What if you took the Feds totally out of the picture for fisheries management in GA? Don't forget the state legislature provides much of funding for wildlife and I have never seen any real interest on their part in managing trout. They typically are bass fisherman (some do salt water), and hunters. You might see all streams go under hatchery supported rules with bait and some limits on how many you can take home. I don't see Georgia as a trout state in this scenario.

                            Short version: Be Careful What You Wish For

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by JOHNKIES View Post
                              What if you took the Feds totally out of the picture for fisheries management in GA? Don't forget the state legislature provides much of funding for wildlife and I have never seen any real interest on their part in managing trout. They typically are bass fisherman (some do salt water), and hunters. You might see all streams go under hatchery supported rules with bait and some limits on how many you can take home. I don't see Georgia as a trout state in this scenario.

                              Short version: Be Careful What You Wish For
                              The speaker of The House of Representatives of the Georgia Legislature, David Ralston, is an active member of the Blue Ridge chapter of Trout Unlimited. As far as I know, there is no Georgia Council of Bass Unlimited. I don’t know of any group that shows up at Sportsman’s Day at the Capitol and politics more than TU...and is listened to by that legislature. Because of the passion of trout fishermen, I’d suggest that trout are probably over represented as a sport fish in the state of Georgia. That doesn’t bother me.

                              And since you went off on a tangent, let me do the same. The Georgia Council of TU, an organization definitely dominated by old, conservative, white dudes, has elected Kathy Breithaupt as the chairwoman of the Council. Not because she is a woman or may be minority in the trout community, but because she was the best choice for the job.
                              Last edited by THE EG; 11-20-18, 08:29 PM.
                              If this were rocket science most of us wouldn't be doing it. - Terry Creech

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X