Man vs. Nature

[Daddee]

Riffing off of this thread - I find it increasingly fascinating how the policies that humans have instituted in order to "protect" nature continue to backfire on us.

The current wildfire crisis is one example. Another very recent example comes out of Yellowstone. Research since wolves were introduced back into the park it is showing more biological diversity and that the park in general seems to be more healthy.

But other researchers are saying that's a load of elk doots.

My personal opinion is that we just don't have the information or proper experience to make firm conclusions.

So, what should we do? Protection agains the encroachment of humans onto wilderness areas isn't really a question - it seems pretty self evident that we need to protect as much area as we can. But how best to manage something that is so vastly complex, and at the same time so incredibly screwed up by past misshandling of policy? How best to guage what level of protection is needed? And who should be the ones deciding it?
_________________
"Only small minds want always to be right."
- Louis XIV

"...haven't you lived long enough to know that two men may honestly differ about a question and both be right?"
- Abraham Lincoln

[ck1]

I don't know if there is an answer to the problem...I mean, let's consider the issue of protection.

If you ask a tree hugging liberal like me (or cactuscat ) I'd say we need to protect as much open space as possible.

If you ask someone on the opposite end of the spectrum, they may respond that we need to protect the American way of life, so to speak...

So enter the issue of a place like Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. I may never see the place, but I like knowing that there are areas like that being protected. Others see it as an untapped resource of much needed oil, so they'd like to see it drilled.

Closer to home you have the Oak Flats campground area north of Superior. It's a HUGE climbing area, and a off trail hiker's paradise. Devil's Canyon is a playground for outdoor people. Each year the Boulder Bash draws the country's top climbers for the weekend competition...however...it happens to rest upon what could be one of the largest mineral deposits in North America...so...what's the best way to "protect"...if we protect the open land, the minerals go untapped. If we protect the American way (so to speak) we give up such an amazing place in the name of profit...

I wish there was a happy middle ground...but apparently nobody can find it. Maybe that's why Daddee an I need to run for elected office
_________________
-Colin

"The Journey is the Destination"

[Daddee]

[ck1]

[mike]

You guys would have zero time left for hiking if you did that, you know...
_________________
[/size]

[ck1]

[Arizonaheat]

Because of man, I believe there is no answer. If it were just nature , she would manage herself just fine.

I have my opionions but they are certainly not solutions, unfortunately some people think their extreme opinions, (on either side of the spectrum) are the only correct ones. It is that line of thinking that contributes to the mess man has created. Their may not be perfect solutions, but if people could work together instead of for their cause or for their party and concentrate on what is best for mankind or nature, then some ground could be gained.

Unfortunately I don't think politics will ever be for the good of the people, only what is good for the Party ( either side). You could come up with the most brilliant idea mankind has ever heard of, that would solve every world problem and the other side would still pick it to death and disagree, because their party didn't come up with it. Sad situation indeed.

I would vote for both you guys
_________________
Our lives are not determined by what happens to us but by how we react to what happens, not by what life brings to us, but by the attitude we bring to life.

[Shihiyea]

[Daddee]

[BoyNhisDog]

Kent’s words are wise. The problem is simply mankind. 500 years ago this continent was totally Stone Age. It was pristine, so full of animals it was incredible and everywhere was climax forest. Most of the animals were killed off by the mid 1800s and the entire continent was logged early on as well. Now that we have millions of people here who all use wood, steel, copper and oil whether it be directly or indirectly and in most cases both (that includes everyone here), the issue has morphed into something that has its own inertia.

There have been many mass extinctions on this planet and there will be more. Call it what you will, judgment day, the natural way or whatever. Nature, this world, will find its own balance in it’s own time.

I’m a tree hugger in my own way. I would like to see portions of this world where no roads or any messing with it are allowed. That would be the ideal, however Kent is right. Trees always die and leave large chunks of fuel at the ready. A case in point is the Chirachuauas. When we first adventured up there, Chirachaua peak had all manner of dead fallen old growth at the peak and all around it. The trees were as tall as my waist when they lay on their sides. The fuel was enormous and when it finally went up, it was unstoppable.

I have a lot of tolerance for other people’s thoughts and views. I can understand other cultures after being raised on reservations in my formative years. I spent time with a lot of hippies and free spirits after I left home at 16. You just naturally seek out those quarters. I also know people can passionately expound their beliefs and go a good 180 within weeks. Those flower children eventually built this world into what it is now. Sure they traded in their tie-dyes for more conservative garb and moved into SUVs from the VW buses, everyone moves on I guess.

So I don’t have any answers to the original post, or any lucid or practical ones anyway. This is me at South Mountain Park in the mid-60s with my dog. I could ride my bicycle across Phoenix then and I did on occasion. I was always an adventurer.



Now 40 years later, I fly over that metropolis and look down on how things just happen. What will it be in 40 more years or 400? Look at all those billions of tons of wood to build the houses we live in. When we drove to Utah in May we came through Phoenix at rush hour. We, being two of us, drove in the carpool lane. We passed seemingly millions of cars that had only one person in each. All of that oil every hour to do that, amazing isn’t it. So the problem is how we think and the simple fact that all of us are here.

There simply aren’t anymore continents to expand to. You like to hunt fossils? Someday something is going to be sifting through a fossil bed and say to his buddy, “These guys were all over the place! Must have been really weird when that asteroid hit, but how come there is only one in most of these steel contraptions?”

I think I am going to go hiking.
_________________
Seize from every moment its unique novelty and do not prepare your joys
- Andre Gide

[ck1]

Glen, have you ever read the book Ishmael by Dan Quinn?
_________________
-Colin

"The Journey is the Destination"

[BoyNhisDog]

No Colin, I haven't. What is it about?
_________________
Seize from every moment its unique novelty and do not prepare your joys
- Andre Gide

[ck1]

It'd be right up your alley...I'll pm you a link...
_________________
-Colin

"The Journey is the Destination"

[matt gilbert]

I somewhat disagree with kent. He's absolutely right about politics. they will never solve anything, they exist only to further agendas. Agendas which seldom have any far reaching benefits for mankind as a whole.

I do think that nature will take care of herself. It may not seem like it in the short term, but in the long term how long can we really throw things out of balance. It's like a gyroscope. As long as its spinning it will stand up. Knock it as hard as you like, as long as it keeps it's momentum it will right itself. I think that's how nature is. Or at least I like to hope so...

For now I hope that we can do our best to mitigate our ill effects on the land while setting aside more land from future developments. I don't know how to do that. (actually not sure that we can anymore) but it's definatley worth a shot. If nothing else I think we can all agree that it's worth a try.

So really who gets to make these decisions? almost all the agencies that have been responsible so far have botched it. I have virtually no kind words to say about the forest service or BLM, but I have to admit that at least they're trying. Their hearts are in right place, but everyone seems pretty much helpless at the hands of current administration. EPA scientists and FS Rangers who speak out against the current administration are often "reassigned" or reprimanded. If these people can't do it who can, I wonder?
_________________
Cogito ergo ambulo cum sacculo
-Matt Gilbert

[Arizonaheat]