billy ray did pass the time by typing:
> Looks like they need a lot more roads in Canada... perhaps they could get
> more people living, working, and playing up there. Ya know.. development,
> homes, industry... jobs... good jobs....

Canada tends more to small farm towns and BIG cities. Changes from coast
to coast but places like Calgary Alberta are huge cities where folks live
in fairly nice homes or apartments/flats. Lots of the surrounding lands
are farm but that's changing. There still are miles and miles of agriculture.

> good jobs= a good life.
>
> Or you could go live in a cave and scavenge for sustenance.... your choice.

/me thinks the OP lives in his own special world.

The OP is posting from an ISP in Northern California.
That in itself explains much. Probably one of those
uber-greenies on a mission from god or some such.

Ever been to Northern Canada? The Northwest and Yukon
Territories are islands and water in summer and islands
and ice in winter with a hell of a lot of baren rock.
Apart from hunting, fishing, or prospecting there is very
little reason to go up there.

The OP is nothing but a crossposting troll.
Not once has it ever answered even one of the
responses.

--
DougW

 

billy ray did pass the time by typing:
> Looks like they need a lot more roads in Canada... perhaps they could get
> more people living, working, and playing up there. Ya know.. development,
> homes, industry... jobs... good jobs....

Canada tends more to small farm towns and BIG cities. Changes from coast
to coast but places like Calgary Alberta are huge cities where folks live
in fairly nice homes or apartments/flats. Lots of the surrounding lands
are farm but that's changing. There still are miles and miles of agriculture.

> good jobs= a good life.
>
> Or you could go live in a cave and scavenge for sustenance.... your choice.

/me thinks the OP lives in his own special world.

The OP is posting from an ISP in Northern California.
That in itself explains much. Probably one of those
uber-greenies on a mission from god or some such.

Ever been to Northern Canada? The Northwest and Yukon
Territories are islands and water in summer and islands
and ice in winter with a hell of a lot of baren rock.
Apart from hunting, fishing, or prospecting there is very
little reason to go up there.

The OP is nothing but a crossposting troll.
Not once has it ever answered even one of the
responses.

--
DougW

 

billy ray did pass the time by typing:
> Looks like they need a lot more roads in Canada... perhaps they could get
> more people living, working, and playing up there. Ya know.. development,
> homes, industry... jobs... good jobs....

Canada tends more to small farm towns and BIG cities. Changes from coast
to coast but places like Calgary Alberta are huge cities where folks live
in fairly nice homes or apartments/flats. Lots of the surrounding lands
are farm but that's changing. There still are miles and miles of agriculture.

> good jobs= a good life.
>
> Or you could go live in a cave and scavenge for sustenance.... your choice.

/me thinks the OP lives in his own special world.

The OP is posting from an ISP in Northern California.
That in itself explains much. Probably one of those
uber-greenies on a mission from god or some such.

Ever been to Northern Canada? The Northwest and Yukon
Territories are islands and water in summer and islands
and ice in winter with a hell of a lot of baren rock.
Apart from hunting, fishing, or prospecting there is very
little reason to go up there.

The OP is nothing but a crossposting troll.
Not once has it ever answered even one of the
responses.

--
DougW

 

"R. Lander" <r_lander60@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1149351597.266698.230530@c74g2000cwc.googlegr oups.com...
> This is for people who claim there's plenty of wilderness left for Jeep
> tracks. They have no broad perspective on land use. Trees alone are not
> indicative of wilderness. Many national forests are sterile places,
> ecologically.
>
> http://www.mongabay.com/images/media/footprint.jpg
>
> That map shows how much land has been worked over by people in one way
> or another. Only northern Canada and Alaska still contain large,
> unbroken tracts of pristine land. The rest is mostly agriculture,
> grazing, tree-farms, cities and roads. It takes millions of acres to
> support people at a high standard of living. When someone says we only
> use 2% or 3% of the land, they're ignoring everything else needed to
> sustain dense cities.

The map shows nothing. It is much too small to show anything at all. From
looking at the map, and the web site that it came from, I get the idea that
it is purposely deceitful. The map would have you believe that no
undeveloped land exists from the cetral US eastward. I know for a fact this
is wrong. I have traveled up and down the east coast and have found
wilderness areas in every state, but you wouldn't know it by your map. I
currently live in NY. According to your map you would think it all looks
like new york city. Nothing could be further from the truth. Did you know
that wilderness exists not far from the city ? Ever hear of the Catskill
mountains, they're right outside the city. How about the 6.1 million acre
Adirondack state park. But most of New York is not heavily developed once
you are north of the city. Ever been to Pennsylvania, lots of wilderness
also. Same as western Maryland, West Virginia, western Virginia, etc... I
have never had a problem finding wilderness areas no matter were I"ve been.
If fact, when hiking and backpacking, it wasn't unusual to not see anyone
else in the woods. Sounds like you need to get out more and see things for
yourself, rather that believe everything you read on the internet.

>
> Those dark-green patches in the lower-48 contain trees that have never
> been cut, or roadless areas. Notice how small they are relative to
> industrialized or tamed parcels (lighter green, orange and red). It's
> an insult to demand more roads in those last pristine fragments.


There's a reason for that. Roads existed as far back as the horse and
buggy days. People had to have some means of getting from on place to
another.Some of the roads were also created from logging. The reason trees
have been cut is so that you could lumber to build your house. But trees are
a renewable resource. The roadless debate has only been a recent concern. I
have only seen it used as a way to try and keep motorized/ wheeled
recreation out of a given area. But it is likely most of these roads have
been around for over a hundred years. As an example, I've hiked in
Shenandoah National Park which was etablished in 1935. You can still plainy
see the old roads in the backcountry even today. How old do you think they
are ????



We
> need fewer people wanting a piece of the action, which means more birth
> control everywhere. That's the real solution if one has any respect for
> the land.


What an ignorant statement ! Do you really believe that ? Do you really
believe that nobody should be allowed to raise a family ? Why not take it a
step further and end your life for the good of the world ? Doesn't make
sense, does it ?




>
> Here's a "footprint" map of the entire world. Notice how densely packed
> Europe is. That same blight is creeping across America and it doesn't
> need help from the off-road lobby.
>
> http://www.mongabay.com/images/exter...-11-30_wcs.jpg
>
> R. Lander
>

 

"R. Lander" <r_lander60@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1149351597.266698.230530@c74g2000cwc.googlegr oups.com...
> This is for people who claim there's plenty of wilderness left for Jeep
> tracks. They have no broad perspective on land use. Trees alone are not
> indicative of wilderness. Many national forests are sterile places,
> ecologically.
>
> http://www.mongabay.com/images/media/footprint.jpg
>
> That map shows how much land has been worked over by people in one way
> or another. Only northern Canada and Alaska still contain large,
> unbroken tracts of pristine land. The rest is mostly agriculture,
> grazing, tree-farms, cities and roads. It takes millions of acres to
> support people at a high standard of living. When someone says we only
> use 2% or 3% of the land, they're ignoring everything else needed to
> sustain dense cities.

The map shows nothing. It is much too small to show anything at all. From
looking at the map, and the web site that it came from, I get the idea that
it is purposely deceitful. The map would have you believe that no
undeveloped land exists from the cetral US eastward. I know for a fact this
is wrong. I have traveled up and down the east coast and have found
wilderness areas in every state, but you wouldn't know it by your map. I
currently live in NY. According to your map you would think it all looks
like new york city. Nothing could be further from the truth. Did you know
that wilderness exists not far from the city ? Ever hear of the Catskill
mountains, they're right outside the city. How about the 6.1 million acre
Adirondack state park. But most of New York is not heavily developed once
you are north of the city. Ever been to Pennsylvania, lots of wilderness
also. Same as western Maryland, West Virginia, western Virginia, etc... I
have never had a problem finding wilderness areas no matter were I"ve been.
If fact, when hiking and backpacking, it wasn't unusual to not see anyone
else in the woods. Sounds like you need to get out more and see things for
yourself, rather that believe everything you read on the internet.

>
> Those dark-green patches in the lower-48 contain trees that have never
> been cut, or roadless areas. Notice how small they are relative to
> industrialized or tamed parcels (lighter green, orange and red). It's
> an insult to demand more roads in those last pristine fragments.


There's a reason for that. Roads existed as far back as the horse and
buggy days. People had to have some means of getting from on place to
another.Some of the roads were also created from logging. The reason trees
have been cut is so that you could lumber to build your house. But trees are
a renewable resource. The roadless debate has only been a recent concern. I
have only seen it used as a way to try and keep motorized/ wheeled
recreation out of a given area. But it is likely most of these roads have
been around for over a hundred years. As an example, I've hiked in
Shenandoah National Park which was etablished in 1935. You can still plainy
see the old roads in the backcountry even today. How old do you think they
are ????



We
> need fewer people wanting a piece of the action, which means more birth
> control everywhere. That's the real solution if one has any respect for
> the land.


What an ignorant statement ! Do you really believe that ? Do you really
believe that nobody should be allowed to raise a family ? Why not take it a
step further and end your life for the good of the world ? Doesn't make
sense, does it ?




>
> Here's a "footprint" map of the entire world. Notice how densely packed
> Europe is. That same blight is creeping across America and it doesn't
> need help from the off-road lobby.
>
> http://www.mongabay.com/images/exter...-11-30_wcs.jpg
>
> R. Lander
>

 

"R. Lander" <r_lander60@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1149351597.266698.230530@c74g2000cwc.googlegr oups.com...
> This is for people who claim there's plenty of wilderness left for Jeep
> tracks. They have no broad perspective on land use. Trees alone are not
> indicative of wilderness. Many national forests are sterile places,
> ecologically.
>
> http://www.mongabay.com/images/media/footprint.jpg
>
> That map shows how much land has been worked over by people in one way
> or another. Only northern Canada and Alaska still contain large,
> unbroken tracts of pristine land. The rest is mostly agriculture,
> grazing, tree-farms, cities and roads. It takes millions of acres to
> support people at a high standard of living. When someone says we only
> use 2% or 3% of the land, they're ignoring everything else needed to
> sustain dense cities.

The map shows nothing. It is much too small to show anything at all. From
looking at the map, and the web site that it came from, I get the idea that
it is purposely deceitful. The map would have you believe that no
undeveloped land exists from the cetral US eastward. I know for a fact this
is wrong. I have traveled up and down the east coast and have found
wilderness areas in every state, but you wouldn't know it by your map. I
currently live in NY. According to your map you would think it all looks
like new york city. Nothing could be further from the truth. Did you know
that wilderness exists not far from the city ? Ever hear of the Catskill
mountains, they're right outside the city. How about the 6.1 million acre
Adirondack state park. But most of New York is not heavily developed once
you are north of the city. Ever been to Pennsylvania, lots of wilderness
also. Same as western Maryland, West Virginia, western Virginia, etc... I
have never had a problem finding wilderness areas no matter were I"ve been.
If fact, when hiking and backpacking, it wasn't unusual to not see anyone
else in the woods. Sounds like you need to get out more and see things for
yourself, rather that believe everything you read on the internet.

>
> Those dark-green patches in the lower-48 contain trees that have never
> been cut, or roadless areas. Notice how small they are relative to
> industrialized or tamed parcels (lighter green, orange and red). It's
> an insult to demand more roads in those last pristine fragments.


There's a reason for that. Roads existed as far back as the horse and
buggy days. People had to have some means of getting from on place to
another.Some of the roads were also created from logging. The reason trees
have been cut is so that you could lumber to build your house. But trees are
a renewable resource. The roadless debate has only been a recent concern. I
have only seen it used as a way to try and keep motorized/ wheeled
recreation out of a given area. But it is likely most of these roads have
been around for over a hundred years. As an example, I've hiked in
Shenandoah National Park which was etablished in 1935. You can still plainy
see the old roads in the backcountry even today. How old do you think they
are ????



We
> need fewer people wanting a piece of the action, which means more birth
> control everywhere. That's the real solution if one has any respect for
> the land.


What an ignorant statement ! Do you really believe that ? Do you really
believe that nobody should be allowed to raise a family ? Why not take it a
step further and end your life for the good of the world ? Doesn't make
sense, does it ?




>
> Here's a "footprint" map of the entire world. Notice how densely packed
> Europe is. That same blight is creeping across America and it doesn't
> need help from the off-road lobby.
>
> http://www.mongabay.com/images/exter...-11-30_wcs.jpg
>
> R. Lander
>

 

> Looks like they need a lot more roads in Canada...

Got most of what we need and want, thanks.

> perhaps they could get
> more people living, working, and playing up there.

Have plenty of that as well, especially living and playing.


> Ya know.. development,
> homes, industry... jobs... good jobs....

Not perfect, but more than satisfactory, much more -- and we don't
outsource the good stuff.


> good jobs= a good life.

Generally, yes, always, no -- but Americans generally have trouble with
concepts beyond yes/no.

Good life? Yep, we already have that, and plenty of it -- it's not that
far away from the Cincy area, take a peak over the border sometime. But
please, just look, entering isn't necessary.



> Or you could go live in a cave and scavenge for sustenance.... your
> choice.

Dat's what I mean -- yes/no you understand, but nothing in-between (except
Nancy, that is)



> "R. Lander" <r_lander60@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1149351597.266698.230530@c74g2000cwc.googlegr oups.com...
>> This is for people who claim there's plenty of wilderness left for Jeep
>> tracks. They have no broad perspective on land use. Trees alone are not
>> indicative of wilderness. Many national forests are sterile places,
>> ecologically.
>>
>> http://www.mongabay.com/images/media/footprint.jpg
>>
>> That map shows how much land has been worked over by people in one way
>> or another. Only northern Canada and Alaska still contain large,
>> unbroken tracts of pristine land. The rest is mostly agriculture,
>> grazing, tree-farms, cities and roads. It takes millions of acres to
>> support people at a high standard of living. When someone says we only
>> use 2% or 3% of the land, they're ignoring everything else needed to
>> sustain dense cities.
>>
>> Those dark-green patches in the lower-48 contain trees that have never
>> been cut, or roadless areas. Notice how small they are relative to
>> industrialized or tamed parcels (lighter green, orange and red). It's
>> an insult to demand more roads in those last pristine fragments. We
>> need fewer people wanting a piece of the action, which means more birth
>> control everywhere. That's the real solution if one has any respect for
>> the land.
>>
>> Here's a "footprint" map of the entire world. Notice how densely packed
>> Europe is. That same blight is creeping across America and it doesn't
>> need help from the off-road lobby.
>>
>> http://www.mongabay.com/images/exter...-11-30_wcs.jpg
>>
>> R. Lander
>>

--
There is nothing so agonizing to the fine skin of vanity as the application
of a rough truth.

-Edward Bulwer-Lytton, writer (1803-1873)

 

> Looks like they need a lot more roads in Canada...

Got most of what we need and want, thanks.

> perhaps they could get
> more people living, working, and playing up there.

Have plenty of that as well, especially living and playing.


> Ya know.. development,
> homes, industry... jobs... good jobs....

Not perfect, but more than satisfactory, much more -- and we don't
outsource the good stuff.


> good jobs= a good life.

Generally, yes, always, no -- but Americans generally have trouble with
concepts beyond yes/no.

Good life? Yep, we already have that, and plenty of it -- it's not that
far away from the Cincy area, take a peak over the border sometime. But
please, just look, entering isn't necessary.



> Or you could go live in a cave and scavenge for sustenance.... your
> choice.

Dat's what I mean -- yes/no you understand, but nothing in-between (except
Nancy, that is)



> "R. Lander" <r_lander60@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1149351597.266698.230530@c74g2000cwc.googlegr oups.com...
>> This is for people who claim there's plenty of wilderness left for Jeep
>> tracks. They have no broad perspective on land use. Trees alone are not
>> indicative of wilderness. Many national forests are sterile places,
>> ecologically.
>>
>> http://www.mongabay.com/images/media/footprint.jpg
>>
>> That map shows how much land has been worked over by people in one way
>> or another. Only northern Canada and Alaska still contain large,
>> unbroken tracts of pristine land. The rest is mostly agriculture,
>> grazing, tree-farms, cities and roads. It takes millions of acres to
>> support people at a high standard of living. When someone says we only
>> use 2% or 3% of the land, they're ignoring everything else needed to
>> sustain dense cities.
>>
>> Those dark-green patches in the lower-48 contain trees that have never
>> been cut, or roadless areas. Notice how small they are relative to
>> industrialized or tamed parcels (lighter green, orange and red). It's
>> an insult to demand more roads in those last pristine fragments. We
>> need fewer people wanting a piece of the action, which means more birth
>> control everywhere. That's the real solution if one has any respect for
>> the land.
>>
>> Here's a "footprint" map of the entire world. Notice how densely packed
>> Europe is. That same blight is creeping across America and it doesn't
>> need help from the off-road lobby.
>>
>> http://www.mongabay.com/images/exter...-11-30_wcs.jpg
>>
>> R. Lander
>>

--
There is nothing so agonizing to the fine skin of vanity as the application
of a rough truth.

-Edward Bulwer-Lytton, writer (1803-1873)

 

> Looks like they need a lot more roads in Canada...

Got most of what we need and want, thanks.

> perhaps they could get
> more people living, working, and playing up there.

Have plenty of that as well, especially living and playing.


> Ya know.. development,
> homes, industry... jobs... good jobs....

Not perfect, but more than satisfactory, much more -- and we don't
outsource the good stuff.


> good jobs= a good life.

Generally, yes, always, no -- but Americans generally have trouble with
concepts beyond yes/no.

Good life? Yep, we already have that, and plenty of it -- it's not that
far away from the Cincy area, take a peak over the border sometime. But
please, just look, entering isn't necessary.



> Or you could go live in a cave and scavenge for sustenance.... your
> choice.

Dat's what I mean -- yes/no you understand, but nothing in-between (except
Nancy, that is)



> "R. Lander" <r_lander60@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1149351597.266698.230530@c74g2000cwc.googlegr oups.com...
>> This is for people who claim there's plenty of wilderness left for Jeep
>> tracks. They have no broad perspective on land use. Trees alone are not
>> indicative of wilderness. Many national forests are sterile places,
>> ecologically.
>>
>> http://www.mongabay.com/images/media/footprint.jpg
>>
>> That map shows how much land has been worked over by people in one way
>> or another. Only northern Canada and Alaska still contain large,
>> unbroken tracts of pristine land. The rest is mostly agriculture,
>> grazing, tree-farms, cities and roads. It takes millions of acres to
>> support people at a high standard of living. When someone says we only
>> use 2% or 3% of the land, they're ignoring everything else needed to
>> sustain dense cities.
>>
>> Those dark-green patches in the lower-48 contain trees that have never
>> been cut, or roadless areas. Notice how small they are relative to
>> industrialized or tamed parcels (lighter green, orange and red). It's
>> an insult to demand more roads in those last pristine fragments. We
>> need fewer people wanting a piece of the action, which means more birth
>> control everywhere. That's the real solution if one has any respect for
>> the land.
>>
>> Here's a "footprint" map of the entire world. Notice how densely packed
>> Europe is. That same blight is creeping across America and it doesn't
>> need help from the off-road lobby.
>>
>> http://www.mongabay.com/images/exter...-11-30_wcs.jpg
>>
>> R. Lander
>>

--
There is nothing so agonizing to the fine skin of vanity as the application
of a rough truth.

-Edward Bulwer-Lytton, writer (1803-1873)

 

I stand corrected <G>

Jeff DeWitt

billy ray wrote:
> Jeff that is a terrible thing to say about Mr. Gore's loss in the 2000
> election.
>
> He was a nutcase long before then. In his 1992 literary masterpiece "Earth
> in the Balance: Forging a New Common Purpose" he says he would rather see
> women to die a horrible painful death than to cut down a tree.
>
> I assume that is why the tree huggers support him...
>
>
> "Jeff DeWitt" <JeffDeWitt@nc.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:x_ggg.19453$JW5.16995@southeast.rr.com...
>
>>I guess it depends how you define nutcase, although Al Gore certainly seems
>>to have been pushed over the edge by losing the 2000 election.
>>
>>
>>
>>Garth Almgren wrote:
>>
>>>Around 6/1/2006 9:56 PM, Jeff DeWitt wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Oh there will be plenty of need, 2008 is coming and no doubt the
>>>>Democrats will come up with another nutcase lefty to run, someone I can
>>>>use that quote against.
>>>
>>>
>>>Another?? Not a single Democrat candidate at the federal level comes to
>>>mind who could honestly be called a "nutcase."
>>>
>>>Now, some of the more localized candidates are borderline, but that's a
>>>whole 'nother ballpark. :)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>I just hope to God the Republicans come up with
>>>>someone good to run against him (or her).
>>>
>>>
>>>Why should the Republicans have to come up with someone good?
>>>They've done *very* well with the exceedingly bad candidates of the last
>>>few elections...
>>
>>More's the pity... Actually I don't think Bush (either one), was
>>exccedingly bad, but the Republicans should have been able to do a lot
>>better.
>>
>>>My advice: Don't fix it if it ain't broken. :)
>>>
>>>
>
>
>