R. Lander wrote:
> This is for people who claim there's plenty of wilderness left for [whatever purpose]
>
> http://www.mongabay.com/images/media/footprint.jpg
>


That map suffers from scale. It's relatively useless other than to
establish an extremely general sense of what you're talking about. For
example, the portions of northern Maine with which I'm familiar and
which would show green on your map are far below the resolution of most
monitors. Nice thought, but it suffers in delivery; better there should
be a map such as this with links to more detailed scale regional
representations.

Agreed, the "footprint of man" is a more apt term than fingerprint or
handprint.

Pete H

 

R. Lander wrote:
> This is for people who claim there's plenty of wilderness left for [whatever purpose]
>
> http://www.mongabay.com/images/media/footprint.jpg
>


That map suffers from scale. It's relatively useless other than to
establish an extremely general sense of what you're talking about. For
example, the portions of northern Maine with which I'm familiar and
which would show green on your map are far below the resolution of most
monitors. Nice thought, but it suffers in delivery; better there should
be a map such as this with links to more detailed scale regional
representations.

Agreed, the "footprint of man" is a more apt term than fingerprint or
handprint.

Pete H

 

R. Lander wrote:
> This is for people who claim there's plenty of wilderness left for [whatever purpose]
>
> http://www.mongabay.com/images/media/footprint.jpg
>


That map suffers from scale. It's relatively useless other than to
establish an extremely general sense of what you're talking about. For
example, the portions of northern Maine with which I'm familiar and
which would show green on your map are far below the resolution of most
monitors. Nice thought, but it suffers in delivery; better there should
be a map such as this with links to more detailed scale regional
representations.

Agreed, the "footprint of man" is a more apt term than fingerprint or
handprint.

Pete H

 

R. Lander wrote:

>
> 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
>

What are the criteria of the scale beneath the map? As it sits, they are
meaningless numbers unless some referent be given. And, as with the
North America map, scale prevents any but the most general inferences to
be drawn. Despite "how densely packed" Europe is, it's a richer and more
stable region than, say, India or southeastern China.

Generalities are fine for starters but pretty soon in such a discussion
finer detail is needed.

Pete H

 

R. Lander wrote:

>
> 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
>

What are the criteria of the scale beneath the map? As it sits, they are
meaningless numbers unless some referent be given. And, as with the
North America map, scale prevents any but the most general inferences to
be drawn. Despite "how densely packed" Europe is, it's a richer and more
stable region than, say, India or southeastern China.

Generalities are fine for starters but pretty soon in such a discussion
finer detail is needed.

Pete H

 

R. Lander wrote:

>
> 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
>

What are the criteria of the scale beneath the map? As it sits, they are
meaningless numbers unless some referent be given. And, as with the
North America map, scale prevents any but the most general inferences to
be drawn. Despite "how densely packed" Europe is, it's a richer and more
stable region than, say, India or southeastern China.

Generalities are fine for starters but pretty soon in such a discussion
finer detail is needed.

Pete H

 

R. Lander wrote:
>
> That map is useful if you want it to be. It easily debunks the claim
> that we only use 2 or 3 percent of the land. Those DARK green areas are
> the only lands that have barely been touched.

See my comment about resolution at the scale of the map provided. The
map seems to provide a "goodish" blob of dark green in northern Maine
yet there are only a few hundred acres (in scattered plots) of truly
virgin, old-growth forest; similarly, we have NOWHERE in northern Maine
that is more than five or six miles from the nearest driveable road.
Under those criteria, the map is not a useful item.

Yours in the north Maine woods,
Pete Hilton (Reg. Me. Guide) aka The Ent

 

R. Lander wrote:
>
> That map is useful if you want it to be. It easily debunks the claim
> that we only use 2 or 3 percent of the land. Those DARK green areas are
> the only lands that have barely been touched.

See my comment about resolution at the scale of the map provided. The
map seems to provide a "goodish" blob of dark green in northern Maine
yet there are only a few hundred acres (in scattered plots) of truly
virgin, old-growth forest; similarly, we have NOWHERE in northern Maine
that is more than five or six miles from the nearest driveable road.
Under those criteria, the map is not a useful item.

Yours in the north Maine woods,
Pete Hilton (Reg. Me. Guide) aka The Ent

 

R. Lander wrote:
>
> That map is useful if you want it to be. It easily debunks the claim
> that we only use 2 or 3 percent of the land. Those DARK green areas are
> the only lands that have barely been touched.

See my comment about resolution at the scale of the map provided. The
map seems to provide a "goodish" blob of dark green in northern Maine
yet there are only a few hundred acres (in scattered plots) of truly
virgin, old-growth forest; similarly, we have NOWHERE in northern Maine
that is more than five or six miles from the nearest driveable road.
Under those criteria, the map is not a useful item.

Yours in the north Maine woods,
Pete Hilton (Reg. Me. Guide) aka The Ent

 

In article <c9598$448adde8$48311525$29952@FUSE.NET>,
billy ray <billy_ray@SPAMfuse.net> wrote:
>Why is it necessary to have federally protected wilderness areas anyway?

Precisely because for the same reason that a group of slave owners
argued that slavery was fine, that women didn't need the right to vote,
and loggers and later miners ran rough shod over lands before the early
1800s.

Do us a favor.
If you come down with cancer don't take taxol. It came from a Federally
protected area.

>If people or groups want to protect areas they can purchase the land
>themselves with their own cash.

This has proven insufficient. It's like buying slaves for their
freedom.

>It reminds me of that 'protest' in California where all the ''movie stars'
>and 'recording artists' are sitting in a tree preventing a vacant lot from
>being improved into industrial storage.

Well yes, this part is stupid.

And complete attribution of 160+ lines is unnecessary.


--