View Poll Results: "How wild should the mountains be?" Do you have an opinion?

Voters
31. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes, I have an opinion about this, explained in a post below.

    17 54.84%
  • I have an opinion about this, but have chosen not to post it here.

    9 29.03%
  • I do not have an opinion; changes in "wildness" do not affect my hiking.

    5 16.13%
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 46 to 48 of 48

Thread: How wild should the mountains be?

  1. #46
    Senior Member grouseking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Lebanon, NH Avatar: Philosopher?
    Posts
    2,023
    Quote Originally Posted by bikehikeskifish View Post
    Versus "Wilderness":

    “A wilderness, in contrast with those areas where man and his own works dominate the landscape, is hereby recognized as an area where the earth and community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain.”

    Thus the crux of the matter is the definition of "untrammeled". Arguably, "in contrast with ... dominate", means that as long as man's own works don't dominate qualifies untrammeled in favor of having select bridges and select maintenance. Without the qualifying statement, one could go to the other extreme ... fully unrestrained.

    Tim
    Untrammeled is a weird word to use in the definition for sure. Originally it sounds like man is free to do whatever they want in the wilderness area, but they mean that wilderness is completely free from man.

    But even with untrammeled, I do read that as an area with no people visiting...I'm pretty sure that is the bottom line, and an idea of what the Wilderness Act people were trying to accomplish. While in theory it is a wonderful idea, there are too many people in the world to have it completely......primeval. Is that word in there somewhere?

    I still think that the wording of the Wilderness Act has helped to limit things as much as possible, but I'm sure the writers of that knew the rule couldn't be followed to a "T" since there is always an exception.


    side note: Prob gonna get a little too far off topic
    Its obvious that every single person has a different take on wilderness, and like everything else in life there is always opposition to what is decided. I'm not sure how much change can occur with healthy debate, with the way it seems things are run in America. Since poli-tricks can't be discussed on this site, I'll quit while I'm slightly behind.

    grouseking

  2. #47
    Senior Member sardog1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    If it ain't snowin' there, we ain't goin' there.
    Posts
    2,581
    The mountains should be just a little wilder than safe, or easy, or predictable. OK, a whole lot wilder. Otherwise, we might as well start making Aconcagua safer. Or Denali, as a guy complains to the lead climbing ranger in the June issue of Alaska magazine that just arrived here.

    I'm amazed that climbers now complain that SAR is not up to their expectations for saving their sorry you-know-what. Things were indeed different "back in the day."

    And as for the portion of land in designated "wilderness" in the Whites, let us consider these facts, plz:

    NH area: 5,740,160 acres
    WMNF area: 784,505 acres (includes area in Maine)
    Wilderness area within WMNF: about 153,052 acres (19.5% of WMNF)

    I'm hard-pressed to see the elitist oppression in reserving 80.5% of a national forest for non-wilderness activities . . .
    Last edited by sardog1; 05-17-2009 at 06:49 AM.
    sardog1

    "Å! kjære Bymann gakk ei stjur og stiv,
    men kom her up og kjenn eit annat Liv!
    kom hit, kom hit, og ver ei daud og lat!
    kom kjenn, hot d'er, som heiter Svevn og Mat,
    og Drykk og Tørste og det heile, som
    er Liv og Helse i ein Hovedsum."

    -- Aasmund O. Vinje, "Til Fjells!"

  3. #48
    Senior Member sierra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    New hampshire
    Posts
    2,664
    The problem today is the change in " trampers". In the old days people who ventured into the hills took the time to learn the craft. Now its down to REI/EMS stock up on gear and off you go, GPS in one hand, cell phone in the other. If you go out to the Rockies or even more so the Sierra you will plainly see the difference on the people you meet far out, thier generally well prepared and rarely have had much trouble. Granted the Whites are small and very close to boston but still self sufficiency is a dieing art. I believe if you made the Whites more wild it would keep sar very busy. They should ban cell phones for one, let people get themselves out, that might make them try harder and think twice when making decisions, then again maybe not. The bottom line is, in the wilderness, your wild again, BUT, if your really civilized then being in the wild is proboly putting you out of your element and there lies the crux of it.Oh and believe me, I know Im out there in my way of thinking, but this is my 2 cents, it just bugs the crap out of me the things I see and hear about out there, I mean if your suffering and the shit is hitting the fan, that happens sometimes, deal with it, put your stupid phone down, make a litter, crawl, scrounge for food but handle it for peeps sake.
    Ok my 4 cents.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-14-2013, 01:14 PM
  2. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 12-14-2012, 08:48 PM
  3. Wild Cat, Wild Cat D, Carter Dome
    By Unregistered in forum New Hampshire
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-13-2008, 04:36 PM
  4. Into the Wild
    By SAR-EMT40 in forum General Backcountry
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 01-12-2007, 03:26 PM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •