Our discussion in class last week around the concept of wilderness brought up several interesting points about how we perceive wilderness. Particularly, there were three points I would like you to think about and comment on for this week's blog:
1. How do you feel about the U.S. government's initiative to remove people from designated wilderness areas? Was this necessary to achieve the goals set forth by the Wilderness Act of 1964?
2. The act's definition of wilderness is one that does not include human intervention:
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 its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain. An area of wilderness is further defined to mean in this chapter an area of undeveloped Federal land retaining its primeval character and influence, without permanent improvements or human habitation, which is protected and managed so as to preserve its natural conditions and which (1) generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint of man's work substantially unnoticeable; (2) has outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation...
Is it possible for humans to visit wilderness and leave it "untrammeled"? Why or why not?
3. What level of intervention should humans play in managing forest fires within wilderness areas?
Please comment on these three points using one paragraph for each point. Remember to use spell and grammar checks and use proper punctuation.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
I don’t think that it was necissary to remove people from the land in all cases. This is especially true if historic uses are considered a part of the landscape. Besides people who work and live closely with the land will probably take better care of it than the Feds.
According the the definition it is quite possible for people to enjoy an area and leave it untrammeled. “(1) generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint of man's work substantially unnoticeable” This doesn’t mean absolutely no trace, just a minimal one. However even simple activities like hiking done in a high enough volume can do harm, just look at Acadia National Park.
I have no idea if and to what extent we should interfere with forest fires in wilderness areas. I’ve never studied forestry, so I really can’t say.
In my opinion removing people from the land was not one of the governments brightest ideas, since some peoples jobs involve being in the wilderness, and the knowledge that they have would probably benifit the land.
It is very possible for humans to go out in the wilderness and leave it "untrammled", since in the definition it states that wilderness should appear affected mainly by natural causes, so in fact as long as the minimal trace that you leave appears to be one that natures forces could have created than it is perfectly fine.
The level of intervention that should be played is one that contains the forest fire if it gets to wild, but not intervene if the fire is not totally insane.
I don't think it is necessary to stop all access to the land. But let a limit of people in a day to help reduce wear on the land.
If people were buter educated in the principles of "lnt".
To stop the fire for speading with out the wese of ground equiptment or put out.
i dont think it is necessary to remove people from the land. people settled there and you cannot just go kick them out.
It was probable not necessary to remove all people from the land. The people made a noticeable difference in the land but removing them simply ticks them off. Yes it is possible for human activity to leave a place untrammeled. As long as people use only defined areas the impacted on nature will be unseen. People should intervene in wild fires so that the natural area around were the fire was is still stunning.
I think at the time that they moved the natives from the land, they did not know enough about the people or the land to make a decision about they actually planned on doing. The US government in some spots did not consider how it would impact these people when they moved and shoved onto a reservation. By achieving a goal by doing this? I think some minor goals were accomplished, but I don’t think it was necessary to take people from their homes when they could of just moved the spot of the “designated wilderness area”.
In some parts of the wilderness it is possible to leave it untrammeled, but only if the wilderness has nothing to offer people. When wilderness is corrupted, it is because someone wants something from it, whether it is a hiking trail, somewhere to mountain climb, or maybe some where to camp out. To find a place where you cannot find any sort of recreation, is the place where you will find the most protected wilderness.
“which is protected and managed so as to preserve its natural conditions” Humans should defiantly play a roll into managing forest fires. At this point, the wilderness areas are not much, and to let a forest burn to the ground is something if anything that is irresponsible. The quote I pulled is from the acts definition, and to say that if there is a fire, we are obliged to put it out because we trying to preserve its natural conditions, which in the end, is not a large burning hole in the middle of the woods.
I do not agree with the idea to remove the people from the land. People who live one the land are more apt to make sure the land is clean and not destroyed, instead of the goverment that dosent even set foot on the area of land hardly ever.
I think it is very posible to have people enjoy a wild area and not do it harm. i think that we should get involved in wild fires. I think when a fire starts we should contain it in that area and let it naturaly burn out. this way the whole forest dosent burn down but we still let nature take its course.
Post a Comment