From: CBARNES@tamvm1.tamu.edu (Chris Barnes)
Subject: Re: Wilderness and Wolves
Organization: Texas A&M University
Date: 12 Jan 93 07:17:25 CST
Originator: hunting@osnome.che.wisc.edu

In article <1993Jan11.074339.20396@doug.cae.wisc.edu<
   motto@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (mary.rita.otto) writes:
 
<<<The point is, these parks and preserves are not truly wilderness.  Our
<<<concepts of them as wilderness do the land and the animal inhabitants
<<<a disservice.  We've got to stop pretending and face the facts that we
<<<have to take responsibility for managing these lands for what they are;
<<<parks.  They are people-created areas with people-defined boundaries
<<<-- boundaries which are not recognized by nature.  They may be as close
<<<as we can come to a real wilderness, but they do have unique non-wilderness
<<<characteristics which must be accepted and managed.
<<
<<It sounds like you are aruging that all areas should be managed such
<<that people get the most USE from them.  I would argue that they
<<should be managed such that people get the most BENIFIT from them.  Do
<<you see the distinction?  With BENIFIT, one could argue (and I would)
<<that people would get more BENIFIT from having places that are treated
<<as "wilderness" (even though they are in fact influanced by factors
<<outside of that wilderness area).  That means people get more benefit
<<by simply having something besides human usage as the most important
<<determinant in managing an area such as
<<bears/wolves/name-your-favorite-non-popular-preditor or having the
<<best bio-diversity possible (such as is provided by periodic fires).
<Hi, Chris.
<
<But hold on a second.  I never said that because these are people
<defined areas that we should try to ge the most USE out of them!
<I'm with you on the BENEFIT picture (even if we don't agree on the
<spelling!).
 
In that case, it appears that I misunderstood your meaning.  I stand
corrected.
 
 
<I just don't think we are viewing the "wilderness"
<areas in light of the bigger picture.  We need to be concerned
<about a *possible need* to intervene in that ecosphere in order
<to protect and enhance the benefits the area provides.  For example,
<if acid rain is destroying a lake in a wilderness area, does it
<make sense to try to rescue the lake with a water treatment plan,
<even though it is in a "wilderness" area?  I would argue yes;  other
<people disagree with me, saying we should not intervene at all in
<such areas.  These areas may from time to time need the help of
<concerned habitat/environmental managers in order for the detrimental
<effects of events outside of the area to be countered.  That's what
<I was talking about.
 
Then we are in agreement (happily )   :-)
 
 
<I am not opposed whatsoever to "development-free" zones, and you can
<even call them wilderness if you want to.  But I don't want to sit
<idly by while they are destroyed by influx from surrounding areas
<and nothing is done about it in a mistaken assumption that it is best
<to do absolutely nothing proactively or reactively in those areas.
 
When an area is truely in danger (or will be if conditions don't
change), I agree.  It's just that in the case of the Yellowstone
fires, I think people looked at the short term and concluded that it
was a "disaster" when in fact it was a great benifit to the area.
 
      -----------------------------------------------------
Chris Barnes            |   President - Bryan/College Station
cbarnes@tamvm1.tamu.edu |         Retriever Club.
(409) 846-3273 (home)   |   "Dedicated to the betterment of
(409) 845-4437 (work)   |               the retrieving breeds"


Newsgroups: rec.hunting