HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: hall@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Hal F Lillywhite)
Newsgroups: rec.backcountry
Subject: Re: Multiplying in the Backcountry (kids/population)
Date: 19 Nov 92 16:15:59 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Tektronix Inc., Beaverton, Or.

In article <Nov18.214814.69046@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU> trzyna@CS.ColoState.EDU (wayne trzyna) writes:

>The world population has been growing monotonically since day one of
>human history.  How is this a short term question?  I think we are
>over-analyzing.

Wayne, your zeal is commendable but I'm afraid in this case it is
not matched by your knowledge.  Your statement above is quite wrong.
World population has not grown monotonically but has fluctuated up
and down (albiet with a generally upward trend).  Visit a library
and read the "Population" article in Britannica's _Macropedea_.
Among other things you will find there a graph of world population
over about the last 8000 years.  It oscillates about a slowly
increasing trend until the advent of the plague when it takes a
sharp downturn.  Thereafter it takes an even sharper upturn with 
the industrial revolution.

Of more value in terms of long term population growth, you will find
another graph showing birth and death rates for developed and
undeveloped countries.  The area between the birth and death lines
represents population growth.  Undeveloped countries continue to
have large positive growth rates.  However in the developed
countries the birth rate is dropping rapidly.  The 1985 date of this
publication still shows a positive growth for developed countries
but a simple extrapolation shows what our 1990 census already told
us:  Death rate now exceeds birth rate, at least in the U.S. (and I
suspect in Western Europe as well).

>The point I'm trying to make is that it is our problem no matter who's
>fault it is.  It's a lot easier to worry about recycling aluminum cans,
>and stay oblivious to the fact that a billion more people will be added
>to the population in the next 10 years.

Right.  And it's easier to pontificate about how everyone should 
have fewer children than to examine the available data to determine 
how to motivate them to do so.  Obviously something in developed
countries leads to a lower birth rate and that something is missing
in undeveloped countries.  We've said it before here, to lower the
birth rate:

1.  Provide convenient means of contraception, and

2.  Assure a good chance of survival for children which are born, or
provide other means for parents to be supported in there old age so
they won't have to have a lot of children to support them.

If you want to reduce the birth rate, forget the preaching and worry
about economics.
From: 90tms@eng.cam.ac.uk (T.M. Speight)
Newsgroups: rec.backcountry
Subject: Emergency Food (was Re: Lunches and Snacks: what do you bring?)
Date: 23 Nov 92 21:03:35 GMT
	<1992Nov22.173558.25037@midway.uchicago.edu>
	<90TMS.92Nov22210657@tw200.eng.cam.ac.uk> <rjg.722470451@riker>
Organization: Engineering Department, Cambridge University, England.

In article <rjg.722470451@riker> rjg@doe.carleton.ca (Richard Griffith) writes:
   In <90TMS.92Nov22210657@tw200.eng.cam.ac.uk> 90tms@eng.cam.ac.uk (T.M. Speight) writes:

   >As an alternative high-energy emergency food, I now take those jellies
   >that come wrapped in a polymer package to which you're supposed to add
   >water and then leave to set. I discovered the value of this food by
   >accident, when I ran out of food on a trip to Scotland and ended up
   >eating a friend's. One great advantage is that I find it too sugary
   >and sticky to eat unless it _really_is_ an emergency; an important
   >consideration in my view.

   Do you eat the jello powder raw?? I suppose that would work.

Yes; any food which needs to be cooked is potentially useless in an
emergency situation.

   For a kick in the pants winter alternative try a cup of hot jello mix.
   Water & sugar + trace elements -> instant energy.

I'll give that a try when I go backpacking in Scotland next month --
it sounds quite effective.

--
90tms@uk.ac.cam.eng      Cambridge University
Toby Speight             Engineering Department
Newsgroups: rec.backcountry
From: stgprao@st.unocal.COM (Richard Ottolini)
Subject: Re: Mitchell Caverns!
Organization: Unocal Corporation
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 16:55:31 GMT

In article <470001@hpwrce.mayfield.hp.com> tonyz@hpwrce.mayfield.hp.com (Tony Zugates) writes:
>be there when it happens... the surrounding desert is also a good place 
>to find shale deposits where I used to find lots of intact trilobites..
>but remember.. its hot in the summertime.  

The caves close during the summer beacause it is too hot for people to drive there.

There are many petroglyph sites in the area, but hard to find.

There are two nice campgrounds a few miles to the north.
From: cvakgaaq@vmsb.is.csupomona.edu
Newsgroups: rec.backcountry
Subject: Re: The overpopulation problem. NOT!
Date: 20 Nov 92 20:27:31 GMT
 <1992Nov18.123756.1@vmsb.is.csupomona.edu> <Bxz4GK.JxL@inews.Intel.COM>
Organization: California State Polytechnic University, Pomona
Nntp-Posting-User: cvakgaaq

In article <Bxz4GK.JxL@inews.Intel.COM>, jreece@sousa.intel.com (John Reece) writes:
> In article <1992Nov18.123756.1@vmsb.is.csupomona.edu>, cvakgaaq@vmsb.is.csupomona.edu writes:
> 
>> 	Who gave you title to your "favorite" bit of backcountry? I'll bet
>> someone else claims you ruined it when you came along and used it. 
> 
> The first 50 people to get in a 50-person lifeboat have a perfect right
> to tell the 51st "Sorry, next one".
> 
>> 	Austin Moseley
>> --"The Earth is just an apparatus for human ambitions."
> 
> "This lifeboat is full." 
> 
> -- 
> John Reece				
> Not an Intel spokesman 			 

	Situational ethics consist of introducing a contradiction then asking
the challenged to resolve the unresolvable. It's illogical.
	
	I disagree that anyplace is a lifeboat-situation. The Earth is hardly
crowded. If 4 billion people can exist at subsistence conditions in
collectivist countries, then perhaps 30 billion could be comfortable in
Capitalist, free nations in their place.
	The Backcountry is hardly crowded. Go up into the Sierra now if you
want solitude or visit some of the North Faces. Nevada is empty as is
Washington state. Canada is a practical vacuum. Siberia is as empty as any
place can be. But, then, maybe the emptiness you seek is to be found somewhere
else..


	-Austin Moseley
Newsgroups: rec.backcountry
From: sshostek@sshostek.mentorg.com (Steve Shostek)
Subject: Re: Alimeter Watches (Update)
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 00:57:49 GMT
Distribution: usa
Reply-To: steve_shostek@mentorg.com
Organization: mentor
Keywords: 
Followup-To: 

In article <10796@vice.ICO.TEK.COM>, hall@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Hal F Lillywhite) writes:
|> >>it measures temperature...
|> 
|> >Seems the temperature would always read 98.6...
|> 
|> Nope.  That is the problem, in spite of being attached to your wrist
|> it does track the air temperature reasonably well.  This means the
|> perssure cell of the altimeter also tracks the air temperature,
|> resulting in inaccurate altitude readings.

Its actually worse than that. In direct sun on a cool day the temperature 
swings between shade and sun can be severe enough to cause discrepancies of
nearly a thousand feet.

I take pains to keep my Casio at a fairly constant temp if I want to 
rely on its accuracy.

-- 
* steve_shostek@mentorg.com         | Harmony with land is like harmony with  *
* sshostek@mentorg.com              | a friend. You cannot cherish his right  *
* {uunet, attunix}!mntgfx!sshostek  | hand and chop off his left.             *
*                                   |          --Aldo Leopold                 *
Newsgroups: rec.backcountry
From: liboff51@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca (Joyce Cummings)
Subject: Hiking in Western Australia
Organization: University of Waterloo
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 02:06:53 GMT


Newsgroups: rec.backcountry
From: trzyna@CS.ColoState.EDU (wayne trzyna)
Subject: Re: Multiplying in the Backcountry (kids/population)
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 18:45:30 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Colorado State University, Computer Science Department

In article <10797@vice.ICO.TEK.COM> hall@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Hal F Lillywhite) writes:
>In article <Nov18.214814.69046@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU> trzyna@CS.ColoState.EDU (wayne trzyna) writes:
>
>>The world population has been growing monotonically since day one of
>>human history.  How is this a short term question?  I think we are
>>over-analyzing.
>
>Wayne, your zeal is commendable but I'm afraid in this case it is
>not matched by your knowledge.  Your statement above is quite wrong.

I knew some one would ping me on this, but figured most would filter out
the spikes and look at the function from a high level.  I should have known
better, with such an analytical readership.

>Among other things you will find there a graph of world population
>over about the last 8000 years.  It oscillates about a slowly
>increasing trend until the advent of the plague when it takes a
>sharp downturn.  Thereafter it takes an even sharper upturn with 
>the industrial revolution.

Again, filter the spikes, and the function increases monotonically.
(Of course, we all know this cannot continue indefinately, and therein
lies the problem!)

>Death rate now exceeds birth rate, at least in the U.S.

Being caught up in the parts, we fail to see the whole.
-- a common modus operandi in these analytic times.  The population of
BOTH the United States and the world are growing, period.  Only a fool
would deny this and you are clearly no fool.

>If you want to reduce the birth rate, forget the preaching and worry
>about economics.

Many economists work for corporations and government.  Both are apparently
caught up in vested interests, and advocate the immigration of cheap labor
into this country.  I will continue to preach.  Economics is a science,
a tool, and tools are passive solving nothing in and of themselves.
People solve problems.  The first step is to acknowlege that the problem
exists.  Currently, population is not even on most environmentalists
agendas, the US gov't does nothing about massive immigration, and both
our tax and welfare systems reward those who procreate to excess. 

Your points about economics are insightful.  And the aids virus does provide
hope.  But a problem arises if we let these notions pacify us into inaction.

Well, I guess its back to recycling aluminum cans: better living through
metallurgy.
-- 

-Wayne Trzyna
 trzyna@CS.ColoState.EDU
Newsgroups: rec.backcountry
From: ssave@ole.cdac.com (The Devil Reincarnate)
Subject: Warm clothing while hiking
Organization: CDAC, WA
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 19:18:23 GMT

 
 I need some recommendations for clothing while hiking in cool/cold/chilly 
weather.  I find that I warm up quite a bit soon after I start walking and
it becomes uncomfortable to keep the same clothes on. On the other hand, the
moment I stop for a break, within 10 min or so, I get chilled to the bone!

 What do you wear when it gets cold?  Also, wearing all this bulky layering
clothing is not comfortable, and restricts movement. What happens if it is
raining? This is the Pacific NW, and everything you read about the rains
here is true :-)

 Anyone who has suggestions on what to wear, and what works for them, please
tell me?

-Shailendra
ssave@ole.cdac.com
From: ewg@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Ethan Gannett)
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 23:36:07 GMT
Subject: Re: FIRST-AIDS KITS
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA
Newsgroups: rec.backcountry

I would like to second Alan's point.  It takes one day out of your life to 
get trained in community CPR.  Seems like a negligible investment when it
comes to a loved one's life in your hands.  Everyone should at least know how
to do CPR no less have basic first aid knowledge.

Ethan Gannett
From: jreece@sousa.intel.com (John Reece)
Newsgroups: rec.backcountry
Subject: Re: The overpopulation problem. NOT!
Date: 19 Nov 92 17:26:43 GMT
Reply-To: jreece@sousa.intel.com
Organization: Intel - Information Technologies

In article <1992Nov18.123756.1@vmsb.is.csupomona.edu>, cvakgaaq@vmsb.is.csupomona.edu writes:

> 	Who gave you title to your "favorite" bit of backcountry? I'll bet
> someone else claims you ruined it when you came along and used it. 

The first 50 people to get in a 50-person lifeboat have a perfect right
to tell the 51st "Sorry, next one".

> 	Austin Moseley
> --"The Earth is just an apparatus for human ambitions."

"This lifeboat is full." 

-- 
John Reece				
Not an Intel spokesman
From: imkg2726@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Ilana M. Kingsley)
Newsgroups: rec.backcountry
Subject: Water (?) in Big Bend National Park
Date: 18 Nov 92 05:29:09 GMT
Article-I.D.: news.BxwCKn.KFD
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana

My husband and I are planning to backpack in Big Bend for 10 days during
December. I've called the rangers and they informed me that there is no
water and the only way to backpack for that length of time is to stash
water on the trail ahead of time.  However, several years ago I was at Big
Bend and there were plenty of tijana's (water holes) to get water from.
Since I've had bad information from rangers in other pts of the country, 
I'm not tt sure howliable her information was.

Does anyone know the current water condition in Big Bend?

I.K.
Newsgroups: rec.backcountry
From: marlatt@spot.Colorado.EDU (Stuart W. Marlatt)
Subject: Re: other bashing.
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1992 20:10:31 GMT

In article <1992Nov13.221319.4902@nas.nasa.gov> eugene@wilbur.nas.nasa.gov (Eugene N. Miya) writes:
>In article <1992Nov13.184234.22193@news.arc.nasa.gov>
>watson@pioneer.arc.nasa.gov (John S. Watson - FSC) writes:
>>If you don't like the writings of St. Eddie, 
>>which backcountry authors do you [the Abbey Bashers especially] 
>>think is better (or prefer)?
>
>	Colin Fletcher (just finished Secret Worlds [bashed by a Compuserve
>			poster])
>	Rachel Carson (bashed all the time by John "LISP" McCarthy in other
>			newsgroups)
>	Dave Roberts (bashed by light weights)
>	Jeff Long (occasionally interesting climbing fiction)
>	Art Davidson (2/3 books very impressive)	
>
>	Various things on panel 28.  I'd rather build that up.
Add these to your list
        Aldo Leopold - you've already got him on a panel
        John Long (Largo). Sometimes good, sometimes, well...
        Mark Twain (Clemens).
        Tasker / Boardman. Excellent description of the lives which
                           led up to the inevitable.
        Norbert Casteret.
>
>>Don't worry, I'm not going to bash any of your choices ...
>
>You should!
I will.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Polyphiloprogenitive                                                      
The sapient sutlers of the Lord                                           
  --T.S. Eliot, Mr. Eliot's Sunday Morning Service                        
..............................................................................
s.w. marlatt, <><  &  *(:-)               Prov. 25.2
University of Colorado:                   marlatt@spot.Colorado.edu  492-3939
National Center for Atmospheric Research: marlatt@neit.cgd.ucar.edu  497-1669
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>


Newsgroups: rec.backcountry
From: karl@thuja.gsfc.nasa.gov (Karl A. Anderson)
Subject: Re: Abbey bashing.  Was: Trip rpt: SE Utah 4wd vacation, part 3/4
Organization: NASA/GSFC Laboratory for Terrestrial Physics
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 23:29:21 GMT

In article <Nov17.162828.53951@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU>, trzyna@CS.ColoState.EDU (wayne trzyna) writes:
|> In article <1992Nov17.140235.29055@porthos.cc.bellcore.com> mpb@troy.cc.bellcore.com (bunz,marcus p) writes:
|> >
|> >While I'll agree that the days of having 10 & 12 children are long gone,
|> >due to the fact that most of them will survive to adulthood and reproduce
|> >(no true that very long ago, in the whole scheme of things). I don't
|> >think that limiting people to one or even two children would be good
|> >in the US.  If I'm not mistaken, the population of the US has been
|> >flat or declining slightly, if you exclude emigrants.
|> 
|> Ah, statistics.  If you exclude this, tweak that, invert this, and
|> normalize that you'll see the population is really declining, the
|> economic future is bright, and the sun rises in the west...

Does anyone have any authoritative statistics on the contribution immigration,
both legal and illegal, makes to the rate of population growth in the U.S.?

-- 
Karl A. Anderson		| Internet: karl@thuja.gsfc.nasa.gov
NASA/GSFC code 920.2 (HSTX)	| voice: (301) 286-3815
Greenbelt, MD 20771		| #include "std_disclaimer"
From: hall@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Hal F Lillywhite)
Newsgroups: rec.backcountry
Subject: Re: Multiplying in the Backcountry (kids/population)
Date: 18 Nov 92 19:49:23 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Tektronix Inc., Beaverton, Or.

In article <Nov18.173330.55951@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU> trzyna@CS.ColoState.EDU (wayne trzyna) writes:

>If the statistics imply that the population is not growing, then
>the statistics are OBVIOUSLY incorrect.  Sheesh!

I think you missed the point.  Nobody disputes that population is
growing now.  We are in the echo of the baby boom, compounded by a
high rate of immigration (much of it illegal).  We can predict that
the baby boom echo will go away.  Immigration is less predictable.
The whole thing came about when somebody claimed that the birth rate
in this country is less than the replacement rate.  That is quite
true but by no means the only thing which governs population growth.

Fertility rate is a good predictor of population growth over the
long term in the absence of immigration.  There will always be
fluctuations in short term population growth.  It would make no
sense to apply a long term tool to short term questions.
Xref: sparky rec.backcountry:9086 sci.environment:12904 talk.environment:4698 alt.wolves:233
From: cvakgaaq@vmsb.is.csupomona.edu
Newsgroups: rec.backcountry,sci.environment,talk.environment,alt.wolves
Subject: Re: Alaska to shoot hundreds of wolves from airplanes
Date: 20 Nov 92 20:43:48 GMT
Organization: California State Polytechnic University, Pomona
Nntp-Posting-User: cvakgaaq

> A number of wildlife biologests say that killing 
> hundreds of Alaska wolves each year would not guarantee a 
> population explosion of large animals.  In some areas,
> 80 percent of the wolves, which run in packs of eight to 30
> animals, would be killed.
> 
> 'Bad biology'
> 
> "This decision is bad biology all around, 
> almost insulting from a scientific standpoint,"
> said Dr. Gordon Haber, a wildlife scientist 
> who has been studying wolves in Alaska for 27 years.
> 
        Is this for real?

	This will radically stress the current culture of the Wolves.
Will the sudden decrease in competition from other packs and the corresponding
increase in prey give rise to new organizations among the wolves? Will their
range increase or their pack's size? Or the opposite? It is sure to lead to 
a famine and mass die-off amongst the prey after a brief expansion. Look 
for a lot more highway deaths and train derailments, too.
	The funny thing about this is that in the next few centuries the
populations in the North will decrease because the treeline is rapidly moving
south in response to Global cooling caused by the Milankovitch cycle. The
Caribou will hang around, but the Moose and the Deer will have to head south,
too. You think they could just plant more food species or clear more forests if
they want more herbivores.
	I think someone just wants to hunt wolves..

-Austin
	The Law of Unintended Consequences  will have a lot of things to say
about this.
Newsgroups: rec.backcountry
From: "Michael Smith" <p00004@psilink.com>
Subject: Re: Abbey bashing.
Organization: Performance Systems Int'l
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 17:09:04 GMT
X-Mailer: PSILink (3.2)

>DATE:   Wed, 18 Nov 1992 15:39:10 GMT
>FROM:   SMITH RANDALL SCOTT <smithrs@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>

>Philosophical babblings aside, I've come to the logical conclusion that 
>Christians, Catholics in particular, are hell-bent on bringing about the
>second coming.  The Lord said, "Go forth an multiply, spread your seed across
>the lands!" or some such nonsense. 

Actually, I think it was old Yahweh, the peevish Sky-father of the 
ancient Hebrews, who said this, and Abraham to whom he said it. (If 
childhood Sunday-school memories serve.)

--Michael Smith

Xref: sparky rec.backcountry:9112 sci.environment:12918 talk.environment:4711 alt.wolves:242
From: tucker@shiva.edsg.hac.com (George Tucker)
Newsgroups: rec.backcountry,sci.environment,talk.environment,alt.wolves
Subject: Re: Alaska to shoot hundreds of wolves from airplanes
Keywords: They Shoot Wolves, Don't They?    or Never Cry Wolf.
Date: 21 Nov 92 00:21:12 GMT
Reply-To: tucker@shiva.UUCP (George Tucker)
Organization: Hughes Aircraft Co., El Segundo, CA

In article <1992Nov20.193758.7601@meteor.wisc.edu> tobis@meteor.wisc.edu (Michael Tobis) writes:
>
>`"These animals are being managed for the benefit of man, and that's the way
>it should be," Mr. Smith said.'

>This "for the benefit of man" argument as presented above is complete hooey.
>The proposed measure is only for the benefit of a few people who like
>to shoot game animals, and want the state to tilt the odds in their favor.

It's for the benefit of guides, who hire lobbyists and grease palms.  They
couldn't care less about the "benefit of man", what tourists will see, or the
health of the animals.  

I saw a lot of moose and caribou and grizs in Alaska, but only one wolf.
I would much rather go back to see more wolves than more moose.  Besides,
the moose hang around near highways because the wolves don't.
No wolves -> fewer visible moose.

Maybe they will have wolf farms to restock the wilds so the hunters can
be guided to their prey indefinitely.

	 George Tucker        tucker@shiva.hac.com
	Signature line awaiting FDA approval.

Newsgroups: rec.backcountry