Why leaving “nature� alone means destruction of the wilderness.

[BTS]

n

This fence separates land rested for 50 years from land that's been grazed for 130 years. In the foreground, the rested land shows too clearly why people who survived on the bounty of the land didn't like "pristine" land. Behind the fence, grazing and good management have created an oasis of abundance in a land with little rain.

Full story here:
http://www.rangemagazine.com/feature...naturehtml.htm

[gmc]

Interesting article. Point of view I've seen before. We have similar situations here with conservationists assuming conservation means no one goes on the hills. look from afar sort of attitude.

[john8pies]

Mmm, interesting. But I`ve heard the opposite view expressed about many, many similar things.

[gmc]

Then again the conservationists were ignored when they said don't plough up the prairies leading to the dust bowl disasters. They are also ignored when they point out too much water is being taken for agriculture. There's good points on both sides, pity they get polarised. Bear in mind my knowledge of the US is kind of limited since ot is only of passing interest.

It's a bit different in the UK there is not a piece of ground that has not had the hand of man on it at some point. here the conservationists tend to antagonise the ones who would tend to support them i.e. the outdoor pursuits enthusiasts, who are a phenomenal contribution to the rural economy, by trying to stop people walking in areas where it has gone on since time immemorial.

[anastrophe]

Originally Posted by gmc

Then again the conservationists were ignored when they said don't plough up the prairies leading to the dust bowl disasters.

do you have a citation for this? i was under the impression that the dynamics of topsoil erosion were simply not known at the time. it's not that any conservationists were ignored, it's that nobody knew it would happen.

as i said, that was the impression i had. i could be wrong.

[gmc]

posted by anastrophe

do you have a citation for this? i was under the impression that the dynamics of topsoil erosion were simply not known at the time. it's not that any conservationists were ignored, it's that nobody knew it would happen.

as i said, that was the impression i had. i could be wrong.

http://www.english.uiuc.edu/maps/dep...n/dustbowl.htm

http://www.usd.edu/anth/epa/dust.html

http://www.drought.unl.edu/whatis/dustbowl.htm

It's not an area or time I profess to know much about, environmentalist as such didn't exist so I could be wrong as well. Maybe it's from reading all those westerns, but was part of the conflict between cattlemen and the farmers not that one group argued ploughing was not the way to use the land?. i.e there were people pointing to possible problems. I doubt very much if it could have been foreseen on the scale it occurred.

Mankind habitually destroys his environment, then when it recovers sets about doing the same thing again-at least historically he has, now there is nowhere to migrate to.

[anastrophe]

Originally Posted by gmc

posted by anastrophe


http://www.english.uiuc.edu/maps/dep...n/dustbowl.htm

http://www.usd.edu/anth/epa/dust.html

http://www.drought.unl.edu/whatis/dustbowl.htm

It's not an area or time I profess to know much about, environmentalist as such didn't exist so I could be wrong as well. Maybe it's from reading all those westerns, but was part of the conflict between cattlemen and the farmers not that one group argued ploughing was not the way to use the land?. i.e there were people pointing to possible problems. I doubt very much if it could have been foreseen on the scale it occurred.

Mankind habitually destroys his environment, then when it recovers sets about doing the same thing again-at least historically he has, now there is nowhere to migrate to.

reading those sites, it's clear that what occurred was due primarily to a massive drought, and ignorance, rather than farmers willfully ignoring the danger of topsoil erosion. they simply did not know any better.

in the case of the great plains of the US, the lessons were indeed learned, and have not been repeated since the catastrophe of the dust bowls. sound management of the land has been in place and continually practiced since then.

[anastrophe]

Originally Posted by Jives

You can argue against me, but you know in your heart it's true. The Earth is doomed.

gee whiz, jives. you're awfully pessimistic. i hope your students don't pick up that subliminal message in your classes!

[gmc]

posted by Jives

You can argue against me, but you know in your heart it's true. The Earth is doomed.

Earth abides, but I'm not sure about mankind.

By way of contrast I live in a country where there is nowhere that has not been touched by man, land that used to be covered in temperate rain forest is now grouse moor and people think it is natural. The few areas where the natural forest remains are startling in contrast. On the other hand there is something incredibly evocative about standing next to a standing stone or a stone circle erected thousands of years before, the most evocative ones are the lonely ones in the hills where you get a greater sense of the power of nature. Places like stonehenge have no atmosphere. I've always wondered what the conversation must have been like.
Let's erect a stone circle.
Why?
Because we need a temple.
Why?
because, don't argue about things you don't understand.
What will happen if we don't build a temple?
The gods will be angry and the harvest will fail and there will be no animals to hunt.
Why would the crops fail and there will be no animals to hunt if we don't build a temple when that isn't happening now and how do you know that they will fail?
Because the gods talk to me.
Why you and not me?
Because you are not worthy.
Build a temple and give me food and your wealth and I will teach you about god.

Now we have GM crops
Give me all your wealth and I will give you GM crops and herbicides designed to kill everything except the specially designed crops
Why do we need to do that?
Because you will be able to grow more food.
What about all the animals and plants that die out as a result.
You will be able to grow more food.
But won't the demise of all the other wild plants and the animals that feed on them be bad in the long run? If I go down this route I will have to buy your herbicides and pesticides to keep growing more food.
This is good for you.
Why?
Because it is you will be able to grow more food you don't understand the science.
I'm not stupid why don't you explain it to me.
You will be able to grow more food
What about the knock on effect.
There is no knock on effect.
How do you know that?
Because there isn't.
Because I am a scientist and i know better.

posted by anastrophe

reading those sites, it's clear that what occurred was due primarily to a massive drought, and ignorance, rather than farmers willfully ignoring the danger of topsoil erosion. they simply did not know any better.

in the case of the great plains of the US, the lessons were indeed learned, and have not been repeated since the catastrophe of the dust bowls. sound management of the land has been in place and continually practiced since then.

Like i say I don't profess to be an expert on the great plains of America. I'm curious is it a period that gets studied in American schools? That whole era let to enormous social change, in europe as well.

Some of the nuttier environmentalists do their cause harm. On the other hand I don't trust the representatives of agri business that try and convince us they know what is good for us to eat. They have a long record of covering up problems and pretending there isn't any. There is a fairly powerful backlash against them in the EEC as a whole

We do have major problems with plant, bird and animal populations being decimated by over intensive farming and use of chemicals. It gets in to the food chain and affects us all. Pumping hormnes in to cattle and chickens to fatten them may produce more meat but do you want to eat it?

[BTS]

Originally Posted by Jives

I grew up in the wilderness of Montana and Colorado. My father and I went to places men had ever been, untouched, unspoiled. When we camped, we opened a hole in the sod to make a fire pit, when we left we replaced the sod and even fluffed the grass back up. You literally couldn't tell we had been there. The deer were so tame they would eat out of your hand. Herds of Pronghorn Antelope crossed the highway in thousands.

(We were backpackers, true nature lovers, and we disdained anyone who even rode horses into the back country as lazy bums who stunk up the trail with horse manure.)

Now....quadrunners and dirtbikes howl down the trails. Snowmobiles shatter the silence of the Winter. People go "camping" in house sized RV's with satellite TV and microwaves.

Even the canyons around my house, which were once beautiful cedar and spruce forests, are now illegal dumping grounds, the sandstone covered with graffitti, and the trees cut by illegal loggers.

Mankind will destroy all nature soon. I give us about a millenium, possibly as short as a couple of hudred years. It'll be all gone.

Ever see that movie, "Silent Running"? It's going to come true. I long ago gave up fighting the inevitable, nature and all it's beauty is under a death sentence from mankind. So all you hunters out there...you'd better hurry up and get your quota!

Put those heads up on the wall for your grandchildren to see, because that and an occasional TV documentary are all that they will ever have.

You can argue against me, but you know in your heart it's true. The Earth is doomed.

I love this line "true nature lovers" as opposed to what? "un-true nature lovers"? You back packers would not know horse ***** from bear *****!! I was raised running cattle in the Sierra Nevadas' of CA., just as my father, grandfather and his father had for years. Weird that all the conservation minded people say these same lands that have been abused (their words) for years are the "LAST OF THE PRISTINE LANDS LEFT ON EARTH". Weird huh. Explain why that might be?

Did you bother to read the article? Do you believe that this land was managed by Native Americans prior to our arrival? Heaven forbid.......
Do you dipute the proof that resting the land for years is more detrimental than "Smart Grazing"

Quote:
"Oh God forbid, no! In the classroom, my message is universally positive and optimistic! I would never let out a single pessimistic view there!"

I find it hard to believe with your Nay_Sayer attitude, that it is not rubbed off on your students to some degree. I know I had a few Nay-Sayer teachers in my day.