Perhaps the most effective conservation measure ever enacted by congress was the wilderness act in 1964. A small percentage of Americans even know what designated wilderness means, yet so many benefit from the clean water, vast un-marred landscapes, and recreational benefits. On the 50th anniversary of wilderness, I'd like to start a discussion about what wilderness means to you (congressionally designated or not).
The american wilderness system is one of the last remaining hopes for the giants of my homeland. I grew up in a logging town, in a logging family. "Spotted owl helper" in a box parodying "Hamburger helper" was a common joke item in offices and homes - You can only feel so much sympathy for a critter costing the jobs of people you know and love. Cutting down trees was just part of daily life - Trucks would go by every day with loads of logs, each a couple feet in diameter. In every cafe around my hometown, there's a few picture somewhere - Maybe one's of a giant log, at least six feet in diameter. It's been cut down and loaded on a truck, just about to be hauled off to the mill. Or maybe there's a huge two-man saw above the order counter - Far too massive to make any sense with modern trees. Sometimes there's a picture of that saw in use, with men climbing 10 feet up the tree before they get to a point thin enough for the giant blade. Out back in the forest behind my childhood home, there was a tree stump bigger than any tree I'd ever seen in my life. I never thought much about it. Over the years, I've pieced together what happened before my birth. They cut them down. Almost all of them. Innumerable giant douglas firs and cedar trees used to dominate the landscape I live in. A continuous forest of giant trees stretching from California up through British Columbia. But men came with saws, and saw good lumber in those quiet giants. They felled one... then another, and another, and another. There were so many of them, they were just money for the taking! But giants are slow to grow, and so terribly, terribly quick to fall. An old growth forest thousands of years in the making, supporting a unique ecosystem found nowhere else on earth... completely gone within the span of a few short human generations. It, in fact, took 28 years for me to figure out where the giants still existed, and go visit one. A tiny state park, virtually unknown on the map. The ranger I bought my pass from even disparaged his park, saying that several others were much better. But none of those parks had giants, and his did - Just a few. But bigger, more majestic trees than I've ever seen in my life. I'd like to see more before I die. The logging companies own the vast majority of the forest around here, and are very utilitarian - Replants are done solely with doug fir, not the traditional mix of doug fir, hemlock, and slow growing cedars. And no tree lives long past 50 years, let alone the 500+ needed for big trees. Giants won't be seen on logging company land again. The national park system is corrupt to the core - Ostensibly safeguarding land for all, the timber is instead sold off to the highest bidder. Frequently roads are even built for the use of the logging companies, at no expense to them. No giants will reclaim that land. I'll never see the old forest reclaim its ancient glory - I don't live anywhere near long enough, and most of the range is owned by timber companies or national forest anyway. But where no roads can be built, no modern logging can happen. The wilderness system protects a few, rare patches of land. And on those patches of land, a few hundred years in the future, maybe the giants can reign again, and give future generations a small glimpse of the glory of the ancient forest I missed out on. That we all missed out on.
Are you talking specifically about where you lived? Because the Alaskan preservation of wilderness and the national parks there are defended almost to an aggressively stubborn degree. Denali, for example is a cornerstone of public parks. I would doubt very much that companies could buy that for any price.The national park system is corrupt to the core - Ostensibly safeguarding land for all, the timber is instead sold off to the highest bidder. Frequently roads are even built for the use of the logging companies, at no expense to them. No giants will reclaim that land.
Oh, absolutely - Mostly I was speaking out of experience of the Gifford Pinchot, Mount Hood, and willamette national forests. I also glossed over the really complex issue of ownership of public lands - By various definitions, public land can be owned by logging companies, the BLM, the various state forest systems, the national monument system, the national forest system, and, most pertinently, the national park system. Back when the need for protecting land for public use was a new and rare idea, there were two schools of thought about how to do it. Some, like Mr. Gifford Pinchot (Which my local national forest is named after) saw the land as a resource to be managed. Others saw the need to conserve what was there, protecting it from being harvested. The differences split out into two separate systems - The national forest system, and the national park system. The national forest system allows mining claims - Find gold or other rare minerals on its land, file the appropriate paperwork, and you can dig a mine halfway to china without anyone batting an eyelash. It also does timber sales, selling the trees on sections of land to whoever will buy them. Permits are available to harvest any goods on them for commercial purposes - Lots of huckleberry pickers around here, for example. The national park system, which includes my local Olympic national park and your Denali, is completely different. No mining claims are allowed, no timber sales are done, and the parks are usually protected from their visitors by a labyrinth of bureaucracy. Seriously, I am not sure I'm smart enough to successfully visit the Olympic national park. The other methods of land ownership are also worth discussing, while I've mentioned them. Most logging company lands allows day use on them, provided you don't get in the way of any active logging operations. That makes them a public space as far as anyone in a logging town is concerned - Hunting, fishing, hikes, etc. etc. The BLM has a similar idea of land management to the national forest system, but I didn't mention it in my comment since, while it owns large chunks of the eastern Washington/Oregon deserts, it owns virtually none of the forests. Not sure why that is. The state park systems can either allow logging or disallow. The Clatsop state forest in Oregon, for example, sells timber, while the Lewis and Clark state park in Washington does not. That state park is where I saw my first giant - It's less than a square mile in size, though. You'll wander through and see all it has in a few hours. It's surrounded on several sides by logging clearcuts too- How's that for irony? The national monument system has a very similar outlook to the national park system - Extremely protective and very bureaucratic. It doesn't usually protect large swathes of land, but the area around Mt. Saint Helens has been under their jurisdiction since the volcano blew. It'll be a hundred years yet before there's any kind of forest there again, though, and when that happens it may lose the special status that made it a monument in the first place. Cheers!
Do you mean why are they allowed to log on national forest land, or why are they allowed to own most of the land around here? I have an OK answer for the first, not much of an answer for the second, but I can say that the whole situation with the logging companies precedes the "Corporations are people" attitude by a very long time.
If you are interested, there's a chilling documentary on the ELF that I'd recommend: If a Tree Falls. Also to mknod and thenewgreen. I grew up in the area where some of those arsons took place. I recall one day where there were reports of pipe bombs strapped to the bottom of SUVs in Salem, OR. Similarly, I can identify with the silent rage that one feels after seeing clear cuts. Cracked earth in that region is absolutely mind-numbing to see. Ultimately, I believe Wilderness is a myth. The origin of the word wilderness comes from something like 'self-willed'. The word came into usage around the same time in the history of English that the common road for 'ocean' was equivalent to 'whale-road'. It is an old word from a different time. Just as we don't consider the ocean a highway for giant sea creatures, we know the wilderness isn't acting on its own. It's fenced in - par-baked and ripe for the taking. The most visible and aesthetic features survive as images on stamped postcards, which are perhaps ironically made from the invisible devastation. Quarterly reports on the population of white-tailed deer - which only populate the outer rim of a healthy forest - keep the myth alive that our forest system is doing well, and our uncles keep hunting them, thinking to themselves 'I love the wilderness'. Environmental tourism is a facade, a convenient distractor for the US's ecocide.
Also, I appreciated your telling of where you grew up and your experience seeing the "giants" in person. Can I ask where you saw them, which park and in what part of the US you grew up? I'd be interested in seeing some "virgin forest" myself some day. Thanks.The national park system is corrupt to the core - Ostensibly safeguarding land for all, the timber is instead sold off to the highest bidder. Frequently roads are even built for the use of the logging companies, at no expense to them. No giants will reclaim that land.
-Is this truly the case? Are logging companies allowed to take timbre out of National Parks?
Hi there! Another fellow had a very similar question, so I made sure to answer most your questions in his reply to keep things together. Here's a link. I grew up a little north of Portland, Oregon. Cheers!
The wilderness to me represents a sort of freedom from the every day. It's a Jack London novel. It's the survival of your own with the tragedy and love of every day. I don't mean to wax poetic, but waking up every day knowing that no person has control of your actions is quite freeing.
People do go crazy when they're alone for too long though.
I don't want to rant but long story short I'm the closest thing short of a treehugger and if it was up to me we'd all live in a hole in the ground in a forest and never see a tv or computer in our lives. I urge anyone who is considering going overseas from North America for vacation or a trip: Go to the country (again, not the American country) even if it's Europe, say France Italy or Germany. Ideally, South Africa or the Caucasus. Now, eat an apple. Or a pear, or a peach, or a cucumber or a tomato. Just try one, from a tree. IT FUCKING TASTES BEAUTIFUL. YOU"LL NEVER EAT AMERICAN FRUITS AND VEGETABLES AGAIN. SHIT HERE IS PLASTIC, MOTHERFUCKER. THERE ARE REAL FUCKING APPLES GROWING ON TREES THE WAY TREES WERE SUPPOSED TO GROW BEFORE MONSANTO SHAT ALL OVER OUR ECOSYSTEM. They're yummy, seriously. America can be that. We have some of the most beautiful national parks on the planet. Let's teach ourselves to use the unprotected lands with respect, moderation, and love. Cause that's really all you need for some damn tasty apples.
Anecdotal, but I have tasted no difference between the fruits and veggies in Europe vs the ones in the US.IT FUCKING TASTES BEAUTIFUL. YOU"LL NEVER EAT AMERICAN FRUITS AND VEGETABLES AGAIN. SHIT HERE IS PLASTIC, MOTHERFUCKER. THERE ARE REAL FUCKING APPLES GROWING ON TREES THE WAY TREES WERE SUPPOSED TO GROW BEFORE MONSANTO SHAT ALL OVER OUR ECOSYSTEM. They're yummy, seriously.
Then you gotta go further south and southeast and east. I haven't tasted European fruit, but there is a genuine (really, not placebo) difference where I've been. Have you picked a fruit off a tree in Europe?
mknod and nowaypablo, the difference is in having fruit/veggies of an heirloom variety. Food in the states and elsewhere has largely been bred to be shipped/stored/packaged etc. An apple is a great example, or a tomato. Their skins have been bred to be thicker and therefore more resilient to bruising. They have been bred to be perfectly round and uniform in color and shape/size. In the selective breeding of these fruits and veggies, much of their innate flavor has been changed too. You don't need to go to Europe to taste these things, or anywhere else for that matter. You can grow them in your own garden or you can head to your nearest Whole Foods or other such grocer and get heirloom fruits veggies. There is most certainly a difference in taste/quality though. I travel a good bit and in almost every hotel there is a large bowl full of complimentary apples/banana's in the lobby. I buy all natural/organic apples at home and the difference between the two is night and day. The hotel apples taste like they're covered in wax. Not sure why you think you need to go to Europe to eat good vegetables though. Go to your local farmers market.
Don't local and small-cap farmers depend more on that selective breeding? It's undeniable that Whole Foods and home-grown vs. the hotel is more than a subtle difference in taste, but you're undertaking the same processes "naturally" that Monsanto's shitheads are enhancing biochemically. You're still right though, there is good quality to be found in the states as well. However, I've personally noticed the difference significantly where I've been, that's all I'm saying.
I have a cousin that has a small farm. He grows heirloom variety vegetables that have nothing to do with monsanto and in no way are being bred for shape, size etc. It's old-school farming. He earns his living selling to restaurants and at farmers markets. I'd wager his vegetables taste as good as any. They're wonderful.but you're undertaking the same processes "naturally" that Monsanto's shitheads are enhancing biochemically.
Please elaborate.
I mean, your cousin will select the best veggies to sell, and the most marketable veggies' seeds to re-grow. Eventually, the rounder skin and other surface-appealing traits will dominate, and there is no way to tell if the DNA of those increasingly-nicer-looking veggies result in a taste worse than a misshapen one. Monsanto is in the same business as your cousin, even if your cousin is not so serious and business-focused, and is just doing it for pleasure and fun. They both still want the best-looking (marketable) fruits, unless your cousin explicitly selects the seeds of the best-tasting fruits in his crop, as opposed to the best-looking ones. Monsanto, instead of waiting for them to grow and pick out the best ones, creates the "best" ones artificially. Their end objective is the same.
Monsanto, instead of waiting for them to grow and pick out the best ones, creates the "best" ones artificially. Their end objective is the same.
The end objective is FAR from the same and the difference can be summed up in the definition of the word "best." There is a large movement of farmers in the US intent on growing the best tasting fruits/veggies without the aid of artificial means/processes. This exists and it's growing. In fact, the idea of small batch, high quality seems to be catching on in many aspects, not just food. I'm encouraged by it.
Yes, this is still on my point. Technically Monsanto isn't aiming to decrease the quality of taste in food, they're sacrificing it for marketability. A farmer trying to increase profit but not yield GMOs will naturally select the exact same traits for their crops, that Monsanto will genetically modify for its clients. In this I believe they have the same definition of best. Now, a farmer who disregards increasing profit potential will take a slower "noble" route of naturally selecting the best tasting crops, as you said. It is the product of counter-culture which exploded ironically (again, counter-culture) into what is now indistinguishable from the mass market-- see Whole Foods-- that allows those farmers to still make enough money to stay competitive in the market, because Whole Foods may explicitly ask for those delicious ol' heirlooms. Without places like Whole Foods, a farmer would have to potentially decrease taste in the process of increasing marketable eye-appeal just like Monsanto would, even if the local farmer's means were not genetic modification. I don't think we're on opposite ends of the table, I'm just shit at explaining things.There is a large movement of farmers in the US intent on growing the best tasting fruits/veggies without the aid of artificial means/processes.
Now, a farmer who disregards increasing profit potential will take a slower "noble" route of naturally selecting the best tasting crops, as you said
Wrong. You are assuming that this noble endeavor is sacrificing profitability. These farmers are able to command more money per ounce for their products than conventional fruits/vegs
Ok, I'll take that. But how so? Isn't Monsanto swimming in cash by selling tasteless fruit that packages well, grows big and looks nice? edit: oh wait I got you. This is true. Hm, I got some thinkin' to do.
My cousin has a smaller niche he sells to. Hotels, restaurant chains and grocery chains buy in large bulk and generally don't give a shit about flavor and will nickel and dime their suppliers to get the most affordable, not highest quality, goods. We're talking about semi's full of pallets of tomato's vs a pick up truck with a bushel of them. The bushel has a higher margin but the pallet has more volume. I'm sure you get it, right? Basic supply/demand.
Yes I do understand, I didn't read your last reply carefully. My mistake was forgetting to account for the higher price of local farmers for their product. Thanks for your patience :D
To me, this whole issue highlights the necessity for artisan markets across all kinds of products. It's only through the demand for high-quality (non-GMO) crops that keeps those heirloom varietals in meaningful production, which preserves biodiversity.
I've been seeing a ton of artisan markets starting to pop up. This past week alone I went to three farmers markets in three different towns, ranging from 15 vendors to upwards of 60. I find the smaller ones are more likely to have great fruits and vegetables, but the larger ones will have a better selection of grass fed meats, small batch cheese producers, and other things I'm likely to buy. tng mentioned paying a premium for it, but I for one am happy to pay that premium. Especially after talking to the folks that show up and try to sell meat out of ice chests and the bread they baked a few hours earlier.
I'm with you 100% Part of this notion of equality we talk about so much in modern dialogue should include a greater respect for 'the least of us.' A farmer, a true artisan, a master of their craft who cares about producing a quality product for consumers in a sustainable way, should be elevated in respect in a similar manner to how we elevate people who don't actually produce anything (High finance, executive types etc)
I've eaten tomatoes picked straight from the ground in Italy, I've eaten apples off of a tree in Paris (a rare treat), I've had Menemen in Turkey made fresh from the garden owned by our Hotel operators. Honestly it was all very good, but I see no difference between the good food there and the good food here.Then you gotta go further south and southeast and east. I haven't tasted European fruit, but there is a genuine (really, not placebo) difference where I've been. Have you picked a fruit off a tree in Europe?
Huh, alright then. Fair enough I guess, I could've just been having some record-shattering food the last few summers. I retract my claim to the sole region of Armenia! Shit's stellar over there!
Sure lol go for it, we're a simple bunch in that we sorta just put random greens on random meats and wrap it in random breads and leaves and shit. Comes out great sometimes though, I wouldn't discourage you from it.