Wilderness
As Michael Lipsky points out, wilderness is a great thing, but it’s not something devoid of human influence. In fact, these are spaces that are heavily managed by humans and protected by legislation that must be enforced by an activist government. In fact, wilderness is evidence about the great things our government can do, not that humans should leave nature alone or that wilderness represents a pure, primitive world devoid of government.
“Anecdote of the Jar” by Wallace Stevens
I placed a jar in Tennessee,
And round it was, upon a hill.
It made the slovenly wilderness
Surround that hill.
The wilderness rose up to it,
And sprawled around, no longer wild.
The jar was round upon the ground
And tall and of a port in air.
It took dominion every where.
The jar was gray and bare.
It did not give of bird or bush,
Like nothing else in Tennessee.
Kind of a strange argument to me, as wilderness predated the state by a good while and expropriation of the commons for private use has been far more typical of government in the past.
Protected wilderness is evidence of the good ways that government can manage human interaction to prevent exclusion from a natural good.
Sort of like there was clean, unpolluted air in 10,000 BC, well before the Clean Air Act.
You’re missing something.
No I’m not.
as wilderness predated the state by a good while
But it did not.
Look, was what is now Canadian hinterland wilderness in 3,000 BCE? I mean, humans were there in numbers sufficient to wipe out numerous species; we clearly had quite an impact.
Is the area around Chernobyl wilderness? There are no humans there now, and “nature” has quite taken back over.
“Wilderness” is not some pristine state of nature, unsullied by human impact, obviously recognized as such by all. “Wilderness” is a concept socially constructed by humans, and created and enforced by collective, normally state, action and regulation.
That is ridiculous.
Madagascar prior to ~200 BCE wasn’t wilderness?
I don’t know enough about Madagascar to answer. But was Canada wilderness, while humans were busy exterminating all the large mammal species?
Nope, but it was definitely wilderness before the first human set foot in it – or are we using some special definition of ‘wilderness’ here that only people who have read John Muir understand?
Yes, you are.
Get off your high horse, instead of just defending your certainty that you couldn’t possibly be wrong about something.
I take exception to the characterization “heavily managed”.
If by heavily, you mean that there are park rangers and paved roads and areas that people are encouraged to go to while discouraged to go to others, then yes, I can agree with that.
But heavily managed implies to me that some park ranger is perpetually walking around, warning the squirrels not to have sex in front of the tourists.
It isn’t the parks themselves that are managed, but the human behavior that relates to those parks, but even that isn’t necessarily “heavily managed” even if there are broad and strict prohibitions.
What? You mean we’re not supposed to bring in picanic baskets?
This is drawing a silly distinction between the severity of the restrictions and the details involved in implementing. Or maybe that distinction matters to you. I just don’t think it really matters to anyone else. The point stands either way.
I’m not entirely sure what your point is.
My problem with the way this post and comment thread has gone is with the characterization of the regulation.
At several points people seem to be implying that the state issued regulations to create an appealing wilderness. This implies that value people find in wilderness comes from the state regulations.
This backwards.
Wilderness has a value to people free of the regulation and designation of the state. The state then regulates the behavior of people to keep those who value wilderness from being excluded from what is a natural common.
Saying that the state “heavily regulates” these “spaces” of wilderness as Erik does creates an improper starting point that lead to actor212′s confusion. The “spaces” aren’t heavily regulated, people are “heavily regulated” in their relationship to the wilderness.
In fact, the more the “space” is regulated and influenced by the state (rangers, roads, fences, signs), the less the term “wilderness” applies.
I actually agree with the statement: “wilderness is evidence about the great things our government can do”, but the statement is pointless if you aren’t properly defining what government is doing.
I can testify, based on the fact that I am pretty much surrounded (though not continuously) by several million acres of designated wilderness, that rangers and other Forest Service personnel are in fact actively encouraging the animals to have wild, uninhibited kinky sex in conspicuous place with the intent of scaring off as many city slickers and Talibangelicals as possible.
Where’s my raccoon suit?
You may want to be careful about that. One of the wilderness areas around here also has the largest concentration of grizzlies in the lower 48 and, given your size, they might get a bit confused as to species.
Hey, I saw that documentary! Trading Places, wasn’t it?
“Be honest, you’re not really here for the hunting, are you?”
Exactly. I never understood why nature/eco activists were so disdainful of hunters. The taxes and fees collected from hunting and fishing enthusiasts provides significant funding for state-level conservation efforts, because you don’t get to enjoy your favorite hunting ground every year if it’s not being sustainably managed.
You really don’t understand that? I suppose it depends on the activist, but to be fair some “nature/eco activists” are disdainful of hunters because they kill animals for recreation. If hunting were banned, it’s conceivable that conservation funding could be acquired by other means.
I’m not against hunting, or hunters, I’m just against the subset of hunters who are idiots. That includes idiots who think that the Humane Society is behind a conspiracy to ban hunting, seize all rifles, and so on.
But anyway I don’t think it’s any mystery why certain portions of what you call “nature/eco activists” would dislike hunters and hunting.
Well, if they want to stereotype hunters as bloodthirsty rednecks, then sure, I get it. But even the “idiots” are making tangible contribution to actual conservation and wildlife management programs.
I don’t have any hard numbers, but I bet that collectively the amount of fees and taxes collected from hunters dwarfs the contributions of environmental groups.
That might be the case, but donations to environmental groups are voluntary. Credit doesn’t go to hunters if they pay the fees in order to legally hunt. That makes them law-abiding citizens, not conservationists, and it doesn’t provide evidence that they’re not yahoos.
Plus you’d have to decide if money donated to groups like Ducks Unlimited counts for the hunters or for the environmentalists.
Why not? They’re not just hunters, they’re voters, which means they have some level of ultimate oversight over any state wildlife authority, and they’re also consumers, which means they won’t patronize a particular “wilderness” or engage in a particular activity if it costs too much. They have plenty of say in what gets supported.
And it’s not like those who donate to environmental groups don’t get some kind of satisfaction out of it. Hunters aren’t less interested or committed to conservation just because their primary interest is in preserving places where they can enjoy the fruits of the land; after all, what good is preserving wilderness if no one is allowed to get any enjoyment from it? We wouldn’t look down on hikers or campers that way.
I think there is a firmly-grounded disdain amongst one set of people for another set of people who kill things for fun. And there is a firmly-grounded disdain amongst that other set of people for people who can’t understand that killing things is fun. You ain’t going to get around that one.
Exactly. I never understood why nature/eco activists were so disdainful of hunters.
Well, most eco-activists I know don’t really care about hunting or especially fishing. It’s understood that in an artificially limited ecosystem, there has to be some form of wildlife management.
However, the obnoxious ones, the men (and increasingly, women) who leave a campsite behind filled with trash, especially plastics, those I know I have a problem with.