[at-l] Fwd: Land of the Free and Detached

[jbryankramer at msn.com (J Bryan Kramer)]

I wonder what it is that ignites the love of wilderness in us? Personally I
never went camping until I was on my own, except for once or twice on
disastrous Boy Scout trips. Just before I got the boot from the BSA.

 But our family did travel extensively, back and forth across this wonderful
country. I suppose in my case that was the igniter. I am seeing that my kids
are getting both, lots of camping and lots of exploring across this country.
And exploring into the back country and unpopulated areas too.

I suspect those poor souls who are locked within the concrete desolation of
the cities probably did no traveling or, of course camping. The are
diminished because of it in my estimation.

Bryan

 Lex et Libertas -- Semper Vigilo, Paratus, et Fidelis!

>
> I suspect that the issue here is not primarily "public lands" vs. "private
> ownership"  -- albeit that is an issue which also threatens the
> backcountry.
>
> Some time back I was actively in trying to recruit some non-white
> government
> co-workers to join me for trail maintaining -- in response to
> some criticism
> leveled at our community about a lack of diversity.
>
> Two sets of "urbanite" reaction dominated the responses:
>
> 1)  I like well lit wide sidewalks on busy streets.  Trees, bushes, dark
> parks, etc are where muggers, dopers, gangs, etc hide, hang out, waylay
> folk, etc.  You won't find me going there.  Nighttime in the dark woods?
> You got to be kidding.
>
> 2)  If I'm going to fix-up anyplace for recreational use, it'll be in the
> city -- a playground, set of hoops, Boy & Girls clubhouse, etc.
>
> The appreciation of "public facilities/lands" was there.  However, the
> appreciation was for open, well lit, and well policed public
> facilities/lands in an urban area.  The National Mall was a good place to
> be.  Rock Creek Park was not.  Ocean City Beach was good.
> Assateague Island
> Seashore wasn't.
>
> IMHO, folk w/o a cultural appreciation for the rural, the country, the
> remote, the wild places, etc want to see all such places turned
> into places
> which look and feel similar to those setting for which they do have good
> cultural feelings -- places which feel good to them.  So, I
> suspect that the
> issue is not will we have public land, but what will be the nature of that
> public land.
>
> BTW -- I sense some of the same feelings in our community.  There are folk
> who are comfortable on the AT, but would never attempt a unblazed
> wilderness
> area.  There are some of us who need shelters, hiking companions, instant
> communications, etc.
>
> America may have its work cut out for it if we want to continue the legacy
> of public-land for something other than The National Mall, the
> City Beaches,
> the Parks that are heavy on asphalt and Rangers and short on perceived
> dangers, etc.
>
> Chainsaw
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "John O" <johno@monmouth.com>
> To: <at-l@mailman.backcountry.net>
> Sent: Monday, May 24, 2004 7:50 PM
> Subject: [at-l] Fwd: Land of the Free and Detached
>
> SNIP
> >>
> Witness the Urbanization of America. As The City grows, it
> absorbs a flow of country bumpkins and other folks who value open public
> spaces.
> <<
>
> SNIP
>
> >>
> American culture has a stake in public lands as well, said Pierce.
> Backcountry activities and the outdoors are foreign, generally speaking,
> to the fastest-growing cultures in America: Hispanics, Blacks, Asians. The
> USA Today article reported a projection of Hispanic and Asian populations
> to triple in the next 50 years, with the Hispanic population alone
> doubling in size to 103 million; an estimated 24 percent of the nation's
> population. Those cultures have little historical appreciation of public
> lands.
> <<
>
> SNIP
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> at-l mailing list
> at-l@backcountry.net
> http://mailman.hack.net/mailman/listinfo/at-l
>