|
Phyzzle posted:Biodiversity seems more desirable than having lots of acreage two miles from a road (when that acreage is mainly parched scrubland). A robust ecosystem needs a lot of contiguous territory, though. These ecoducts are a pretty nifty idea. I really wish we had those here. Even with high fences on both sides of the highways and "escape ramps" incorporated into them, there are way too many moose, elk and muledeer smashed on a regular basis. call to action posted:Humans are poo poo This I lived North of Leesburg VA a few years in the early 90s. Was beautiful rolling countryside. Now it is sprawl as far as the eye can see. I live now in a very small town in the mountains, much like NOVA was decades ago. Sadly it is one of the fastest growing communities in Utah and for some reason the councils use that as a reason to allow more development, while completely missing WHY people want to move here. Families who claimed thousands of acres hundreds of years ago (and left it mostly wild) now are decendants who happily sell off to developers and the councils just let them chop it up at will unless the community swarms in to object. Sadly by then the damage is done. Humans are indeed poo poo. Fog Tripper fucked around with this message at 19:54 on Jun 13, 2017 |
#
¿
Jun 13, 2017 19:48
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 05:46 |
|
|
Peetown Manning posted:Yeah...I am blessed to still have a considerable acreage in my family. I found myself after the economy "bounced back" around 2011 or 2012 wishing it would crash again...some of the neighbors decided to flip on 30-40 acres here and there...now we have about four or five new homesteads in the area and its enough to break up the "wilderness" I used to know as a kid. Not to mention these loving people let dogs run lose on others property, tearing poo poo up with four wheelers, basically just shithead city slickers to me. I should read up about back when claims were staked and the land was agriculture-based. It should not be allowed to be chopped up and sold off like that, IMHO. I am with you about the city slickers thing. A healthy % of the properties up here are second homes and rentals. Both they and their renters have virtually zero respect for what makes the area worthwhile. Thankfully second homes and rentals get taxed at a much higher rate. But still the developers (who also do not live here) are happy enough to act as carrion birds. I take that back, carrion birds are necessary to clean things up. Developers just pillage. Fog Tripper fucked around with this message at 20:12 on Jun 13, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2017 20:08
|
|
|
call to action posted:Agreed, this is why when I was able to buy a place, I chose one that was surrounded by land that is either economically unbuildable due to slope or owned publicly. Hopefully the park stays a park... The council thing really bugs me when they ejaculate about how great that we are such a popular and fast growing community. How exactly is that a benefit to the current residents and the land surrounding us?  Crossposted pic of a 180 from my backyard. The mountains in the distance pretty much surround our relatively flat county. Most all of them are national or state forest save a good chunk that has a developer building at increasingly higher elevations. Not because there are not beautiful views from pretty much the entire valley, but because they want their home to be seen. 
Fog Tripper fucked around with this message at 20:58 on Jun 13, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2017 20:53
|
|
|
glowing-fish posted:I am not trying to be pedantic about this, but it is kind of the point of the post. Good point. However I tend to include natural open spaces as wilderness as well. But for the focus of the thread I will exclude it. That said, you may as well exclude the mountains here out west that have been logged for generation and the valleys that have been used for grazing livestock. Even in the high Uintas I was shocked while elk hunting a considerable distance from humans (so I thought), to suddenly find myself in the middle of a herd of cattle being driven by cattlemen. I moved here from back east and it's light polution. Even though I had spent a ton of time in what I thought were wild areas when hunting, none of it would have applied to this thread. When we bought our current home I was actually freaked out at night because to the west there was light polution from SLC on the other side of the mountains, but to my east was just pitch black that sucked at my eyes much like the Grand Canyon does. However even that direction that used to intimidate me would not be applicable to this thread, even with the wolves, coyote, moose, elk, mountain lions, etc. It is national forest but logged and camped and used as livestock range. Fog Tripper fucked around with this message at 12:53 on Jun 14, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2017 12:39
|
|
|
One of these days I will pull the trigger on a couple trail cams.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 27, 2017 16:17
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 05:46 |
|
|
Fitzy Fitz posted:There really isn't a clear answer to that. All preservation is IMO arguably selfish and human-centered, even if it involves minimizing human impact. We're preserving because we want to, not because it's some sort of objective good. In the case of the wolves it may be an attempt to fix what circle of life ecosystem we've disrupted. The "wilderness" was already changed by human interaction. If something is dying out not due to human impact, Darwinism should run it's course, IMHO. We could discuss how we preserve every human we can, without a thought to objective good. Not a comfortable discussion though. Fog Tripper fucked around with this message at 23:19 on Aug 3, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Aug 3, 2017 23:16
|
|