What are the wildest "blocks" of land in the lower 48, based on the following criteria?
* size
* lack of development or roads
* logging not permitted
* hunting not permitted
For example, the combined wilderness areas to the south of Glacier National Park (Bob Marshall etc) might be larger than GNP but they allow logging up to it's borders (if I'm not mistaken) and pack animals and hunting so I probably would give the "wilder" nod to the smaller GNP.
Then you have a few ENORMOUS wilderness areas in national forests in Idaho, but are they connected to each other, or are they separated with roads and generic national forest lands which allow logging and access roads for recreationalists and hunting parties with pack animals?
I know their are wilderness areas bordering Yellowstone NP, but is it a pure untainted continuation or do they allow a buffer of plain old national forest between them, to allow all sorts of crap, er, I mean, roads, logging, access for hunters etc?!
BASICALLY what I'd like to do is compile a list and a ranking of the largest wild places in the lower 48, based on lack of development of any kind, AND a prohibition of logging and hunting (or extreme difficult access for hunters).
I am not crazy about hunting as you know, but I respect that others may enjoy it...I am not opening a new thread to have that debate.
But I just got back from spending 6 days in Glacier National Park and saw more wildlife in that time than I have seen in DECADES in the Adirondacks - I think it would be naive to believe that the fact that hunting is not allowed there is not a major factor in why I saw so much wildlife.
When I go camping and backpacking in nature I want the COMPLETE, untainted experience - landscapes and ecosystems, flora and fauna, that are not altered in ANY way.
Can you help me create a list of significant special places that would meet this criteria?
* size
* lack of development or roads
* logging not permitted
* hunting not permitted
For example, the combined wilderness areas to the south of Glacier National Park (Bob Marshall etc) might be larger than GNP but they allow logging up to it's borders (if I'm not mistaken) and pack animals and hunting so I probably would give the "wilder" nod to the smaller GNP.
Then you have a few ENORMOUS wilderness areas in national forests in Idaho, but are they connected to each other, or are they separated with roads and generic national forest lands which allow logging and access roads for recreationalists and hunting parties with pack animals?
I know their are wilderness areas bordering Yellowstone NP, but is it a pure untainted continuation or do they allow a buffer of plain old national forest between them, to allow all sorts of crap, er, I mean, roads, logging, access for hunters etc?!
BASICALLY what I'd like to do is compile a list and a ranking of the largest wild places in the lower 48, based on lack of development of any kind, AND a prohibition of logging and hunting (or extreme difficult access for hunters).
I am not crazy about hunting as you know, but I respect that others may enjoy it...I am not opening a new thread to have that debate.
But I just got back from spending 6 days in Glacier National Park and saw more wildlife in that time than I have seen in DECADES in the Adirondacks - I think it would be naive to believe that the fact that hunting is not allowed there is not a major factor in why I saw so much wildlife.
When I go camping and backpacking in nature I want the COMPLETE, untainted experience - landscapes and ecosystems, flora and fauna, that are not altered in ANY way.
Can you help me create a list of significant special places that would meet this criteria?
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire