This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
In reply to Fex Wazner:
Scotland's the only place where there *might* be. The British Isles aren't big enough for proper wilderness, i reckon.
Scotland's the only place where there *might* be. The British Isles aren't big enough for proper wilderness, i reckon.
In reply to Fex Wazner:
Scotland for starters, but also theres lots of mountain/moorland, that altho not far from roads etc, have that wild away from it all feeling
Scotland for starters, but also theres lots of mountain/moorland, that altho not far from roads etc, have that wild away from it all feeling
In reply to Fex Wazner:
Define "wilderness" and "area". And while you're at it, define "UK", you might solve one or two long-running political problems.
Define "wilderness" and "area". And while you're at it, define "UK", you might solve one or two long-running political problems.
In reply to Lancs Lad:
Most of the Fisherfield Forest. Or any one of a number of big tracts of empty space in that part of the world. Nothing in England or Wales though.
Victim of Mathematics
Most of the Fisherfield Forest. Or any one of a number of big tracts of empty space in that part of the world. Nothing in England or Wales though.
Victim of Mathematics
In reply to Carpe Diem:
too many sheep
too many sheep
In reply to Fex Wazner:
The Fisherfield/Letterewe Forest - the area between An Teallach and Torridon - is sometimes called "The Last Great Wilderness". That's probably about as close as there is on the mainland.
The Fisherfield/Letterewe Forest - the area between An Teallach and Torridon - is sometimes called "The Last Great Wilderness". That's probably about as close as there is on the mainland.
In reply to Sharket:
...... and whats wrong with Sheep?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?
> (In reply to Carpe Diem)
> too many sheep
> too many sheep
...... and whats wrong with Sheep?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?
In reply to Fex Wazner:
actually MR Wazner, before people divulve (sp?) the locations of the wilderness, what do u plan to do with it when you've got some?
:p
actually MR Wazner, before people divulve (sp?) the locations of the wilderness, what do u plan to do with it when you've got some?
:p
In reply to Carpe Diem:
I've been told they're ok cept you have to get them on the edge of a cliff...
not really my scene
I've been told they're ok cept you have to get them on the edge of a cliff...
not really my scene
In reply to Fex Wazner: Knoydart.....Boat in from Mallaig.
Not the only place either ... Scotland is bigger than many people think
Not the only place either ... Scotland is bigger than many people think
In reply to Fex Wazner:
Definition.
Wilderness is land that has not been significantly modified by direct or indirect human activity
Check out the USA's Wilderness Act for more interpretation.
The definition is broadened in some instances.
I'm thinking that you could define some caves and coastlines in the UK as Wilderness.
Mick
> Anyone?
>
> Fex.
>
> Fex.
Definition.
Wilderness is land that has not been significantly modified by direct or indirect human activity
Check out the USA's Wilderness Act for more interpretation.
The definition is broadened in some instances.
I'm thinking that you could define some caves and coastlines in the UK as Wilderness.
Mick
In reply to Fex Wazner:
Yeah man you drove through part of it when we drove over to aberystwyth. comes all the way down as far as just north of my house, then the eppynt army range and the beacons just south. Weeks worth of walking and exploring to be had there!
Yeah man you drove through part of it when we drove over to aberystwyth. comes all the way down as far as just north of my house, then the eppynt army range and the beacons just south. Weeks worth of walking and exploring to be had there!
In reply to Fex Wazner: It isn't big, but the Howgills are pretty wild. A series of valleys about 15 miles square. Obviously it has sheep farming on it, but there are no roads or buildings within its range.
In reply to uriel:
Roads kind of rule the wilderness bit out, don't they. DougG's choice looks like a good call.
Fex.
Roads kind of rule the wilderness bit out, don't they. DougG's choice looks like a good call.
Fex.
In reply to DougG:
When do the midges usually disappear from that part of the Scotland, do you know?
Regards,
Fex.
When do the midges usually disappear from that part of the Scotland, do you know?
Regards,
Fex.
In reply to Flatlander:
Have you ever been to Orkney? They're about as wild as the Yorkshire Dales. But much, much nicer.
If we stick with the definition that wilderness is untouched or unaffected by human impact, then there must be vey few parts of the UK which meet this definition. Even the likes of Knoydart and the Fisherfield forest have, over the centuries, been populated and the landscape been changed.
Have you ever been to Orkney? They're about as wild as the Yorkshire Dales. But much, much nicer.
If we stick with the definition that wilderness is untouched or unaffected by human impact, then there must be vey few parts of the UK which meet this definition. Even the likes of Knoydart and the Fisherfield forest have, over the centuries, been populated and the landscape been changed.
In reply to Fex Wazner:
I guess it depends on your definition. The tarmac roads replaced the traditional 'drovers' routes through a lot of wales.
So by tradition I know they are wilderness(as no one lives there), but they dont meet your definition
Uri
I guess it depends on your definition. The tarmac roads replaced the traditional 'drovers' routes through a lot of wales.
So by tradition I know they are wilderness(as no one lives there), but they dont meet your definition
Uri
In reply to Mick Ryan:
Congress as the Wilderness Act of 1964. According to it’s authors, the Wilderness Act defined wilderness, "in contrast with those areas where man and his own works dominate the landscape, as an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain." The act went on to require that a wilderness retain "its primeval character and influence" and that it be protected and managed in such a way that it "appears to have been affected primarily by the force of nature."
http://www.wvhighlands.org/WildernessCelebration/DEFININGWILDERNESS.htm
Fex.
Congress as the Wilderness Act of 1964. According to it’s authors, the Wilderness Act defined wilderness, "in contrast with those areas where man and his own works dominate the landscape, as an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain." The act went on to require that a wilderness retain "its primeval character and influence" and that it be protected and managed in such a way that it "appears to have been affected primarily by the force of nature."
http://www.wvhighlands.org/WildernessCelebration/DEFININGWILDERNESS.htm
Fex.
In reply to Fex Wazner:
>protected and managed in such a way that it "appears to have been affected primarily by the force of nature."<
This last point suggestes that if we do not know how it was supposed to look like (in the case of much of the UK), leaving it alone and removing all signs of man's hand, would make it a wilderness.
Fex.
>protected and managed in such a way that it "appears to have been affected primarily by the force of nature."<
This last point suggestes that if we do not know how it was supposed to look like (in the case of much of the UK), leaving it alone and removing all signs of man's hand, would make it a wilderness.
Fex.
In reply to Fex Wazner: Sunderland is pretty wild its a wild place. its a wilderness thats full of roaming unknown beasties who are red and white and are antagonized when they see black and white, vicious if provoked but generally not too bad.
In reply to Fex Wazner:
Dear Fex
Very interesting. So the Yanks don't think humans are natural. Well, that is the Yanks for you.
Norrie
Dear Fex
Very interesting. So the Yanks don't think humans are natural. Well, that is the Yanks for you.
Norrie
In reply to Fex Wazner: nope we have done a good job of buggering all of the land (except some of the smaller uninhabited islands)
In reply to Jon Dittman:
Have you been there recently? A large bull-dozed track appeared 3 or 4 years ago, right up to and over the summit of the Calf
> the Howgills are pretty wild
Have you been there recently? A large bull-dozed track appeared 3 or 4 years ago, right up to and over the summit of the Calf
In reply to Fex Wazner:
Depends where you're from
eg for Sheffield climbers wildeness = anywhere further to walk than Stanage.
Depends where you're from
eg for Sheffield climbers wildeness = anywhere further to walk than Stanage.
In reply to Fex Wazner:
I honestly think that Bleaklow, in the area of Grains in the Water, Bleaklow Stones and Grinal Stones, could be described as a wilderness
I honestly think that Bleaklow, in the area of Grains in the Water, Bleaklow Stones and Grinal Stones, could be described as a wilderness
In reply to Fex Wazner:
others have pointed out problems with the definition of the term 'wilderness'. if we stick to the fairly strict sense of 'uninfluenced by humans' then nowhere on the mainland will truly qualify.... though the Cairngorm plateau might be the closest thing (especially in a white out). Fisherfield, though remote and glorious and quite big, is absolutely nothing like it would have been without humans, lack of trees being the main issue.
fragments of fairly unmanaged caledonian pine forest remain in the cairngorm area (and elsewhere) that are probably much like what would have been there without humans (minus wloves and bears), but they're not really big enough to be dignified with the term wilderness.
other possible little-influenced habitats are sandunes and estuaries....the dune area and parts of the hinterland between the rivers Borgie and Naver (north coast of Scotland) might be called wilderness (though small). Maybe somewhere like the Wash estuary would qualify (not that i've been).
The person who said Rockall is about right (though i've a feeling that even there some sort of shelter has been constructed).
good luck anyway
others have pointed out problems with the definition of the term 'wilderness'. if we stick to the fairly strict sense of 'uninfluenced by humans' then nowhere on the mainland will truly qualify.... though the Cairngorm plateau might be the closest thing (especially in a white out). Fisherfield, though remote and glorious and quite big, is absolutely nothing like it would have been without humans, lack of trees being the main issue.
fragments of fairly unmanaged caledonian pine forest remain in the cairngorm area (and elsewhere) that are probably much like what would have been there without humans (minus wloves and bears), but they're not really big enough to be dignified with the term wilderness.
other possible little-influenced habitats are sandunes and estuaries....the dune area and parts of the hinterland between the rivers Borgie and Naver (north coast of Scotland) might be called wilderness (though small). Maybe somewhere like the Wash estuary would qualify (not that i've been).
The person who said Rockall is about right (though i've a feeling that even there some sort of shelter has been constructed).
good luck anyway
In reply to JJJJ:
Cheers,
I think that the US distinction is for areas where man has never been able to leave a mark is pretty irrelevant, as man has kakked on evrything in the UK by the sounds of it.
Can we just leave places alone now and call them a wilderness?
Fex.
Cheers,
I think that the US distinction is for areas where man has never been able to leave a mark is pretty irrelevant, as man has kakked on evrything in the UK by the sounds of it.
Can we just leave places alone now and call them a wilderness?
Fex.
In reply to Fex Wazner:
i suppose it's all just a matter of how much of a connoisseur you are in your judgements. Fisherfield will pass as a wilderness in the eyes of many, so perhaps it is one.
i suppose it's all just a matter of how much of a connoisseur you are in your judgements. Fisherfield will pass as a wilderness in the eyes of many, so perhaps it is one.
In reply to JJJJ:
Dear J
I've been to most areas in Scotland and I don't regard any area a wilderness.
Norrie
> (In reply to Fex Wazner)
> i suppose it's all just a matter of how much of a connoisseur you are in your judgements. Fisherfield will pass as a wilderness in the eyes of many, so perhaps it is one.
> i suppose it's all just a matter of how much of a connoisseur you are in your judgements. Fisherfield will pass as a wilderness in the eyes of many, so perhaps it is one.
Dear J
I've been to most areas in Scotland and I don't regard any area a wilderness.
Norrie
In reply to Norrie Muir:
dear norrie, i agree with you, but we can't rule the meaning of a word just by being so fantastic.
dear norrie, i agree with you, but we can't rule the meaning of a word just by being so fantastic.
In reply to Norrie Muir:
Your comments prompted this thread. Can we now create a wildernesss though and put aside man's influence?
Fex.
Your comments prompted this thread. Can we now create a wildernesss though and put aside man's influence?
Fex.
In reply to Fex Wazner:
Did I?
Norrie
> (In reply to Norrie Muir)
> Your comments prompted this thread.
>
Dear Fex
> Your comments prompted this thread.
>
Did I?
Norrie
In reply to Fex Wazner:
dull answer, but it depends on the habitat and the extent of the disruption. complex ecologies like forests take a long time, simple ecologies like estuarine mud not so long. some habitats may never be able to return to what they once might have been.
as a brief example (also illustrating the connoisseurship i was mentioning), you can still detect the effects of the Napoleonic wars in the age-structure of trees in at least one scottish pine forest (though it looks very natural at a glance or even a long stare). add to that the loss of wolves etc and you are going to have to wait a very long time indeed.
anyway, i'm natural (and so's my wife), so why isn't my garden a wilderness? (actually, it is).
dull answer, but it depends on the habitat and the extent of the disruption. complex ecologies like forests take a long time, simple ecologies like estuarine mud not so long. some habitats may never be able to return to what they once might have been.
as a brief example (also illustrating the connoisseurship i was mentioning), you can still detect the effects of the Napoleonic wars in the age-structure of trees in at least one scottish pine forest (though it looks very natural at a glance or even a long stare). add to that the loss of wolves etc and you are going to have to wait a very long time indeed.
anyway, i'm natural (and so's my wife), so why isn't my garden a wilderness? (actually, it is).
In reply to Norrie Muir:
Johny's mountain path thread last week.
by - Norrie Muir on - 04 Jul 2005
In reply to Fex Wazner:
Please tell me where there is real wilderness in Scotland? I have yet to find any.
Norrie
Johny's mountain path thread last week.
by - Norrie Muir on - 04 Jul 2005
In reply to Fex Wazner:
>
Dear Fex
Please tell me where there is real wilderness in Scotland? I have yet to find any.
Norrie
In reply to JJJJ:
Yes, I was actually going to say that the whole area from the Floe Country West to the Ullapool/Kinlochbervie road could be regarded pretty much as a wilderness by European standards. I believe that Sutherland is the least densely populated area in Europe and that includes the townships along the Northeast coast. If you stand on Conival and look East there isn't a great deal to see see that is man made.
I guess much of Rhum has been untouched by human hand for the best part of a century although the deer are still managed of course. Luing is left pretty wild as well.
I've always thought of the Parc in Harris to be the the emptiest part of Britain I know of but it's still a managed deer estate so cannot be regarded as untouched by man.
What about St Kilda? Are there any sheep left since the inhabitants left the place to the army?
> (In reply to Fex Wazner)
>
> others have pointed out problems with the definition of the term 'wilderness'. if we stick to the fairly strict sense of 'uninfluenced by humans' then nowhere on the mainland will truly qualify.... though the Cairngorm plateau might be the closest thing (especially in a white out). Fisherfield, though remote and glorious and quite big, is absolutely nothing like it would have been without humans, lack of trees being the main issue.
>
>
> others have pointed out problems with the definition of the term 'wilderness'. if we stick to the fairly strict sense of 'uninfluenced by humans' then nowhere on the mainland will truly qualify.... though the Cairngorm plateau might be the closest thing (especially in a white out). Fisherfield, though remote and glorious and quite big, is absolutely nothing like it would have been without humans, lack of trees being the main issue.
>
>
> other possible little-influenced habitats are sandunes and estuaries....the dune area and parts of the hinterland between the rivers Borgie and Naver (north coast of Scotland)
> other possible little-influenced habitats are sandunes and estuaries....the dune area and parts of the hinterland between the rivers Borgie and Naver (north coast of Scotland)
Yes, I was actually going to say that the whole area from the Floe Country West to the Ullapool/Kinlochbervie road could be regarded pretty much as a wilderness by European standards. I believe that Sutherland is the least densely populated area in Europe and that includes the townships along the Northeast coast. If you stand on Conival and look East there isn't a great deal to see see that is man made.
I guess much of Rhum has been untouched by human hand for the best part of a century although the deer are still managed of course. Luing is left pretty wild as well.
I've always thought of the Parc in Harris to be the the emptiest part of Britain I know of but it's still a managed deer estate so cannot be regarded as untouched by man.
What about St Kilda? Are there any sheep left since the inhabitants left the place to the army?
In reply to Removed User:
I think you can see Loch Shin from the top of Conival, the biggest made made loch in Scotland. Any way, it is rough ground to the east, having walked across it.
Norrie
> (In reply to Removed UserJJJJ)
If you stand on Conival and look East there isn't a great deal to see see that is man made.
>
Dear Eric
I think you can see Loch Shin from the top of Conival, the biggest made made loch in Scotland. Any way, it is rough ground to the east, having walked across it.
Norrie
In reply to Fex Wazner: I don't think you can identify wilderness areas until you've got a definition. I think it's a given that there is no wilderness by, for eg tundra standards, anywhere in the uk, The question being debated is more "where's the wildest area in the UK?" It could be argued that the fluff under my sofa is wilderness to a carpet mite, equally enough people get lost on Kinder to qualify, but that's probably not the answer either. soooo...
I think either there isn't any (from a purist/ecological perspective) or It's wherever you put your head on a given day. I've felt pretty lonely on a route watching spiders tracking across the grit, equally I've been practically suburban on a nice spring week end day on Cairngorm
I think either there isn't any (from a purist/ecological perspective) or It's wherever you put your head on a given day. I've felt pretty lonely on a route watching spiders tracking across the grit, equally I've been practically suburban on a nice spring week end day on Cairngorm
In reply to Fex Wazner: Went diving around the islands of Scapa Flow in the Orkneys.
Sometimes we'd sail for 4 hours to get to the wreck we wanted to dive and not see anything at all. its narrow waterways interspersed with sweet fa.
to be told that your f..ked if you get a bend lets you know that you're in the wilderness.
Sometimes we'd sail for 4 hours to get to the wreck we wanted to dive and not see anything at all. its narrow waterways interspersed with sweet fa.
to be told that your f..ked if you get a bend lets you know that you're in the wilderness.
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
Good call Gordon. Only problem is that the plans to replant the trees in Alport Dale might have an effect on this. Grains in the Water is a truly special place.
>
> I honestly think that Bleaklow, in the area of Grains in the Water, Bleaklow Stones and Grinal Stones, could be described as a wilderness
> I honestly think that Bleaklow, in the area of Grains in the Water, Bleaklow Stones and Grinal Stones, could be described as a wilderness
Good call Gordon. Only problem is that the plans to replant the trees in Alport Dale might have an effect on this. Grains in the Water is a truly special place.
In reply to Removed User:
St Kilda has a large military installation going up the summit, kind of spoils the feel of the place. It also has a lot of researchers roaming round doing 'conservation' work.
> What about St Kilda? Are there any sheep left since the inhabitants left the place to the army?
St Kilda has a large military installation going up the summit, kind of spoils the feel of the place. It also has a lot of researchers roaming round doing 'conservation' work.
In reply to newhey:
What I think's so wonderful is that it is actually a lot wilder than a lot of the wildest parts of the highlands of Scotland. Virtually no paths of any kind except for faint animal tracks, and a truly diabolical terrain to cross in wet conditions. It really can't have changed much in hundreds or even thousands of years (OK about 10000 years ago there were trees up there, fossilised stumps of which still remain). The planting in Alport Dale will be well to the south of the area we are talking about. I've traversed from Bleaklow Stones to the Pennine Way at Hern Clough about 6 or 7 times, and never managed to follow anything like the same route twice, even when I thought I had it wired.
What I think's so wonderful is that it is actually a lot wilder than a lot of the wildest parts of the highlands of Scotland. Virtually no paths of any kind except for faint animal tracks, and a truly diabolical terrain to cross in wet conditions. It really can't have changed much in hundreds or even thousands of years (OK about 10000 years ago there were trees up there, fossilised stumps of which still remain). The planting in Alport Dale will be well to the south of the area we are talking about. I've traversed from Bleaklow Stones to the Pennine Way at Hern Clough about 6 or 7 times, and never managed to follow anything like the same route twice, even when I thought I had it wired.
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
I like to follow Alport Dale all the way up to Grains, the valley can get quite exciting when the water is high. Then scramble up onto the Eastern top of Bleaklow. All this wilderness only 6 miles away from the urban sprawl known as Stanage!
I am going to look through your books later to see if there are any good pictures
Simon
I like to follow Alport Dale all the way up to Grains, the valley can get quite exciting when the water is high. Then scramble up onto the Eastern top of Bleaklow. All this wilderness only 6 miles away from the urban sprawl known as Stanage!
I am going to look through your books later to see if there are any good pictures
Simon
In reply to newhey:
Well, some quite nice pics, but nothing on Bleaklow, I'm sorrow to say. Most of that i've been exploring since I did the Peak book.
Yes, going up the bottom of Alport Dale is quite exciting and surprisingly difficult. The snag is you don't see nearly so much. I love the high ground just to the west of it. A wonderful sense of space, with huge vistas.
Well, some quite nice pics, but nothing on Bleaklow, I'm sorrow to say. Most of that i've been exploring since I did the Peak book.
Yes, going up the bottom of Alport Dale is quite exciting and surprisingly difficult. The snag is you don't see nearly so much. I love the high ground just to the west of it. A wonderful sense of space, with huge vistas.
In reply to Mooncat:
Not for long if this idiot land owner gets his way! ;(
http://www.stopdunmaglass.com/
> (In reply to Fex Wazner)
>
> The Monodliath Moors (sp?)
>
> The Monodliath Moors (sp?)
Not for long if this idiot land owner gets his way! ;(
http://www.stopdunmaglass.com/
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
Agreed.
Was up on Bleaklow today for my sins and was thinking about the whole wilderness issue.
Today was too sunny, could see for miles around. But ive been on Bleaklow with very low thick cloud and a fair breeze. You could walk round in circles for days and never find anything man-made up there (apart from accidentally stepping onto the hard shoulder of the Pennine (Motor)Way.
Iain
Agreed.
Was up on Bleaklow today for my sins and was thinking about the whole wilderness issue.
Today was too sunny, could see for miles around. But ive been on Bleaklow with very low thick cloud and a fair breeze. You could walk round in circles for days and never find anything man-made up there (apart from accidentally stepping onto the hard shoulder of the Pennine (Motor)Way.
Iain
In reply to Fex Wazner: As true wilderness, no.
there maybe small pockets of ancient forest left, but even then many of the native flora and fauna isnt present.
Of course places like Fisherfield (stunning), Knoydart (never been myself), cairngorms, may feel "wild", but not sure I would class them as a wilderness. Large scale deforestation and human induced extinctions mean IMO none of the UK will qualify as wilderness.
Over here even close to wellington we have large expanses of native bush, 4000 ft hills, which are fairly untouched, but even in them there are pest species, such as the possum, goats, pigs, that we have introduced, altering the landscape.
In my opinion true wilderness would have no affects of human intervention, so anywhere (significantly) affected by pest species would be hard to term wilderness.
there maybe small pockets of ancient forest left, but even then many of the native flora and fauna isnt present.
Of course places like Fisherfield (stunning), Knoydart (never been myself), cairngorms, may feel "wild", but not sure I would class them as a wilderness. Large scale deforestation and human induced extinctions mean IMO none of the UK will qualify as wilderness.
Over here even close to wellington we have large expanses of native bush, 4000 ft hills, which are fairly untouched, but even in them there are pest species, such as the possum, goats, pigs, that we have introduced, altering the landscape.
In my opinion true wilderness would have no affects of human intervention, so anywhere (significantly) affected by pest species would be hard to term wilderness.
In reply to CJD:
I was going to write a smart-ersed response to this about a trip to Seana Braigh when you come to visit us teuchters (when is that, by the way?) but I carried on & read all of the thread & JJJJ spoilt it all with his what actually constitutes wilderness rubbish - huff!
Faux-wilderness is where it's at though, speaking from the experience of bashing through an area of fenced-off natural regeneration wilderness at the weekend - hill-walking would be a lot less popular without the good old deer!
> The British Isles aren't big enough for proper wilderness, i reckon.
I was going to write a smart-ersed response to this about a trip to Seana Braigh when you come to visit us teuchters (when is that, by the way?) but I carried on & read all of the thread & JJJJ spoilt it all with his what actually constitutes wilderness rubbish - huff!
Faux-wilderness is where it's at though, speaking from the experience of bashing through an area of fenced-off natural regeneration wilderness at the weekend - hill-walking would be a lot less popular without the good old deer!
In reply to Ands:
Dear Ands
There were Land Rover roads all over the place when I walked about these hills, it was not a wilderness for me.
Norrie
> (In reply to Mooncat)
> Not for long if this idiot land owner gets his way! ;(
> http://www.stopdunmaglass.com/
> Not for long if this idiot land owner gets his way! ;(
> http://www.stopdunmaglass.com/
Dear Ands
There were Land Rover roads all over the place when I walked about these hills, it was not a wilderness for me.
Norrie
In reply to Fex Wazner:
Whats left of the Flow Country in Sutherland is the only place that I can think off that remains unmanaged by man ...... very few landscapes that arent influenced by man, be it with sheep, burning heather, managing deer, bulldozing tracks, building windfarms, conifer plantations etc
Whats left of the Flow Country in Sutherland is the only place that I can think off that remains unmanaged by man ...... very few landscapes that arent influenced by man, be it with sheep, burning heather, managing deer, bulldozing tracks, building windfarms, conifer plantations etc
In reply to Norrie Muir:
Fair rnough no your right it has probably not been an actual "wilderness" for hundreds of years but it's closer to a wilderness now than it will be if these plans to ahead. I canny try and claim it to be the most spectacular area in Scotland either as it is not but it is still pretty remote if you get stuck into it with a light tent and a few days food.
Ands
Fair rnough no your right it has probably not been an actual "wilderness" for hundreds of years but it's closer to a wilderness now than it will be if these plans to ahead. I canny try and claim it to be the most spectacular area in Scotland either as it is not but it is still pretty remote if you get stuck into it with a light tent and a few days food.
Ands
In reply to Iain Ridgway:
I was watching a BBC documentary called "State of the Planet" last night. One part was particularly hard hitting. The introduction of five hedgehogs to South Benbecula by a couple who wanted them as garden pets has now floureshed into a 10,000 strong colony. They have no natrual predators on those Islands and have therefore grown massively out of control and killed off many species of bird from that area having started eating their eggs. This is due to the fact that they are what is known as "selective predators" which means they will turn their appetite to whatever is in abundance at that time.
It was a representation of what the human species is doing to the planet. Humans obviously being selective predators and having no serious predators to consider. I have never seen a hedeghog driving a Humvee mind you...
Ands
I was watching a BBC documentary called "State of the Planet" last night. One part was particularly hard hitting. The introduction of five hedgehogs to South Benbecula by a couple who wanted them as garden pets has now floureshed into a 10,000 strong colony. They have no natrual predators on those Islands and have therefore grown massively out of control and killed off many species of bird from that area having started eating their eggs. This is due to the fact that they are what is known as "selective predators" which means they will turn their appetite to whatever is in abundance at that time.
It was a representation of what the human species is doing to the planet. Humans obviously being selective predators and having no serious predators to consider. I have never seen a hedeghog driving a Humvee mind you...
Ands
In reply to morbh: around here you cant just wander off paths as below about 3000ft its think bush that you just cannot get through, basically restricts you to wlaking on obvious paths, so you actually feel more in the wilderness walking in scotland than native bush here.
In reply to Removed User:
problem in terms of wilderness for most of these places is the deforestation (and afforestation in the Sutherland flows). St Kilda is heavily grazed by introduced sheep (albeit now unmanaged).
still think the Cairngorm plateau has got to be the least heavily modified area on the mainland.
problem in terms of wilderness for most of these places is the deforestation (and afforestation in the Sutherland flows). St Kilda is heavily grazed by introduced sheep (albeit now unmanaged).
still think the Cairngorm plateau has got to be the least heavily modified area on the mainland.
In reply to Iain Ridgway:
ah yes, the wildernesses of NZ take some beating.... but though they look pristine, and haven't been managed by man, as you say the introduced species have completely changed the avifauna in particular.
ah yes, the wildernesses of NZ take some beating.... but though they look pristine, and haven't been managed by man, as you say the introduced species have completely changed the avifauna in particular.
In reply to Anonymous:
youve walked all of the North Penines then?
youve walked all of the North Penines then?
In reply to Fex Wazner: By the ecologist's definition, there is no significant 'Wilderness' left in western Europe. But then, how much is there anywhere else? I'd have thought that most wild areas in North America have some marks of human presence, if only tracks and cabins; tribes live and farm in the most remote parts of Amazonia; people have lived in the Himalaya for thousands of years; our species probably came from the African savannah (and where is more of a 'wilderness' than an African game park full of lions and elephants?)...deserts and ice caps would seem the to be the places with the fewest traces of human activity...and even these are being altered by human-driven climate change. In the end, we are as I think Norrie intimated, as much a product of nature as any other organism...such observations tend to undermine the rigorous scientific definition of wilderness somewhat.
In the case of the UK, either the term Wilderness is unhelpful, or we need a looser definition, perhaps based on subjective experience. We're not likely to stop using the word, so I suggest that in everyday non-ecologist speak we could usefully redefine it. Or perhaps just go with the non-technical definition offered by the Oxford English Dictionary: 'a region or area that is uncultivated and uninhabited by human beings' and/or 'an empty or pathless area or region'. On these criteria there are many small patches of wilderness in the UK, even south of the border. Notice there is no reliance on tense in the dictionary definition. Wilderness IS uncultivated and uninhabited, but there is no reference to it's having HAD to be so in the past. So depopulated deforested areas of the Highlands, in which thriving crofting communities once lived, would qualify as wildernesses. Ecologists would grumble, but there you go, it's in the dictionary so it must be true.
I'm not bothered by the technical definition (eg lack of all human traces both past and present, altogether), but for me at least, as someone who goes into the mountains a lot, the term wilderness still means a little more than the dictionary definition. I'd call a place a wilderness not because of any easily measured criteria, but because of the sort of experience I could have there. Characteristics of an experience of UK wilderness might include: solitude, a measure of self sufficiency, a feeling of at-one-ness with nature, no signs of modern industrialised society impinging on my consciousness to remind me of the often squalid world we've created (so, I'd have to be out of sight and hearing from roads, I'd have to not be able to see windfarms, dams, pylons, antennae, city lights... and perhaps if I was nitpicking I'd have to wait for a quiet moment when there were no aeroplanes flying overhead), no permanently occupied houses in sight: If enough of these conditions applied in a particular area, and if it was big enough to go out into and keep having the same sort of experiences in for a day or two's walking, then I'd happily call the area a wilderness. Nebulous and subjective I know, but I don't think I'm alone in using the word in this way.
Off the top of my head, UK areas of significant extent in which I could have a wilderness experience include:
The Cairngorms, Monadhliath (for now, until it's covered in windmills), Ardverickie Forest / Ben Alder, Black Mount / Glen Etive hills, Jura, Ardgour, Knoydart, Mullardoch/Monar hills (if I was to confine myself to the heads of the lochs and forget about the dams), Coulin Forest, Torridon / Shieldaig Forest, Letterewe / Fisherfield Forest, Seana Braigh area, Assynt, South and North Harris hills, Pairc, the bogs of northern Lewis (until they're covered in windmills), Rum, the west coast of Hoy perhaps, a quiet day somewhere obscure in the Southern Uplands, the North Pennines, at a push the back of Skiddaw, Carneddau in winter, perhaps quieter bits of the Berwyns (?), Rhinogs (if I couldn't see Trawsfynydd powerstation), Dartmoor in the fog, the middle of the Mournes (I'd say the big stone wall had aged into the landscape enough not to impinge significantly).
Of course, my wilderness experience would be shattered or at least severely cracked if I could see even a very distant windmill from the top of my hill. Hence I'm dead against poorly planned windfarms.
In the case of the UK, either the term Wilderness is unhelpful, or we need a looser definition, perhaps based on subjective experience. We're not likely to stop using the word, so I suggest that in everyday non-ecologist speak we could usefully redefine it. Or perhaps just go with the non-technical definition offered by the Oxford English Dictionary: 'a region or area that is uncultivated and uninhabited by human beings' and/or 'an empty or pathless area or region'. On these criteria there are many small patches of wilderness in the UK, even south of the border. Notice there is no reliance on tense in the dictionary definition. Wilderness IS uncultivated and uninhabited, but there is no reference to it's having HAD to be so in the past. So depopulated deforested areas of the Highlands, in which thriving crofting communities once lived, would qualify as wildernesses. Ecologists would grumble, but there you go, it's in the dictionary so it must be true.
I'm not bothered by the technical definition (eg lack of all human traces both past and present, altogether), but for me at least, as someone who goes into the mountains a lot, the term wilderness still means a little more than the dictionary definition. I'd call a place a wilderness not because of any easily measured criteria, but because of the sort of experience I could have there. Characteristics of an experience of UK wilderness might include: solitude, a measure of self sufficiency, a feeling of at-one-ness with nature, no signs of modern industrialised society impinging on my consciousness to remind me of the often squalid world we've created (so, I'd have to be out of sight and hearing from roads, I'd have to not be able to see windfarms, dams, pylons, antennae, city lights... and perhaps if I was nitpicking I'd have to wait for a quiet moment when there were no aeroplanes flying overhead), no permanently occupied houses in sight: If enough of these conditions applied in a particular area, and if it was big enough to go out into and keep having the same sort of experiences in for a day or two's walking, then I'd happily call the area a wilderness. Nebulous and subjective I know, but I don't think I'm alone in using the word in this way.
Off the top of my head, UK areas of significant extent in which I could have a wilderness experience include:
The Cairngorms, Monadhliath (for now, until it's covered in windmills), Ardverickie Forest / Ben Alder, Black Mount / Glen Etive hills, Jura, Ardgour, Knoydart, Mullardoch/Monar hills (if I was to confine myself to the heads of the lochs and forget about the dams), Coulin Forest, Torridon / Shieldaig Forest, Letterewe / Fisherfield Forest, Seana Braigh area, Assynt, South and North Harris hills, Pairc, the bogs of northern Lewis (until they're covered in windmills), Rum, the west coast of Hoy perhaps, a quiet day somewhere obscure in the Southern Uplands, the North Pennines, at a push the back of Skiddaw, Carneddau in winter, perhaps quieter bits of the Berwyns (?), Rhinogs (if I couldn't see Trawsfynydd powerstation), Dartmoor in the fog, the middle of the Mournes (I'd say the big stone wall had aged into the landscape enough not to impinge significantly).
Of course, my wilderness experience would be shattered or at least severely cracked if I could see even a very distant windmill from the top of my hill. Hence I'm dead against poorly planned windfarms.
In reply to Dan Bailey:
A thoughtful post, but I think you are applying a townie's definition of wilderness, based on a lack of understanding or unwillingness to think about what makes the landscape the way it is. Just because it is not urban or industrial doesn't mean it is not man-made. Most of upland Britain looks the way it does because of sheep, and in Scotland, deer. For example, have you seen what bits of Snowdon look like if the sheep are penned out? The flora is far richer: the difference is obvious to anyone who looks. When the landscape has been profoundly shaped by man, personally I couldn't call it "wilderness".
> I'd call a place a wilderness not because of any easily measured criteria, but because of the sort of experience I could have there. Characteristics of an experience of UK wilderness might include: solitude, a measure of self sufficiency, a feeling of at-one-ness with nature, no signs of modern industrialised society impinging on my consciousness to remind me of the often squalid world we've created (so, I'd have to be out of sight and hearing from roads, I'd have to not be able to see windfarms, dams, pylons, antennae, city lights... and perhaps if I was nitpicking I'd have to wait for a quiet moment when there were no aeroplanes flying overhead), no permanently occupied houses in sight: If enough of these conditions applied in a particular area, and if it was big enough to go out into and keep having the same sort of experiences in for a day or two's walking, then I'd happily call the area a wilderness. Nebulous and subjective I know, but I don't think I'm alone in using the word in this way.
A thoughtful post, but I think you are applying a townie's definition of wilderness, based on a lack of understanding or unwillingness to think about what makes the landscape the way it is. Just because it is not urban or industrial doesn't mean it is not man-made. Most of upland Britain looks the way it does because of sheep, and in Scotland, deer. For example, have you seen what bits of Snowdon look like if the sheep are penned out? The flora is far richer: the difference is obvious to anyone who looks. When the landscape has been profoundly shaped by man, personally I couldn't call it "wilderness".
In reply to Fex Wazner: i've got some in my shed. its cluttering the place upp so if anyone wants it and doesnt mind paying the postage i can stick it in a box and send it.
In reply to Stefan Lloyd: 'A thoughtful post, but I think you are applying a townie's definition of wilderness, based on a lack of understanding or unwillingness to think about what makes the landscape the way it is. Just because it is not urban or industrial doesn't mean it is not man-made.'
I'm far from being unwilling to think about the impact of human intervention in making the landscape what it is Stefan. Didn't I sort of say that? It's just that for me a 'wilderness' needn't be completely free from signs of humanity (as I said in my previous post, how many places anywhere are really free from our influence?)...it could be deforested, have a few paths and even perhaps bothies, and I might still call it a wilderness if it met my other criteria. Eg no roads, no permanent habitation, no farming (but what then is deer management, I hear you ask?), no windfarms... If there's no total escape from humanity in the UK, there can still be a significant escape from the signs of modern industry. And that is enough (though more escape would be better) as far as I'm concerned to justify calling somewhere a wilderness.
But you're right, I am a townie and happy to be called such... As are the overwhelming majority of the population in general, and the overwhelming majority of 'wilderness' users and definers. If townies make up the huge majority, then surely what they say more or less goes? So I'm not quite following you on that point.
Penning out sheep and deer etc is a good idea. It'd be great if our wildernesses were augmented by further removing signs of human intervention (though this would in itself constitute an intervention, arguably). Reducing deer, encouraging regrowth of natural vegetation...all these would be lovely. They would make our wildernesses richer, and more wild. However, even without these things being done, we still have 'wilderness' as far as I'm concerned. Not enough of it, and it's continually under threat (especially at the moment with all these bloody windfarms planned for the wrong places), but it's still wilderness for all that. At the moment, as I say.
I'm far from being unwilling to think about the impact of human intervention in making the landscape what it is Stefan. Didn't I sort of say that? It's just that for me a 'wilderness' needn't be completely free from signs of humanity (as I said in my previous post, how many places anywhere are really free from our influence?)...it could be deforested, have a few paths and even perhaps bothies, and I might still call it a wilderness if it met my other criteria. Eg no roads, no permanent habitation, no farming (but what then is deer management, I hear you ask?), no windfarms... If there's no total escape from humanity in the UK, there can still be a significant escape from the signs of modern industry. And that is enough (though more escape would be better) as far as I'm concerned to justify calling somewhere a wilderness.
But you're right, I am a townie and happy to be called such... As are the overwhelming majority of the population in general, and the overwhelming majority of 'wilderness' users and definers. If townies make up the huge majority, then surely what they say more or less goes? So I'm not quite following you on that point.
Penning out sheep and deer etc is a good idea. It'd be great if our wildernesses were augmented by further removing signs of human intervention (though this would in itself constitute an intervention, arguably). Reducing deer, encouraging regrowth of natural vegetation...all these would be lovely. They would make our wildernesses richer, and more wild. However, even without these things being done, we still have 'wilderness' as far as I'm concerned. Not enough of it, and it's continually under threat (especially at the moment with all these bloody windfarms planned for the wrong places), but it's still wilderness for all that. At the moment, as I say.
In reply to Stefan Lloyd:
Perhaps David Bellamy too is having a lack of understanding?
Perhaps David Bellamy too is having a lack of understanding?
In reply to Anonymous:
well, that's not particularly unlikely. prof bellamy is very cute with his funny voice and beard, but he's no genius.
well, that's not particularly unlikely. prof bellamy is very cute with his funny voice and beard, but he's no genius.
In reply to Dan Bailey:
Good post. I like to think in terms of "wild places" rather than "wildernesses" as it is impossible, I think, to stand on top of any hill in Britain and not see some evidence of human interevention even if one ignores deforestation.
I have a dream that if I ever win a lottery roll over I'll buy the North half of Jura, give the crofting land back to the crofters and re introduce native woodland and a few beavers into the Western part.
Good post. I like to think in terms of "wild places" rather than "wildernesses" as it is impossible, I think, to stand on top of any hill in Britain and not see some evidence of human interevention even if one ignores deforestation.
I have a dream that if I ever win a lottery roll over I'll buy the North half of Jura, give the crofting land back to the crofters and re introduce native woodland and a few beavers into the Western part.
In reply to Removed User:
north western jura is fabulous... those raised beaches and the caves... but i'm really not seeing it as a likely stronghold for the beaver.
north western jura is fabulous... those raised beaches and the caves... but i'm really not seeing it as a likely stronghold for the beaver.
In reply to JJJJ:
Fair enough. In my dream I would hire an expert to advise me on that sort of thing.
Even if woodland were re established would beavers still not find the place hospitable?
> (In reply to Eric9Points)
>
> north western jura is fabulous... those raised beaches and the caves... but i'm really not seeing it as a likely stronghold for the beaver.
>
> north western jura is fabulous... those raised beaches and the caves... but i'm really not seeing it as a likely stronghold for the beaver.
Fair enough. In my dream I would hire an expert to advise me on that sort of thing.
Even if woodland were re established would beavers still not find the place hospitable?
In reply to Removed User:
two issues i'd say.
1. i getting a decent mature riparian woodland of the sort that would sustain individual beavers would take a long time (particularly in view of the very harshly acidic quartzite of which most of NW Jura is composed, and the poor soils generated from it).
2. Very small catchments, pretty small island, low densities of beavers due to impoverished soils all suggest to me that a population large enough to be viable long-term on Jura would be highly unlikely.
i could be wrong though, and i wouldn't want to spoil your dream. can i come and visit when you live there and have turned it into a well-wooded paradise? i'll bring some carrots for the beavers.
two issues i'd say.
1. i getting a decent mature riparian woodland of the sort that would sustain individual beavers would take a long time (particularly in view of the very harshly acidic quartzite of which most of NW Jura is composed, and the poor soils generated from it).
2. Very small catchments, pretty small island, low densities of beavers due to impoverished soils all suggest to me that a population large enough to be viable long-term on Jura would be highly unlikely.
i could be wrong though, and i wouldn't want to spoil your dream. can i come and visit when you live there and have turned it into a well-wooded paradise? i'll bring some carrots for the beavers.
In reply to JJJJ:
no genius but Durham University didn't employ him to count jelly babies you know....
no genius but Durham University didn't employ him to count jelly babies you know....
In reply to Removed User & others
I don't think that a USA style legalistic definition works in a landscape so heavily modified by man as the UK. One approach which I've seen developed for Scotland was based on perception, obviously subjective but there's a fair degree of agreement although experience/knowledge has an influence (so if you know a given glen was 'cleared' but was previously well populated you might well take that into account whereas an uninformed visitor would be more likely to think 'wilderness'.
But although the obvious candidates (Cairngorm plateau, Flow country, etc) got rated highly, so did some areas of neglected waste land near cities.
Surprised no one has refered to The Scottish Wild Land Group ( www.swlg.org.uk/ )yet - this issue is discussed in many of their publications
I don't think that a USA style legalistic definition works in a landscape so heavily modified by man as the UK. One approach which I've seen developed for Scotland was based on perception, obviously subjective but there's a fair degree of agreement although experience/knowledge has an influence (so if you know a given glen was 'cleared' but was previously well populated you might well take that into account whereas an uninformed visitor would be more likely to think 'wilderness'.
But although the obvious candidates (Cairngorm plateau, Flow country, etc) got rated highly, so did some areas of neglected waste land near cities.
Surprised no one has refered to The Scottish Wild Land Group ( www.swlg.org.uk/ )yet - this issue is discussed in many of their publications
In reply to Anonymous:
no, they employed him to secure funding for people who were more academically minded.
no, they employed him to secure funding for people who were more academically minded.
In reply to JJJJ:
may be dificult to comprehend now, but way back when (think 1970s) Bellamy was a scientist with a good reputation for studies of peat bogs, both in the British Isles & further a field and that's how he got his lecturership at Durham. Eventually as his media activities started taking up a lot of his time he was asked to effectively choose between science & media. Not sure where his 'Prof' title comes from, maybe honoury ?
may be dificult to comprehend now, but way back when (think 1970s) Bellamy was a scientist with a good reputation for studies of peat bogs, both in the British Isles & further a field and that's how he got his lecturership at Durham. Eventually as his media activities started taking up a lot of his time he was asked to effectively choose between science & media. Not sure where his 'Prof' title comes from, maybe honoury ?
In reply to Doug:
all professorships are more or less honorary, aren't they?
perhaps i've been too harsh on Bellamy, it's not that he's an idiot himself, it's more that he's respected as an expert by idiots on subjects of which he has perhaps only a passing acquaintance. victim of his own success perhaps.
all professorships are more or less honorary, aren't they?
perhaps i've been too harsh on Bellamy, it's not that he's an idiot himself, it's more that he's respected as an expert by idiots on subjects of which he has perhaps only a passing acquaintance. victim of his own success perhaps.
In reply to JJJJ:
Except that he has been quite happy to expound at length and with a relatively high degree of idiocy on subjects that he knows he has only a partial understanding (at best). He's the one who set himself as a spokesman on certain subjects, despite his lack of knowledge.
Except that he has been quite happy to expound at length and with a relatively high degree of idiocy on subjects that he knows he has only a partial understanding (at best). He's the one who set himself as a spokesman on certain subjects, despite his lack of knowledge.
In reply to Dan Bailey:
Argumentum ad populum: a logical fallacy. Just because a lot of people believe something, that doesn't make it true.
My point was that a lot of people are disconnected from the human processes that shape landscape, and come to that, the production of food. You think you are seeing nature in the raw when you are actually seeing something man-made: not in terms of the geology but very much in the fauna and flora.
>
> But you're right, I am a townie and happy to be called such... As are the overwhelming majority of the population in general, and the overwhelming majority of 'wilderness' users and definers. If townies make up the huge majority, then surely what they say more or less goes? So I'm not quite following you on that point.
>
> But you're right, I am a townie and happy to be called such... As are the overwhelming majority of the population in general, and the overwhelming majority of 'wilderness' users and definers. If townies make up the huge majority, then surely what they say more or less goes? So I'm not quite following you on that point.
>
Argumentum ad populum: a logical fallacy. Just because a lot of people believe something, that doesn't make it true.
My point was that a lot of people are disconnected from the human processes that shape landscape, and come to that, the production of food. You think you are seeing nature in the raw when you are actually seeing something man-made: not in terms of the geology but very much in the fauna and flora.
In reply to Stefan Lloyd:
Does the introduction of a species by accident count? E.g rats off the boats on a tropical island?
Fex.
Does the introduction of a species by accident count? E.g rats off the boats on a tropical island?
Fex.
In reply to Fex Wazner:
I'd like to vaguely hijack this thread with a question that I wonder about from time to time: how much of the land surface of the Earth has never been seen by a human? 0%? 5%? 20%? And photos taken by satellites don't really count.
I'd like to vaguely hijack this thread with a question that I wonder about from time to time: how much of the land surface of the Earth has never been seen by a human? 0%? 5%? 20%? And photos taken by satellites don't really count.
In reply to jimbo g:
I'd say 60% taking into acount that you can see 80 miles to the horizon on the ocean.
Fex.
I'd say 60% taking into acount that you can see 80 miles to the horizon on the ocean.
Fex.
In reply to Fex Wazner: yes, my new career, for the moment is with Biosecurity New Zealand, "protecting New Zealand from pests, weeds and diseases". anyway we count everything non-native as introduced, even those which may have been brought by passive means, such as winds, or ocean currents, may be eradicated if they have pest potential. We have moth traps all over the north for that reason.
anyway agree with the others about wild places in britain, I found the cairngorms the least altered as there were large sections where there was no view of any human made structures, however the env. of course was altered.
anyway agree with the others about wild places in britain, I found the cairngorms the least altered as there were large sections where there was no view of any human made structures, however the env. of course was altered.
In reply to Anonymous:
Yes very much so as demonstrated by his recent non-sensical utterances on windfarms in Skye.
> (In reply to Stefan Lloyd)
> Perhaps David Bellamy too is having a lack of understanding?
> Perhaps David Bellamy too is having a lack of understanding?
Yes very much so as demonstrated by his recent non-sensical utterances on windfarms in Skye.
In reply to Iain Ridgway:
I suppose the biggest problem is finding out what should be there and what is should look like. As landscapes change, my friend has said that we need to choose which stage we want it to look like and recreate/preserve that. He made the point that the great plains in the US used to be covered in trees until the injuns burnt them down to encourage buffalo.
Fex.
PS. Why do the pictures of Fisherfield forest not have any trees in them?
I suppose the biggest problem is finding out what should be there and what is should look like. As landscapes change, my friend has said that we need to choose which stage we want it to look like and recreate/preserve that. He made the point that the great plains in the US used to be covered in trees until the injuns burnt them down to encourage buffalo.
Fex.
PS. Why do the pictures of Fisherfield forest not have any trees in them?
In reply to Fex Wazner:
They all got cut down ages ago.
> PS. Why do the pictures of Fisherfield forest not have any trees in them?
They all got cut down ages ago.
In reply to DougG:
The original word 'forest' had nothing to do with trees, and simply meant 'an open area (used for hunting)'. If there were woods there, the strange term (strange to our ears) 'woods in the forest' was sometimes used. The Royal Forest of the Peak is, or a rather was, a good example, never being completely wooded.
I don't know if this is the origin of the expression 'deer forest' in Scotland though.
The original word 'forest' had nothing to do with trees, and simply meant 'an open area (used for hunting)'. If there were woods there, the strange term (strange to our ears) 'woods in the forest' was sometimes used. The Royal Forest of the Peak is, or a rather was, a good example, never being completely wooded.
I don't know if this is the origin of the expression 'deer forest' in Scotland though.
In reply to Doug:
indeed, some of my contemporaries there were taught by him.
My sister, then aged about 10 or 11, spent a very happy afternoon in his company looking at newts in a quarry pool on Crawleyside, just over our garden wall.
indeed, some of my contemporaries there were taught by him.
My sister, then aged about 10 or 11, spent a very happy afternoon in his company looking at newts in a quarry pool on Crawleyside, just over our garden wall.
In reply to Stefan Lloyd: It's not a logical fallacy. It might (or in this case, might not) be wrong, but it's not illogical. If the majority of people use a word (eg 'wilderness') to mean A, while a few 'experts' maintain that it really means B, then who's right? Both? A quasi-Wittgensteinian approach might be to suggest that as its meaning is in its use, the word more often means A than B.
Are we 'wilderness users' really disconnected from human processes that shape the land? Isn't our presence in remote areas in significant numbers a land-shaping process in its own right?
Are we 'wilderness users' really disconnected from human processes that shape the land? Isn't our presence in remote areas in significant numbers a land-shaping process in its own right?
In reply to Dan Bailey:
Now we have concluded that there is very little true wilderness left, especially in Europe, maybe its about time we came up with another definition. I am not happy with parks, so it will have to be something else.
I can't help thinking of the areas full of 'savages' in Aldous Huxley's 'Brave New World'.
Fex.
Now we have concluded that there is very little true wilderness left, especially in Europe, maybe its about time we came up with another definition. I am not happy with parks, so it will have to be something else.
I can't help thinking of the areas full of 'savages' in Aldous Huxley's 'Brave New World'.
Fex.
In reply to Fex Wazner:
i don't think one Square Mile is big enough to be a called a wilderness.
>
> I can't help thinking of the areas full of 'savages' in Aldous Huxley's 'Brave New World'.
>
> Fex.
>
> Fex.
i don't think one Square Mile is big enough to be a called a wilderness.
In reply to Fex Wazner: As there is so little left, shouldn't we preserve what we can, whether we personally choose (and yes it does seem to be a personal choice) to call it 'wilderness' or just some variation of 'currently under-developed land what may be empty but ain't in as pristine a state as it were before folks started living there'?
This thread's thrown up some interesting ideas Fex. What's the motive behind it?
This thread's thrown up some interesting ideas Fex. What's the motive behind it?
In reply to Dan Bailey:
Dear Dan
Fex was trying to answer my question to him.
Norrie
> (In reply to Fex Wazner)
This thread's thrown up some interesting ideas Fex. What's the motive behind it?
Dear Dan
Fex was trying to answer my question to him.
Norrie
In reply to Dan Bailey:
Reading in the Oban Times today the section on Scalpay News (always a good read). The local viewed the land as "Vacant" as opposed to a wilderness. You can't really blame people living in an empty area for wanting something other than bog and to resent people for what they see as some outsiders trying to limit what they already have.
Reading in the Oban Times today the section on Scalpay News (always a good read). The local viewed the land as "Vacant" as opposed to a wilderness. You can't really blame people living in an empty area for wanting something other than bog and to resent people for what they see as some outsiders trying to limit what they already have.
In reply to Fex Wazner:
YES!!!
There is a place called The Wilderness in the Forest of Dean...
http://tinyurl.com/exzn5 (Just above and to the right of Drybrook)
YES!!!
There is a place called The Wilderness in the Forest of Dean...
http://tinyurl.com/exzn5 (Just above and to the right of Drybrook)
In reply to Dan Bailey:
I was laso thinking of writing an article and needed to do a bit of research.
Fex.
I was laso thinking of writing an article and needed to do a bit of research.
Fex.
In reply to Dan Bailey:
nail on the head. An exact definition might not be helpful. Like beauty perhaps some poetry of interpretation can be left in the mind of the beholder
nail on the head. An exact definition might not be helpful. Like beauty perhaps some poetry of interpretation can be left in the mind of the beholder
In reply to Fex Wazner:
if you are thinking of writing, try searching out the work done by/for SNH
if you are thinking of writing, try searching out the work done by/for SNH
In reply to Fex Wazner:
knoydart? moydart? cairngorm massif? Sutherland?
any of theabove methinks
Flettie
knoydart? moydart? cairngorm massif? Sutherland?
any of theabove methinks
Flettie
In reply to Fex Wazner:
if you drive up Plump hill in the forrest of dean,at the top on the right hand side it is signposted "the wilderness" so I guess it's over there
if you drive up Plump hill in the forrest of dean,at the top on the right hand side it is signposted "the wilderness" so I guess it's over there
In reply to Fex Wazner:
maybe between Kinlochewe and Dundonnel - fisherfield and letterewe forest. About as remote as it gets in the UK
maybe between Kinlochewe and Dundonnel - fisherfield and letterewe forest. About as remote as it gets in the UK
In reply to Fex Wazner:
I remember walking around Orkney once, the northern part of the island. You get a truly isolated feeling, and at least it is apparent that the vegetation is ancient and even the footpaths are very fuzzy.
I remember walking around Orkney once, the northern part of the island. You get a truly isolated feeling, and at least it is apparent that the vegetation is ancient and even the footpaths are very fuzzy.
In reply to Sharket: And when praytell is that ever a problem
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...