Add in that their National Parks seem to be treated as heavily designed and manicured golf courses, with everything undisturbed and picture-perfect, and it’s a tough one to get my brain around.
I think the point of wilderness designations is that human impact should be kept to an absolute minimum, in other words, the area should be like it was before humans set foot, as much as possible. A golf course is the exact opposite of this.
hols2
I think the point of wilderness designations is that human impact should be kept to an absolute minimum, in other words, the area should be like it was before humans set foot, as much as possible.
That's a zoo, not wilderness.
Wilderness would allow humans so long as they lived off the land. We are part of the environment too.
That’s a zoo, not wilderness.
A zoo is an animal prison, build and run by humans. Wilderness is untouched by humans, as far as that is possible. I don't think the fights over snowmobile and ATV access in U.S. national parks have anything to do with living off the land or being part of the environment.
I really couldn't give a flying duck what the yanks do.
hols2
...I don’t think the fights over snowmobile and ATV access in U.S. national parks have anything to do with living off the land ...
I don't think I implied that either.
However it probably does qualify as wilderness, after all, they did a pretty good job of exterminating the original inhabitants.
I think we should be careful with using the word "damage" when what we really me is "a bit muddy"...
All trails wear out, as do all mountains, 5 million years ago Norfolk was not flat! Where our trails have a huge useage (peaks, lakes etc) then i can see why we would need to limit the erosion (erosion not damage) simpy to make access to these trails easy for all, but realistically, the countryside is muddy, it's not chocolate box picturesque perfect.
Wear the right shoes fit the right tyres and us humans can go anywhere. No, you won't be able to get out of your white leather faux by four and walk in your high heals, but that's not how the countryside is, or has ever been.
(as mentioned, certain parts will need to be paved or improved, as for example access for wheelchair or disability users is important, and no we shouldn't 'needlessly' erode our countryside, but to say it's damaged is eronious in the most part imo)
I'm with maxtorque - it is a lot more eroded, damaged and semi-permanent (in human lifetime terms not geological time) once covered in concrete or tarmac. A muddy track vanishes very quickly if you leave it alone.
If you're concerned about the damage bikes do to tracks, ride a fatbike. It repairs the grooves left by lesser bikes.
Wjhen you see a path go from a foot wide to ten foot wide, see the soil be stripped down to bedrock with huge gullies 3 or 4 foot deep - that is damage.
Then its gets repaired with rock slabs, then people ride along side it, then the water runnoff stripps all the supporting soil from the slabbing and the slabbing collapses leaving 4 ft steps - thats damage.
Wjhen you see a path go from a foot wide to ten foot wide, see the soil be stripped down to bedrock with huge gullies 3 or 4 foot deep – that is damage.
So lucky we’ve never seen this happen near us. Plenty of foot and bike flow in places, but it just slops up and turns to a quagmire. Trees stop people going wide, so the trail stays put, albeit sloppy. Not many exposed trails round here though.
Only exception is where cars / trucks / tractors force their way down some tracks, hitting foilage and vegetation and leaving the ruts of doom at the trail edges.
Worth sayinmg that there are a fair few springs around too, and they never allow the trails to dry out, so even in the peak of summer there are a couple of bogs that are permanent mud traps.
I suppose it shows the power of trees in soil management. Go trees!