Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Gold and Silver Juniors, Mid-tiers and Producers -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: philv who wrote (40723)	5/22/2007 1:16:01 PM
From: LoneClone	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 78430

How many people will see a park is irrelevant in cases like the Tatenshini. Tourism is only one of the reasons parks are created; it is also vital that large areas of wilderness be kept pristine with as little human contact as possible. All too often it is human contact, even in slight amounts, that destroys wilderness ecosystems. I am in favour of keeping humans out of the Tatenshini as much as possible. I don’t need to go there – it is enough for me that it exists. LC

To: philv who wrote (40723)	5/22/2007 1:34:46 PM
From: E. Charters	Respond to of 78430

I know that percentage. I can calculate it at least having worked back in the woods for 30 years and counted the number of CDN's I met in the woods, or later who had camps there in the region. In 2 years of canoeing Lady Evelyn I met 10 canoeists. They were all from the US. In 30 years of back woods camping, I met . . . . . Nobody. 0.0 people who came to my camp site. Ever. I did see the odd person on a river in a near to road site or I knew who had a camp in the area or who hunted or fished a nearby lake. I also know from gov't stats that 90% of the tourists who visit Ontario, are city shoppers. I would estimate that other than drive thru parks, the number of true domestic wilderness campers is very, very small. Perhaps 10 in 100,000 people. So in all of Canada the number of people who will visit a Tatenshini or a Lady Evelyn, which requires helicopter or long distance hiking thru hills or mountains is perhaps per region, is, say, 300 in ten years. If you don't believe this, just go down your street and poll 1000 people and ask them when the last time the paddled over 50 miles up a river, or hiked 20 miles thru the bush with a back pack, or helicoptered into a remote area just to see it. My bet is you will come up empty if you poll 1000 households. I am being generous when I say 10 in 100,000 do that kind of access. That's it. 3000 people today in Canada would be active campers of far-flung areas. You have to be young and in shape and well off to even do it. And near the area to boot, as not many people will spend a vacation hiking 50 miles from a highway in bear country. While this stuff is rare, I would be the first to say that is not why you preserve areas. Even if no one but bears went there, you might still want to limit access and preserve wilderness. There are ecologically sensitive areas, and nice park like scenic spots. Preservation is nice for animals, and scenery and for humans probably too. The air, water and biota in general. There are competing interests and we need work and an economy and I believe there are ways to protect sensitive areas, and we should work on these methods. And returning things to wilderness is possible. Every try to find a 100 year old mine site of a 25 year old diamond drill hole? A cut line from the 1950's? Good luck. Maw nature takes care of herself. We should be realistic about her abilities and perhaps realistic of where we have to pay more attention. But let's not starve in the process. Windy Craggy was silly. The Sherman Mine was silly too. But in a different way. They could have done a much, much better job of envi protection at the Sherman. And the environmentalists could have leaned on Webster to provide a better plan without killing it. Everybody could have been happy in the end, but, as usual, there is a tragedy when humans try to push their interests blindly. EC<:-}