Trail(er) trash

Speak for yourself. When I did the Rubicon back in 2000, we carried out all of our trash. I would venture a guess that not so much as a stick of gum was spit out.

If he answered I was going to ask about leather (or leather looking) shoes, belts, and jackets before expanding to plastic away pop cans/bottles, grocery bags, etc.

At that point the whole topic of pesticides and fertilizers comes open.....

Good lord this thread is gettin' long

R. Lander proclaimed:

Bullshit.

It is called Pareto's Principal Coasty

Other than the percentages being those of the pareto, looks more like Sturgeons Law.

Coasty proclaimed:

This is for people who claim there's plenty of wilderness left for Jeep tracks. They have no broad perspective on land use. Trees alone are not indicative of wilderness. Many national forests are sterile places, ecologically.

Those dark-green patches in the lower-48 contain trees that have never been cut, or roadless areas. Notice how small they are relative to industrialized or tamed parcels (lighter green, orange and red). It's an insult to demand more roads in those last pristine fragments. We need fewer people wanting a piece of the action, which means more birth control everywhere. That's the real solution if one has any respect for the land.

Here's a "footprint" map of the entire world. Notice how densely packed Europe is. That same blight is creeping across America and it doesn't need help from the off-road lobby.

Looks like they need a lot more roads in Canada... perhaps they could get more people living, working, and playing up there. Ya know.. development, homes, industry... jobs... good jobs....

good jobs= a good life.

Or you could go live in a cave and scavenge for sustenance.... your choice.

billy ray did pass the time by typing:

Canada tends more to small farm towns and BIG cities. Changes from coast to coast but places like Calgary Alberta are huge cities where folks live in fairly nice homes or apartments/flats. Lots of the surrounding lands are farm but that's changing. There still are miles and miles of agriculture.

/me thinks the OP lives in his own special world.

The OP is posting from an ISP in Northern California. That in itself explains much. Probably one of those uber-greenies on a mission from god or some such.

Ever been to Northern Canada? The Northwest and Yukon Territories are islands and water in summer and islands and ice in winter with a hell of a lot of baren rock. Apart from hunting, fishing, or prospecting there is very little reason to go up there.

The OP is nothing but a crossposting troll. Not once has it ever answered even one of the responses.

The map shows nothing. It is much too small to show anything at all. From looking at the map, and the web site that it came from, I get the idea that it is purposely deceitful. The map would have you believe that no undeveloped land exists from the cetral US eastward. I know for a fact this is wrong. I have traveled up and down the east coast and have found wilderness areas in every state, but you wouldn't know it by your map. I currently live in NY. According to your map you would think it all looks like new york city. Nothing could be further from the truth. Did you know that wilderness exists not far from the city ? Ever hear of the Catskill mountains, they're right outside the city. How about the 6.1 million acre Adirondack state park. But most of New York is not heavily developed once you are north of the city. Ever been to Pennsylvania, lots of wilderness also. Same as western Maryland, West Virginia, western Virginia, etc... I have never had a problem finding wilderness areas no matter were I"ve been. If fact, when hiking and backpacking, it wasn't unusual to not see anyone else in the woods. Sounds like you need to get out more and see things for yourself, rather that believe everything you read on the internet.

There's a reason for that. Roads existed as far back as the horse and buggy days. People had to have some means of getting from on place to another.Some of the roads were also created from logging. The reason trees have been cut is so that you could lumber to build your house. But trees are a renewable resource. The roadless debate has only been a recent concern. I have only seen it used as a way to try and keep motorized/ wheeled recreation out of a given area. But it is likely most of these roads have been around for over a hundred years. As an example, I've hiked in Shenandoah National Park which was etablished in 1935. You can still plainy see the old roads in the backcountry even today. How old do you think they are ????

We

What an ignorant statement ! Do you really believe that ? Do you really believe that nobody should be allowed to raise a family ? Why not take it a step further and end your life for the good of the world ? Doesn't make sense, does it ?

Got most of what we need and want, thanks.

Have plenty of that as well, especially living and playing.

Not perfect, but more than satisfactory, much more -- and we don't outsource the good stuff.

Generally, yes, always, no -- but Americans generally have trouble with concepts beyond yes/no.

Good life? Yep, we already have that, and plenty of it -- it's not that far away from the Cincy area, take a peak over the border sometime. But please, just look, entering isn't necessary.

Dat's what I mean -- yes/no you understand, but nothing in-between (except Nancy, that is)

Earle Horton did pass the time by typing:

People are allways telling me to take a hike.

Don't bait the troll.

inajeep did pass the time by typing:

ITYM

Pretty pictures you've got there but pretty much useless without the legend of what the colors actually mean.

Looking at you pretty coloring book would have us believe that almost the entire eastern US is literally covered in people. Your world map is no different. What do the color graduations signify?

Let's take India for example, you CAN pick it out without resorting to a world atlas can't you? Based on colors alone one might believe that India is absolutely covered in humanity, and population numbers might lead you to think the same thing. After all, their population is right on a par with China at around 2 billion souls, give or take a few hundred million. The thing is, I've BEEN to India and I've seen a fair portion of it, and while the cities themselves can be absolutely crawling with people, the biggest hunk of the country is pretty much free of significant numbers of them.

The US is approximately 3.5 million square miles with a population of approximately 75 million people which works out to about 78 people per square mile. A fair number of those are actually concentrated in the major cities so that makes their density greater, but the density of the rest of the country less. I'm betting a fairly substantial portion of the city folk never get any closer to nature than the zoo and local water park, so their impact on the environment is minimal, not counting the emissions from their mini-vans.

Their indirect impact based on resources used in their behalf and what-not might be a bit harder to judge, but unless you're willing to be the first in line to be euthanized to minimize the impact to poor mother earth I'd suggest you shut up about population issues.

There are about 4 million miles of roads in the US. For the sake of argument lets say 1 mile of road for every square mile of real estate in the country. If you laid them all end to end and side by side...well, you should get the picture. A road isn't all that wide compared to a mile of real estate is it? I'd guess the real estate is about, ohhh,

And besides which, what is your point? Do you seriously think there is anything, short of total global sterilization, that man can do to this planet that is going to make any kind of lasting impact? Man, and whatever impact we might have is going to be less than blip on the radar that is the life cycle of this planet.

I guess that would be 275 million.

LOL

Bill, I'll bet you're in the same hiking club, that Doug and I are in. ;^)

Earle