Cabin in the wilderness

[Len McDougall, Outdoor Writer]

I ran across an old post from a person calling himself (or herself)
Old Yooper, that questioned whether the log cabin homestead I built as
the subject of my last book was really in a wilderness. I'll
temporarily overlook the fact that this monkey wrench is calling me a
liar.
To answer his challenges on that subject, it took more than 3 hours
to reach Petoskey, the town where I resupplied, in summer, and about
4.5 hours in winter. In summer, it was more than 1.5 miles on foot
through rugged swamp to the end of a 3-mile 2 track that was as close
as a vehicle could get. Getting to the nearest road through that
4.5-mile stretch - all of it through uninhabited Odawa reservation and
public lands - took 2 hours or longer, depending on the load I was
carrying on my back. From there, it was a 38-mile drive to Petoskey.
Essentially, a trip to town and back took all day, just as it had in
the 1800s.
The cabin itself sits in a region encompassing 60 square miles that
are broken by only 1 hiking trail. Beyond the single nearest paved
road are another roughly 80 square miles of public and reservation
land. I will not, as Old Yooper foolishly suggested, give exact
coordinates to the homestead, because that would entice vandals. The
area more than meets Old Yooper's stated criteria for wilderness by
being untracked, unknown, and uncultivated.
In the 15 months I spent living in that wilderness, not one
stranger even approached the cabin site, and now, nearly 3 years
later, it remains unfound. The reason for that is because even locals
fear those glacial-dune forests, and if a hiker isn't skilled with
both map and compass, he should never leave the trail. I'm not
kidding; several people have had to be rescued from that area by local
SAR teams in the past few years.
My own criteria for calling a place wilderness also has to do with
lack of roads and people, but mostly with the wild species that tend
to avoid them. The forest my log cabin sits in is home to gray
wolves, cougar, wapiti, fishers, bald eagles, ospreys, sandhill
cranes, loons, blue herons, and other species too numerous to mention.
These aren't animals I think might be there, these are animals I've
seen.
Unfortunately, the French Farm Lake/Wilderness State Park region
really is the last remaining wilderness in Michigan's Lower Peninsula.
While I was there, I defended it, running off illegal ORVS (which are
prohibited), and forcing drunks to clean up their party messes on the
shoreline of French Farm Lake. Now that no one actually lives there,
my friends who backpack in the area tell me that the criminals have
gone wantonly berserk, and the Department of Natural Resources refuses
to enforce its own laws. I guess it isn't my problem any more, but it
saddens me that our species is the only one on earth that prefers to
shit in its own cage. I haven't returned to the homestead since I
left, nearly 2 years ago, because I want to remember the forest as it
was, and I know that seeing what the bad people have done to that
hallowed place will tear my heart out.
So, Old Yooper, if you still think my homestead isn't in
wilderness, maybe you'd like to try to find it? Better yet, perhaps
you could read The Log Cabin: (borrow a copy from the Public Library),
that way you could present an informed opinion.

Len McDougall, author of the books: The Log Cabin: An Adventure in
Individualism, Self-Reliance, and Cabin Building, The Complete
Tracker, The Field & Stream Wilderness Survival Handbook, The Snowshoe
Handbook, Practical Outdoor Projects, The Outdoors Almanac, Made for
the Outdoors, Practical Outdoor Survival
http://groups.msn.com/TimberwolfWildernessAdventures/home

[The moderator]

Post by Len McDougall, Outdoor Writer
I ran across an old post from a person calling himself (or herself)
Old Yooper, that questioned whether the log cabin homestead I built as
the subject of my last book was really in a wilderness. I'll
temporarily overlook the fact that this monkey wrench is calling me a
liar.
To answer his challenges on that subject, it took more than 3 hours
to reach Petoskey, the town where I resupplied, in summer, and about
4.5 hours in winter. In summer, it was more than 1.5 miles on foot
through rugged swamp to the end of a 3-mile 2 track that was as close
as a vehicle could get. Getting to the nearest road through that
4.5-mile stretch - all of it through uninhabited Odawa reservation and
public lands - took 2 hours or longer, depending on the load I was
carrying on my back. From there, it was a 38-mile drive to Petoskey.
Essentially, a trip to town and back took all day, just as it had in
the 1800s.
The cabin itself sits in a region encompassing 60 square miles that
are broken by only 1 hiking trail. Beyond the single nearest paved
road are another roughly 80 square miles of public and reservation
land. I will not, as Old Yooper foolishly suggested, give exact
coordinates to the homestead, because that would entice vandals. The
area more than meets Old Yooper's stated criteria for wilderness by
being untracked, unknown, and uncultivated.
In the 15 months I spent living in that wilderness, not one
stranger even approached the cabin site, and now, nearly 3 years
later, it remains unfound. The reason for that is because even locals
fear those glacial-dune forests, and if a hiker isn't skilled with
both map and compass, he should never leave the trail. I'm not
kidding; several people have had to be rescued from that area by local
SAR teams in the past few years.
My own criteria for calling a place wilderness also has to do with
lack of roads and people, but mostly with the wild species that tend
to avoid them. The forest my log cabin sits in is home to gray
wolves, cougar, wapiti, fishers, bald eagles, ospreys, sandhill
cranes, loons, blue herons, and other species too numerous to mention.
These aren't animals I think might be there, these are animals I've
seen.
Unfortunately, the French Farm Lake/Wilderness State Park region
really is the last remaining wilderness in Michigan's Lower Peninsula.
While I was there, I defended it, running off illegal ORVS (which are
prohibited), and forcing drunks to clean up their party messes on the
shoreline of French Farm Lake. Now that no one actually lives there,
my friends who backpack in the area tell me that the criminals have
gone wantonly berserk, and the Department of Natural Resources refuses
to enforce its own laws. I guess it isn't my problem any more, but it
saddens me that our species is the only one on earth that prefers to
shit in its own cage. I haven't returned to the homestead since I
left, nearly 2 years ago, because I want to remember the forest as it
was, and I know that seeing what the bad people have done to that
hallowed place will tear my heart out.
So, Old Yooper, if you still think my homestead isn't in
wilderness, maybe you'd like to try to find it? Better yet, perhaps
you could read The Log Cabin: (borrow a copy from the Public Library),
that way you could present an informed opinion.

I may have to go with Old Yooper on this one. A mile and a half off the
road is not exactly wilderness. If you can walk to your truck in half an
hour, well...

[Len McDougall, Outdoor Writer]

Post by The moderator

Post by Len McDougall, Outdoor Writer
I ran across an old post from a person calling himself (or herself)
Old Yooper, that questioned whether the log cabin homestead I built as
the subject of my last book was really in a wilderness. I'll
temporarily overlook the fact that this monkey wrench is calling me a
liar.
To answer his challenges on that subject, it took more than 3 hours
to reach Petoskey, the town where I resupplied, in summer, and about
4.5 hours in winter. In summer, it was more than 1.5 miles on foot
through rugged swamp to the end of a 3-mile 2 track that was as close
as a vehicle could get. Getting to the nearest road through that
4.5-mile stretch - all of it through uninhabited Odawa reservation and
public lands - took 2 hours or longer, depending on the load I was
carrying on my back. From there, it was a 38-mile drive to Petoskey.
Essentially, a trip to town and back took all day, just as it had in
the 1800s.
The cabin itself sits in a region encompassing 60 square miles that
are broken by only 1 hiking trail. Beyond the single nearest paved
road are another roughly 80 square miles of public and reservation
land. I will not, as Old Yooper foolishly suggested, give exact
coordinates to the homestead, because that would entice vandals. The
area more than meets Old Yooper's stated criteria for wilderness by
being untracked, unknown, and uncultivated.
In the 15 months I spent living in that wilderness, not one
stranger even approached the cabin site, and now, nearly 3 years
later, it remains unfound. The reason for that is because even locals
fear those glacial-dune forests, and if a hiker isn't skilled with
both map and compass, he should never leave the trail. I'm not
kidding; several people have had to be rescued from that area by local
SAR teams in the past few years.
My own criteria for calling a place wilderness also has to do with
lack of roads and people, but mostly with the wild species that tend
to avoid them. The forest my log cabin sits in is home to gray
wolves, cougar, wapiti, fishers, bald eagles, ospreys, sandhill
cranes, loons, blue herons, and other species too numerous to mention.
These aren't animals I think might be there, these are animals I've
seen.
Unfortunately, the French Farm Lake/Wilderness State Park region
really is the last remaining wilderness in Michigan's Lower Peninsula.
While I was there, I defended it, running off illegal ORVS (which are
prohibited), and forcing drunks to clean up their party messes on the
shoreline of French Farm Lake. Now that no one actually lives there,
my friends who backpack in the area tell me that the criminals have
gone wantonly berserk, and the Department of Natural Resources refuses
to enforce its own laws. I guess it isn't my problem any more, but it
saddens me that our species is the only one on earth that prefers to
shit in its own cage. I haven't returned to the homestead since I
left, nearly 2 years ago, because I want to remember the forest as it
was, and I know that seeing what the bad people have done to that
hallowed place will tear my heart out.
So, Old Yooper, if you still think my homestead isn't in
wilderness, maybe you'd like to try to find it? Better yet, perhaps
you could read The Log Cabin: (borrow a copy from the Public Library),
that way you could present an informed opinion.

I may have to go with Old Yooper on this one. A mile and a half off the
road is not exactly wilderness. If you can walk to your truck in half an
hour, well...

4.5 miles off the road, as the post says. So how lost in the woods
does a person have to be before he's in wilderness? Nearly everyone
who gets lost does so in an area smaller than most shopping malls.
My back yard right now borders 1.2 million acres of Lake Superior
State Forest, which is itself bordered on the east by 1 million acres
of Hiawatha National Forest, and to the west by about 900,000 acres of
Ottawa National Forest. Most people consider this wilderness, but
it's no more wild or remote than my cabin site. Hell, no one has
ventured near the cabin in almost 3 years, and only because nobody
goes that far back in the woods.
I suspect part of the problem is that few understand just how thick
a N. Michigan/N. Wisconsin/N. Minnesota forest can be. You can't ride
a horse through most of the places I frequent, visibility is often
restricted to 100 feet or less, and the terrain is as diverse as any
in the world. Its stifling and bug-infested in summer, and in winter
it becomes a subzero icebox. That's why I live here, and that's why
the Old Yooper took the monicker he has.
Oh well, I haven't the time to argue more, so I guess we'll agree
to disagree.

Len McDougall, author of the books: The Log Cabin: An Adventure in
Individualism, Self-Reliance, and Cabin Building, The Complete
Tracker, The Field & Stream Wilderness Survival Handbook, The Snowshoe
Handbook, Practical Outdoor Projects, The Outdoors Almanac, Made for
the Outdoors, Practical Outdoor Survival
http://groups.msn.com/TimberwolfWildernessAdventures/home

[R***@core.com]

Post by Len McDougall, Outdoor Writer
I suspect part of the problem is that few understand just how thick
a N. Michigan/N. Wisconsin/N. Minnesota forest can be. You can't ride
a horse through most of the places I frequent, visibility is often
restricted to 100 feet or less, and the terrain is as diverse as any
in the world. Its stifling and bug-infested in summer, and in winter
it becomes a subzero icebox. That's why I live here, and that's why
the Old Yooper took the monicker he has.

As a fellow Michiganian and owner of one of Len's books (can't find it right
now to be sure of the name) I did want to say thanks for this post. It
points out a misconception that many people have of the state.

Michigan unfortunately is viewed only as Detroit with perhaps some farms. In
fact it's more than half forest. (If I were working for the tourism bureau
I'd also point out there are more miles of Great Lakes shoreline in
Michigan than on the entire eastern seaboard of the U.S.) To my mind it
should more properly be thought of as more forest than urban or
agriculture. The problem is that most people from other places just drive
down I-94 and seldom venture much north of Grand Rapids or Lansing.

Someone from New York could make just as valid a complaint, but it does
appear to me that more people are aware of upstate New York than upstate
Michigan.

This is not a major point but a small irritation for me when I talk with
people from elsewhere. Thanks for letting me vent. We now return to our
regularly-scheduled discussion.

--Rod

__________

Author of "Linux for Non-Geeks--Clear-eyed Answered for Practical Consumers"
and "Boring Stories from Uncle Rod." Both are available at
http://www.rodwriterpublishing.com/index.html

To reply by e-mail, take the extra "o" out of the name.

[bookburn]

Post by R***@core.com
As a fellow Michiganian and owner of one of Len's books (can't

find it right

Post by R***@core.com
now to be sure of the name) I did want to say thanks for this

post. It

Post by R***@core.com
points out a misconception that many people have of the state.
Michigan unfortunately is viewed only as Detroit with perhaps

some farms. In

Post by R***@core.com
fact it's more than half forest. (If I were working for the

tourism bureau

Post by R***@core.com
I'd also point out there are more miles of Great Lakes

shoreline in

Post by R***@core.com
Michigan than on the entire eastern seaboard of the U.S.) To my mind it
should more properly be thought of as more forest than urban or
agriculture. The problem is that most people from other places

just drive

Post by R***@core.com
down I-94 and seldom venture much north of Grand Rapids or

Lansing.

Post by R***@core.com
Someone from New York could make just as valid a complaint, but it does
appear to me that more people are aware of upstate New York

than upstate

Post by R***@core.com
Michigan.
This is not a major point but a small irritation for me when I

talk with

Post by R***@core.com
people from elsewhere. Thanks for letting me vent. We now

return to our

Post by R***@core.com
regularly-scheduled discussion.
--Rod

I'm aware of Michigan, having spent a few weeks south of the UP.
My impression is of highly regulated tourist space, with no
parking or metered parking everywhere, and jealously guarded
parks. Like, you need a reservation, permit, and inspection to
be allowed to walk a prescribed path on Isle Royale 15 minutes
after the previous party. All the hardwood forest in Michigan
has been harvested. Probably the point is that you don't find
anything like wilderness unless it's in a park, and if you try
living legally in a remote place you're going to be taxed, have
approved water and septic plans on file, and learn about
easements. bookburn

[Hank]

Post by bookburn
I'm aware of Michigan, having spent a few weeks south of the UP.
My impression is of highly regulated tourist space, with no
parking or metered parking everywhere, and jealously guarded
parks. Like, you need a reservation, permit, and inspection to
be allowed to walk a prescribed path on Isle Royale 15 minutes
after the previous party. All the hardwood forest in Michigan
has been harvested. Probably the point is that you don't find
anything like wilderness unless it's in a park, and if you try
living legally in a remote place you're going to be taxed, have
approved water and septic plans on file, and learn about
easements. bookburn

Back a couple of years, 2 buddies and I put into the Muskegoon
River at M-55. 4 Days later got out in Evart. For the first two
days didn't see a soul, barely a vacation cottage.
This is Mid-Lower-Pennisula of Michigan. Cost Food and Time.

[Gunner]

Post by bookburn

--Rod

I'm aware of Michigan, having spent a few weeks south of the UP.
My impression is of highly regulated tourist space, with no
parking or metered parking everywhere, and jealously guarded
parks. Like, you need a reservation, permit, and inspection to
be allowed to walk a prescribed path on Isle Royale 15 minutes
after the previous party. All the hardwood forest in Michigan
has been harvested. Probably the point is that you don't find
anything like wilderness unless it's in a park, and if you try
living legally in a remote place you're going to be taxed, have
approved water and septic plans on file, and learn about
easements. bookburn

Chuckle..the tourist areas are NOT all the places. I grew up there,
still go home now and then. Still can find chunks of places
indistinguishable from Alaska. Not many...but they are there.

Gunner



"Aren't cats Libertarian? They just want to be left alone.
I think our dog is a Democrat, as he is always looking for a handout"
Unknown Usnet Poster

Heh, heh, I'm pretty sure my dog is a liberal - he has no balls.
Keyton

[Charles Scripter]

Post by bookburn
I'm aware of Michigan, having spent a few weeks south of the UP.
My impression is of highly regulated tourist space, with no

That's what you get when you go to tourist traps.

What'd you do? Hit Mackinac, Traverse City, Petoskey...? And stay in
the tourist areas?

If you'd gone straight east (across I-75), you could have played out
in Mackinac State Forest. Camp out there, and you can hear the elk
bugling. But there are less crowded areas than that...

Post by bookburn
be allowed to walk a prescribed path on Isle Royale 15 minutes
after the previous party.

Then go to someplace more remote than Isle Royale. If you were in the
Keweenaw, there are LOTS of wild areas (pretty much the whole "tip" is
open for public use).

Post by bookburn
All the hardwood forest in Michigan has been harvested.

That's true of everywhere in the US (and in the world).

Tree cover in Michigan is post-logging. And there seem to be an awful
lot of hardwood forests...

Post by bookburn
Probably the point is that you don't find
anything like wilderness unless it's in a park, and if you try

Chuckle... Hey Gunner, remember those pics I mailed you a while back?
I just learned that they weren't "wilderness", but must've been a
"park" (I'll bet the logging company that listed them under CFA will
be surprised to learn that).

[Gunner]

On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 05:00:55 -0000, Charles Scripter

Post by Charles Scripter

Post by bookburn
Probably the point is that you don't find
anything like wilderness unless it's in a park, and if you try

Chuckle... Hey Gunner, remember those pics I mailed you a while back?
I just learned that they weren't "wilderness", but must've been a
"park" (I'll bet the logging company that listed them under CFA will
be surprised to learn that).

Chuckle..lets drop him and Old Yupper off in da middle of dat der Cheny
Stretch, and let dem find der way pack to da civilization eh?

Hummm maybe somewhere off de side of Brockway Mt.?

Gunner


Attending a Million Mom [sic] March, this last Mothers' Day, on hearing
the bleeding heart cry about this innocent [sic] life, snuffed out by a
five-cent bullet, I had to shout out "Where do you shop? They cost me
nearly a quarter!"
Jeffrey C. Dege
Didn't go over well.

[Gunner]

Post by R***@core.com
As a fellow Michiganian and owner of one of Len's books (can't find it right
now to be sure of the name) I did want to say thanks for this post. It
points out a misconception that many people have of the state.
Michigan unfortunately is viewed only as Detroit with perhaps some farms. In
fact it's more than half forest. (If I were working for the tourism bureau
I'd also point out there are more miles of Great Lakes shoreline in
Michigan than on the entire eastern seaboard of the U.S.) To my mind it
should more properly be thought of as more forest than urban or
agriculture. The problem is that most people from other places just drive
down I-94 and seldom venture much north of Grand Rapids or Lansing.

As late as the early 70s, there were still a number of ghost towns in
northern lower and upper Michigan that were largely unknown to even the
locals. Generally either boom time copper mining company towns or lumber
company towns that failed during the Depression, or via diphtheria
pandemic. Tucked back in the middle of hell and back. They have largely
now been destroyed by fire or found by snowmobilers and the years of
harsh weather has done them in. But the history is rich, going back
nearly 300 or more years. Few people realize that of the various
states..Michigan was one of the few that was settled from the north down
to the south, not upwards from the south.

Gunner



"Aren't cats Libertarian? They just want to be left alone.
I think our dog is a Democrat, as he is always looking for a handout"
Unknown Usnet Poster

Heh, heh, I'm pretty sure my dog is a liberal - he has no balls.
Keyton

[Jeffrey C. Dege]

Post by Gunner
As late as the early 70s, there were still a number of ghost towns in
northern lower and upper Michigan that were largely unknown to even the
locals. Generally either boom time copper mining company towns or lumber
company towns that failed during the Depression, or via diphtheria
pandemic. Tucked back in the middle of hell and back. They have largely
now been destroyed by fire or found by snowmobilers and the years of
harsh weather has done them in. But the history is rich, going back
nearly 300 or more years. Few people realize that of the various
states..Michigan was one of the few that was settled from the north down
to the south, not upwards from the south.

Yep. I'm descended from a guy who was stationed at Mackinaw back in
the 1750's. By 1800, the family was living in Vincennes, watching the
"Americans" show up.

[Charles Scripter]

Post by R***@core.com
Michigan unfortunately is viewed only as Detroit with perhaps some farms. In
fact it's more than half forest. (If I were working for the tourism bureau

Incidentally, "Go West, young man" wasn't referring to California, but
rather Calumet Michigan (where there were jobs and "adventure").

Post by R***@core.com
agriculture. The problem is that most people from other places just drive
down I-94 and seldom venture much north of Grand Rapids or Lansing.

And even if they do "go north", they go to the tourist traps...and so
are never subjected to any of the wilds. "Fudgies" as they're
affectionately called (since they invariably have this urge to buy
some fudge from "that-there wilderness area").

Post by R***@core.com
Someone from New York could make just as valid a complaint, but it does
appear to me that more people are aware of upstate New York than upstate
Michigan.

Well, most people don't seem to understand that Michigan is TWO
peninsulas, not just the Mitten.

[Gunner]

On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 04:48:49 -0000, Charles Scripter

Post by Charles Scripter

Post by R***@core.com
Michigan unfortunately is viewed only as Detroit with perhaps some farms. In
fact it's more than half forest. (If I were working for the tourism bureau

Incidentally, "Go West, young man" wasn't referring to California, but
rather Calumet Michigan (where there were jobs and "adventure").

Post by R***@core.com
agriculture. The problem is that most people from other places just drive
down I-94 and seldom venture much north of Grand Rapids or Lansing.

And even if they do "go north", they go to the tourist traps...and so
are never subjected to any of the wilds. "Fudgies" as they're
affectionately called (since they invariably have this urge to buy
some fudge from "that-there wilderness area").

Jeeze... ven Im home..I get da urge to pick out on Madalines Pasties and
Star Toast. Vat does da make me eh?

Post by Charles Scripter

Post by R***@core.com
Someone from New York could make just as valid a complaint, but it does
appear to me that more people are aware of upstate New York than upstate
Michigan.

Well, most people don't seem to understand that Michigan is TWO
peninsulas, not just the Mitten.

Ayup. Look at a map. The flat landers live south of the Bridge.

Gunner


Attending a Million Mom [sic] March, this last Mothers' Day, on hearing
the bleeding heart cry about this innocent [sic] life, snuffed out by a
five-cent bullet, I had to shout out "Where do you shop? They cost me
nearly a quarter!"
Jeffrey C. Dege
Didn't go over well.

[Old Yooper]

Post by Len McDougall, Outdoor Writer

Post by The moderator

Post by Len McDougall, Outdoor Writer
I ran across an old post from a person calling himself (or herself)
Old Yooper, that questioned whether the log cabin homestead I built as
the subject of my last book was really in a wilderness. I'll
temporarily overlook the fact that this monkey wrench is calling me a
liar.
To answer his challenges on that subject, it took more than 3 hours
to reach Petoskey, the town where I resupplied, in summer, and about
4.5 hours in winter. In summer, it was more than 1.5 miles on foot
through rugged swamp to the end of a 3-mile 2 track that was as close
as a vehicle could get. Getting to the nearest road through that
4.5-mile stretch - all of it through uninhabited Odawa reservation and
public lands - took 2 hours or longer, depending on the load I was
carrying on my back. From there, it was a 38-mile drive to Petoskey.
Essentially, a trip to town and back took all day, just as it had in
the 1800s.
The cabin itself sits in a region encompassing 60 square miles that
are broken by only 1 hiking trail. Beyond the single nearest paved
road are another roughly 80 square miles of public and reservation
land. I will not, as Old Yooper foolishly suggested, give exact
coordinates to the homestead, because that would entice vandals. The
area more than meets Old Yooper's stated criteria for wilderness by
being untracked, unknown, and uncultivated.
In the 15 months I spent living in that wilderness, not one
stranger even approached the cabin site, and now, nearly 3 years
later, it remains unfound. The reason for that is because even locals
fear those glacial-dune forests, and if a hiker isn't skilled with
both map and compass, he should never leave the trail. I'm not
kidding; several people have had to be rescued from that area by local
SAR teams in the past few years.
My own criteria for calling a place wilderness also has to do with
lack of roads and people, but mostly with the wild species that tend
to avoid them. The forest my log cabin sits in is home to gray
wolves, cougar, wapiti, fishers, bald eagles, ospreys, sandhill
cranes, loons, blue herons, and other species too numerous to mention.
These aren't animals I think might be there, these are animals I've
seen.
Unfortunately, the French Farm Lake/Wilderness State Park region
really is the last remaining wilderness in Michigan's Lower Peninsula.
While I was there, I defended it, running off illegal ORVS (which are
prohibited), and forcing drunks to clean up their party messes on the
shoreline of French Farm Lake. Now that no one actually lives there,
my friends who backpack in the area tell me that the criminals have
gone wantonly berserk, and the Department of Natural Resources refuses
to enforce its own laws. I guess it isn't my problem any more, but it
saddens me that our species is the only one on earth that prefers to
shit in its own cage. I haven't returned to the homestead since I
left, nearly 2 years ago, because I want to remember the forest as it
was, and I know that seeing what the bad people have done to that
hallowed place will tear my heart out.
So, Old Yooper, if you still think my homestead isn't in
wilderness, maybe you'd like to try to find it? Better yet, perhaps
you could read The Log Cabin: (borrow a copy from the Public Library),
that way you could present an informed opinion.

I may have to go with Old Yooper on this one. A mile and a half off the
road is not exactly wilderness. If you can walk to your truck in half an
hour, well...

4.5 miles off the road, as the post says. So how lost in the woods
does a person have to be before he's in wilderness? Nearly everyone
who gets lost does so in an area smaller than most shopping malls.
My back yard right now borders 1.2 million acres of Lake Superior
State Forest, which is itself bordered on the east by 1 million acres
of Hiawatha National Forest, and to the west by about 900,000 acres of
Ottawa National Forest. Most people consider this wilderness, but
it's no more wild or remote than my cabin site. Hell, no one has
ventured near the cabin in almost 3 years, and only because nobody
goes that far back in the woods.
I suspect part of the problem is that few understand just how thick
a N. Michigan/N. Wisconsin/N. Minnesota forest can be. You can't ride
a horse through most of the places I frequent, visibility is often
restricted to 100 feet or less, and the terrain is as diverse as any
in the world. Its stifling and bug-infested in summer, and in winter
it becomes a subzero icebox. That's why I live here, and that's why
the Old Yooper took the monicker he has.

You have lived in the UP, what, maybe two years? I was roaming the
forest of the UP before you were born; before there was a Mackinaw
Bridge. I was working a career in the deepest part of the same woods
of the UP, alone, before you got into school. Fifty-plus years in the
woods of the UP, in areas you haven't even seen yet ( and probably
because of certain ownership, never will), and there aren't many
places that really come close to real wilderness. Tough country;yes.
Unforgiving country; yes, if you aren't smart, and careful. But
wilderness; no.

What you descibe is pretty normal north-country hardwoods, desidious,
and evergreen forest. So what's the big deal. Some of us have lived
with what you describe our entire life and think nothing more of it.
Just because you like to wax eloquently about it doesn't make it
wilderness.

Post by Len McDougall, Outdoor Writer
Oh well, I haven't the time to argue more, so I guess we'll agree
to disagree.

You call it what you want. Us that know; well, we know...

An Old Yooper

Post by Len McDougall, Outdoor Writer
Len McDougall, author of the books: The Log Cabin: An Adventure in
Individualism, Self-Reliance, and Cabin Building, The Complete
Tracker, The Field & Stream Wilderness Survival Handbook, The Snowshoe
Handbook, Practical Outdoor Projects, The Outdoors Almanac, Made for
the Outdoors, Practical Outdoor Survival
http://groups.msn.com/TimberwolfWildernessAdventures/home

[Offbreed]

Post by Old Yooper
What you descibe is pretty normal north-country hardwoods, desidious,
and evergreen forest. So what's the big deal. Some of us have lived
with what you describe our entire life and think nothing more of it.

If you wish to say a place is not "wilderness" based on people being
able to live there without difficulty or thinking twice about it, then
there aren't many places on the planet that qualify as "wilderness".

[Jeffrey C. Dege]

Post by Offbreed

Post by Old Yooper
What you descibe is pretty normal north-country hardwoods, desidious,
and evergreen forest. So what's the big deal. Some of us have lived
with what you describe our entire life and think nothing more of it.

If you wish to say a place is not "wilderness" based on people being
able to live there without difficulty or thinking twice about it, then
there aren't many places on the planet that qualify as "wilderness".

Well, there's "survive without difficulty", and there's "survive without
difficulty".

Did you know that _I_ live so far out in the wilderness that I have to
walk almost 30 feet to get to the garage?

Outside!

And it's an unheated garage!

[Moose Tracks]

Post by Len McDougall, Outdoor Writer
who gets lost does so in an area smaller than most shopping malls.
My back yard right now borders 1.2 million acres of Lake Superior
State Forest, which is itself bordered on the east by 1 million acres
of Hiawatha National Forest,

Last time Iwas in Paradise and Whitefish Point to the museum everything east
of Paradise and Shelldrake was water, like Whitefish Bay on Lake Superior.

Post by Len McDougall, Outdoor Writer
and to the west by about 900,000 acres of
Ottawa National Forest. Most people consider this wilderness, but
it's no more wild or remote than my cabin site. Hell, no one has
ventured near the cabin in almost 3 years, and only because nobody
goes that far back in the woods.

Hell you can say that about many deer camps on the Peshekee Grade north of
Lake Michigammi. You are making a BFD about nothing but regular living
around here, dude.

Post by Len McDougall, Outdoor Writer
I suspect part of the problem is that few understand just how thick
a N. Michigan/N. Wisconsin/N. Minnesota forest can be. You can't ride
a horse through most of the places I frequent, visibility is often
restricted to 100 feet or less, and the terrain is as diverse as any
in the world. Its stifling and bug-infested in summer, and in winter
it becomes a subzero icebox.

Again, BFD. How long you lived in the UP? It's been that way for all the
time I can remember and I work and hunt and fish with guys who go deep into
the woods hunting and trout fishing every weekend. They dont seem to think
twice about it, so why doyou? I know a lake in Marquette county that you
have to hike 2 hours to get to along an old logging road and cut trail. When
you get to that lake there is one of the largest log lodges Ive seen around
here, complete with boat dock, boats and canoes. They flew it all in. Does
that 2 hour hike make it wilderness to you?

Ted

[Charles Scripter]

Post by The moderator
I may have to go with Old Yooper on this one. A mile and a half off the
road is not exactly wilderness. If you can walk to your truck in half an
hour, well...

I know some places in Michigan, where you very well might not find
your way back, from a "mere" 1.5 miles off the road.

[Gunner]

On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 04:41:56 -0000, Charles Scripter

Post by Charles Scripter

Post by The moderator
I may have to go with Old Yooper on this one. A mile and a half off the
road is not exactly wilderness. If you can walk to your truck in half an
hour, well...

I know some places in Michigan, where you very well might not find
your way back, from a "mere" 1.5 miles off the road.

Ayup

Gunner


Attending a Million Mom [sic] March, this last Mothers' Day, on hearing
the bleeding heart cry about this innocent [sic] life, snuffed out by a
five-cent bullet, I had to shout out "Where do you shop? They cost me
nearly a quarter!"
Jeffrey C. Dege
Didn't go over well.

[Robert]

"Len McDougall, Outdoor Writer" <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:***@posting.google.com...


I plan on getting that book soon.

Robert

[Old Yooper]

Post by Len McDougall, Outdoor Writer
I ran across an old post from a person calling himself (or herself)
Old Yooper, that questioned whether the log cabin homestead I built as
the subject of my last book was really in a wilderness. I'll
temporarily overlook the fact that this monkey wrench is calling me a
liar.

You can certainly call it what you want. Those that know real
wilderness would not call it wilderness. But if it sounds good and
sells books...

Post by Len McDougall, Outdoor Writer
To answer his challenges on that subject, it took more than 3 hours
to reach Petoskey, the town where I resupplied, in summer, and about
4.5 hours in winter. In summer, it was more than 1.5 miles on foot
through rugged swamp to the end of a 3-mile 2 track that was as close
as a vehicle could get. Getting to the nearest road through that
4.5-mile stretch - all of it through uninhabited Odawa reservation and
public lands - took 2 hours or longer, depending on the load I was
carrying on my back. From there, it was a 38-mile drive to Petoskey.
Essentially, a trip to town and back took all day, just as it had in
the 1800s.

I can say the same thing about many places in the UP. They are not in
wilderness, by any stretch of the definition.

Post by Len McDougall, Outdoor Writer
The cabin itself sits in a region encompassing 60 square miles that
are broken by only 1 hiking trail. Beyond the single nearest paved
road are another roughly 80 square miles of public and reservation
land. I will not, as Old Yooper foolishly suggested, give exact
coordinates to the homestead, because that would entice vandals. The
area more than meets Old Yooper's stated criteria for wilderness by
being untracked, unknown, and uncultivated.

Again, call it what you want. To those who know wilderness, that would
not meet their criteria. Just because the State of Michigan labels
something a wilderness state park does not really mean it is
wilderness. Your talking about the French Farm Lake_Wilderness State
Park in Emment County. You have got to be kidding.

Post by Len McDougall, Outdoor Writer
In the 15 months I spent living in that wilderness, not one
stranger even approached the cabin site, and now, nearly 3 years
later, it remains unfound. The reason for that is because even locals
fear those glacial-dune forests, and if a hiker isn't skilled with
both map and compass, he should never leave the trail. I'm not
kidding; several people have had to be rescued from that area by local
SAR teams in the past few years.

Being rescued by SAR does not define wilderness. The last SAR rescue I
was directly involved in, many years ago in the UP, as a volunteer map
reader in the cabin of the Coast Guard chopper out of Charlevoix, was
in an area of one square mile bounded by active logging roads. Sure
wasn't wilderness. That was the second search in that area. A
snowmobiler was found dead in the same area one year later. It still
wasn't wilderness. In fact, it was exactly one half mile west of a
main, paved, all-weather Michigan highway.

Post by Len McDougall, Outdoor Writer
My own criteria for calling a place wilderness also has to do with
lack of roads and people, but mostly with the wild species that tend
to avoid them. The forest my log cabin sits in is home to gray
wolves, cougar, wapiti, fishers, bald eagles, ospreys, sandhill
cranes, loons, blue herons, and other species too numerous to mention.
These aren't animals I think might be there, these are animals I've
seen.

I own over two hundred acres of the beautiful UP. The north boundary
is a major Michigan highway. I have the photos to prove that, on my
homestead, within the year 2003, there was 6 bald eagles, 12 or more
sandhill cranes, several hundred canada geese, and a blue heron
fishing for frogs in the pond in my backyard This past summer and fall
there was one male gray wolf (not collared), one female gray wolf
(collared), and two wolf pups. (All verified by the State of Michgan).
I also have seen fisher, fox, two coyote pups (that walked through the
backyard three mornings in a row). There were three osprey two miles
west of the property last spring. The whitetail deer that attack my
apple trees and garden are too numerous to count.

Oh, and moose tracks in the snow, through the backyard, two winters
ago.

These aren't animals I think might be there; these are animals I have
seen and photographed. One hundred and fifty yards from a main
Michigan highway (you can see it from here), in open farm country. And
this is definetly not wilderness.

Your criteria doesn't hold any water for us that live with, and see
these animals as a regular part of our day.

Post by Len McDougall, Outdoor Writer
Unfortunately, the French Farm Lake/Wilderness State Park region
really is the last remaining wilderness in Michigan's Lower Peninsula.

Been there, done that place. The state labeled it a wilderness state
park. Well, it isn't wilderness. It is tough country; but it isn't
wilderness.

Post by Len McDougall, Outdoor Writer
While I was there, I defended it, running off illegal ORVS (which are
prohibited), and forcing drunks to clean up their party messes on the
shoreline of French Farm Lake. Now that no one actually lives there,
my friends who backpack in the area tell me that the criminals have
gone wantonly berserk, and the Department of Natural Resources refuses
to enforce its own laws. I guess it isn't my problem any more, but it
saddens me that our species is the only one on earth that prefers to
shit in its own cage. I haven't returned to the homestead since I
left, nearly 2 years ago, because I want to remember the forest as it
was, and I know that seeing what the bad people have done to that
hallowed place will tear my heart out.
So, Old Yooper, if you still think my homestead isn't in
wilderness, maybe you'd like to try to find it? Better yet, perhaps
you could read The Log Cabin: (borrow a copy from the Public Library),
that way you could present an informed opinion.

You assume I haven't read the book. And yes, I don't think your
homestead was in an area that fits the real description of wilderness.
Like I said; call it what you want. Those that know, know better. But
I guess it does have a nice ring to it, and it probably sells books.

An Old Yooper

Post by Len McDougall, Outdoor Writer
Len McDougall, author of the books: The Log Cabin: An Adventure in
Individualism, Self-Reliance, and Cabin Building, The Complete
Tracker, The Field & Stream Wilderness Survival Handbook, The Snowshoe
Handbook, Practical Outdoor Projects, The Outdoors Almanac, Made for
the Outdoors, Practical Outdoor Survival
http://groups.msn.com/TimberwolfWildernessAdventures/home

[Alan Connor]

Post by Old Yooper

Post by Len McDougall, Outdoor Writer
I ran across an old post from a person calling himself (or herself)
Old Yooper, that questioned whether the log cabin homestead I built as
the subject of my last book was really in a wilderness. I'll
temporarily overlook the fact that this monkey wrench is calling me a
liar.

You can certainly call it what you want. Those that know real
wilderness would not call it wilderness. But if it sounds good and
sells books...

No kidding. But LIVING in the wilderness and living OFF the wilderness
are two quite different things.

I'm sure that Len McDougall writes interesting books that are of use to
some people, but personally, I am only truly impressed with people that
live in the wilderness and DON'T have to go to town for supplies.

Tom Brown Jr., for example, could walk off into the forest buck naked
(and has) and return six weeks later well-fed, clean, well-clothed, and
sorry to to leave his comfy new home behind.


AC

[Greylock]

Post by Alan Connor

Post by Old Yooper

Post by Len McDougall, Outdoor Writer
I ran across an old post from a person calling himself (or herself)
Old Yooper, that questioned whether the log cabin homestead I built as
the subject of my last book was really in a wilderness. I'll
temporarily overlook the fact that this monkey wrench is calling me a
liar.

You can certainly call it what you want. Those that know real
wilderness would not call it wilderness. But if it sounds good and
sells books...

No kidding. But LIVING in the wilderness and living OFF the wilderness
are two quite different things.
I'm sure that Len McDougall writes interesting books that are of use to
some people, but personally, I am only truly impressed with people that
live in the wilderness and DON'T have to go to town for supplies.
Tom Brown Jr., for example, could walk off into the forest buck naked
(and has) and return six weeks later well-fed, clean, well-clothed, and
sorry to to leave his comfy new home behind.

You believe in the tooth fairy too, nimrod?

I mean - I know you're a legend in your own mind, but you really ought
to call in to planet earth ccasionally.

You are a fucking idiot and lack even the decency to quit embarrassing
yourself and everybody else who has to listen to your moronic
pronouncements.

You need to live on your damned grass diet for 6 months and then
report back........presuming you haven't starved by then or (more
likely) vapor locked on a junk-food binge.

[Offbreed]

Post by Alan Connor
Tom Brown Jr., for example, could walk off into the forest buck naked
(and has) and return six weeks later well-fed, clean, well-clothed, and
sorry to to leave his comfy new home behind.

Tom Brown is a con man. I *suspect* a good deal more. Stuff that could
put him in prison for life.

I'll wager the cops are keeping a real close eye on him.

[John D. Misrahi]

Really? What's he done?
Cites?

Post by Offbreed
Tom Brown is a con man. I *suspect* a good deal more. Stuff that could
put him in prison for life.
I'll wager the cops are keeping a real close eye on him.

[Offbreed]

Post by John D. Misrahi
Really? What's he done?

The "con" part is pretty easy, starting with the tame deer he kept in
the back yard for people to "stalk".

Post by John D. Misrahi
Cites?

Not going to say what I suspect. Find a cop who has read his books and
ask him just what parts set of his "bad guy" detector.

[John D. Misrahi]

Offbreed wrote in message ...

Post by Offbreed

Post by John D. Misrahi
Really? What's he done?

The "con" part is pretty easy, starting with the tame deer he kept in
the back yard for people to "stalk".

Post by John D. Misrahi
Cites?

Not going to say what I suspect. Find a cop who has read his books and
ask him just what parts set of his "bad guy" detector.

Just curious - Ihave no idea, I've only read a couple of his books - I don't
know anything about him that he hasn't written down himself ;-p

[Bart Bailey]

Post by Offbreed
The "con" part is pretty easy, starting with the tame deer he kept in
the back yard for people to "stalk".

Doesn't sound as much a con, as an efficient teaching tool.
If you're training people to recognize and follow tracks,
what better way to produce samples than with a controlled source?

[Elliot Richmond]

On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 12:46:48 -0900, Offbreed

Post by Offbreed
Tom Brown is a con man. I *suspect* a good deal more. Stuff that could
put him in prison for life.
I'll wager the cops are keeping a real close eye on him.

Why would you say this? I'm not trying to start a flame war, just
looking for information. From information on his websites and in his
books, he seems to be no more crooked than any other "wilderness
school" types. However, if you have actual information to the
contrary, I would like to hear (or read) it.


Elliot Richmond
Freelance Science Writer and Editor

[Jeffrey C. Dege]

Post by Old Yooper

Post by Len McDougall, Outdoor Writer
I ran across an old post from a person calling himself (or herself)
Old Yooper, that questioned whether the log cabin homestead I built as
the subject of my last book was really in a wilderness. I'll
temporarily overlook the fact that this monkey wrench is calling me a
liar.

You can certainly call it what you want. Those that know real
wilderness would not call it wilderness. But if it sounds good and
sells books...

I'm suddenly thinking about all the tree-huggers who were complaining
when someone was going to build a shopping center right alongside the
Walden woods.

They were outraged that the pristine nature of the spot of wilderness
where Thoreau had lived and written was being spoiled. The pointed to
the fact that a railroad had already been run right through the middle
of the woods.

Forget the fact that the railroad had been there when Thoreau was there.
Walden hadn't, after all, been pristine wilderness, it had simply been
the patch of woods back of Emerson's place.

But they were all full of how it must have been, and were unable to cope
with reality.
--
Law and its instrument, government, are necessary to the peace and safety
of all of us, but all of us, unless we live the lives of mud turtles,
frequently find them arrayed against us. Worse, we are very apt to
discover, facing their sudden inhibition of our desires, that their
reputed impersonality and impartiality are myths - that the government
whose mandates we almost instinctively evade is not the transcendental and
passionless thing it pretends to be, but simply a gang of very ordinary
men, and that the judge who orders us to obey them is another of the
same kind...
- H. L. Mencken

[Moose Tracks]

Post by Len McDougall, Outdoor Writer
My own criteria for calling a place wilderness also has to do with
lack of roads and people, but mostly with the wild species that tend
to avoid them. The forest my log cabin sits in is home to gray
wolves, cougar, wapiti, fishers, bald eagles, ospreys, sandhill
cranes, loons, blue herons, and other species too numerous to mention.
These aren't animals I think might be there, these are animals I've
seen.

Your criteria for calling a place wilderness is wrong then. Most any of them
animals and birds can be found very close in to villages and towns in the UP
now. Wolves have been seen eating out of the peoples garbage cans in Sidnaw.
Wolves took two pet dogs in the Mass City area recently. Wolve are a very
common sight around the cabins on the west shore of Lake Gogebic. There are
home movies of a cougar romping in a field next to a backyard just outside
of the village of Ontonagon. Another one has been seen near the eastern
village limits of Wakefield near Bingo's Bar.Another hangs out in a swamp
along Forest Highway 16 north of Kenton. I have relatives over there and all
of these are facts that have been verified by many residents and hunters.
Sandhill cranes can be seen in most fields along M-28 in the western UP most
of the summer and early fall now days. Blue herons feed on fish in the swamp
right next to US-2 at the end of Keweenaw Bay in L'Anse as the cars zip by
100 feet away. Bald eagles sit on road killed deer and eat as the semis go
by in the UP all the time. There are loons on Lake Michigammi near our camp
all the time. A fisher went into my neighbor's garage and killed an d ate
their cat last year. They are all over the place now since the DNR
reintroduced them. I guess you better find a different way to paint words on
wilderness, because none of the places I just mentioned are in wilderness.
I got a feeling you maybe haven't spent a long time in real wilderness to
compare to. You must just be overwhelmed by the UP.

Ted

[Charles R. Hubbard]

--Original message snipped--

What is it with you people? I log on to this news group and to
misc.survivalism to hopefully learn some new things. It is very
disappointing to find these flame wars.

I do not know Mr. McDougall personally, but I have read his work and
found it to be very helpful in building my skill base. I have never
heard of Old Yopper before, so I can only assume that he has never
written anything that has been published. Working under this assumption,
I believe that I will choose to trust in Mr. McDougall's knowledge.

The point I keep coming back to is why is it such a point of contention
what is wilderness and what is not, and how does one persons opinion
hurt another.

Ric

[Bart Bailey]

Post by Charles R. Hubbard
--Original message snipped--
What is it with you people? I log on to this news group and to
misc.survivalism to hopefully learn some new things. It is very
disappointing to find these flame wars.
I do not know Mr. McDougall personally, but I have read his work and
found it to be very helpful in building my skill base. I have never
heard of Old Yopper before, so I can only assume that he has never
written anything that has been published. Working under this assumption,
I believe that I will choose to trust in Mr. McDougall's knowledge.
The point I keep coming back to is why is it such a point of contention
what is wilderness and what is not, and how does one persons opinion
hurt another.
Ric

It's not so much the distinction between wilderness definitions as it is
the authoritative tone that Mr McDougall often takes that provokes
challenges.
I would like to think that my response to one of his previous posts was
within the realm of civility, yet established my disagreement with his
assumptions.
http://tinyurl.com/3yluy

[Old Yooper]

On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 05:13:14 GMT, Charles R. Hubbard

Post by Charles R. Hubbard
--Original message snipped--
What is it with you people? I log on to this news group and to
misc.survivalism to hopefully learn some new things. It is very
disappointing to find these flame wars.
I do not know Mr. McDougall personally, but I have read his work and
found it to be very helpful in building my skill base. I have never
heard of Old Yopper before, so I can only assume that he has never
written anything that has been published. Working under this assumption,
I believe that I will choose to trust in Mr. McDougall's knowledge.

You are welcome to assume anything you want. You could, then, suffer
the possibilty of being very wrong.

Post by Charles R. Hubbard
The point I keep coming back to is why is it such a point of contention
what is wilderness and what is not, and how does one persons opinion
hurt another.
Ric

It would appear that your expectations of wilderness, and a wilderness
experience, is much lower than the norm.

I am willing to bet you a lot of money that if I sold you an expensive
trip for a week of camping, wildlife photography and fishing/hunting
in a wilderness area, and then plunked your butt down within 35 miles
of Petoskey, Michigan for that week, you would be looking for an
attorney to sue my butt for your money back. Or would you agree to pay
for a wilderness trip to any area that I picked to call wilderness?
How about any area that Len McDougall chooses to call wilderness?

If somebody writes a non-fictional book that is marketed as describing
situations that took place in a wilderness setting, would you expect
the setting to actually be wilderness? What is the limits you would
accept? Wilderness, by it's true definition? A wild bar in downtown
Ann Arbor? Within an easy driving distance of Petoskey, Michigan, so
that you could go for a cup of coffee?

An Old Yooper

[Blake Loyd]

Post by Old Yooper
I am willing to bet you a lot of money that if I sold you an expensive
trip for a week of camping, wildlife photography and fishing/hunting
in a wilderness area, and then plunked your butt down within 35 miles
of Petoskey, Michigan for that week, you would be looking for an
attorney to sue my butt for your money back. Or would you agree to pay
for a wilderness trip to any area that I picked to call wilderness?
How about any area that Len McDougall chooses to call wilderness?
If somebody writes a non-fictional book that is marketed as describing
situations that took place in a wilderness setting, would you expect
the setting to actually be wilderness? What is the limits you would
accept? Wilderness, by it's true definition? A wild bar in downtown
Ann Arbor? Within an easy driving distance of Petoskey, Michigan, so
that you could go for a cup of coffee?
An Old Yooper

Then please tell us what your true definition of "wilderness is. If it is
the dictionary one it probably will be something along the lines of a
relatively undeveloped/uninhabited area. Since area is relative, As far as
I'm concerned you have never been in the wilderness as there were developed
and inhabited parts of the area you were in(Earth's biosphere).
Do you see how ridiculous that sounds? The same can be applied to your
argument considering Len's definition of wilderness. Just because there is
a populated area within some certain distance does not mean the area someone
is in is not wilderness. Wilderness can be merely feet from what is not
wilderness.
The real question is whether or not Len's books are useful,
enlightening, accurate, and/or entertaining. If you have read them and
disagree with what he has put in them on some substantial matter fine. To
discount his writing due to your knowledge of subject matter is one thing.
To discount it because you don't like his definition of wilderness is
something entirely different.

Loyd

[Ilja Friedel]

Post by Blake Loyd
The real question is whether or not Len's books are useful,
enlightening, accurate, and/or entertaining.

I don't think this is an issue. The issue is his personality and the way
he acts in this newsgroup. Many people here don't find his postings
useful, enlightening or accurate (but certainly entertaining on some
level).

Ilja.

[Blake Loyd]

"Ilja Friedel" <***@ilja.ws> wrote in message news:bug2bn$lkp$***@naig.caltech.edu...

The following line is basically incorrect,
as I don't subscribe to the referenced newsgroup.

Post by Ilja Friedel

Post by Blake Loyd
The real question is whether or not Len's books are useful,
enlightening, accurate, and/or entertaining.

I don't think this is an issue. The issue is his personality and the way
he acts in this newsgroup. Many people here don't find his postings
useful, enlightening or accurate (but certainly entertaining on some
level).

Well, not being familiar with what he has posted in that newsgroup unless it
was crossposted to ms, I'll take your word for it, but I can only assume
that is based on some disagreement(s) concerning methods, equipment, or
knowledge of some such subject. If not, please enlighten me as to why his
personality is an issue.
I'm curious as to why "many people" there "don't find his postings
useful, enlightening or accurate." If you would provide some examples of
inaccurate posting it would give useful insight as to why some posters there
seem so intolerant of Len's postings.

Loyd

[MLL]

Wilderness is a state of mind.

The fact that Len could hoof it out to safety in a matter of hours does not
create a mindset that screams "wilderness". Unless, of course, you want to
define every backroad as wilderness. The very fact that he could turn his
"wilderness" on/off whenever he wanted to walk to his truck destroys any
reasonable notion of "wilderness".

Let's give him some credit for his endeavors.
How about "Cabin in the Back Woods"

[Old Yooper]

On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 02:46:04 -0500, "Blake Loyd"

Post by Blake Loyd

Post by Old Yooper
I am willing to bet you a lot of money that if I sold you an expensive
trip for a week of camping, wildlife photography and fishing/hunting
in a wilderness area, and then plunked your butt down within 35 miles
of Petoskey, Michigan for that week, you would be looking for an
attorney to sue my butt for your money back. Or would you agree to pay
for a wilderness trip to any area that I picked to call wilderness?
How about any area that Len McDougall chooses to call wilderness?
If somebody writes a non-fictional book that is marketed as describing
situations that took place in a wilderness setting, would you expect
the setting to actually be wilderness? What is the limits you would
accept? Wilderness, by it's true definition? A wild bar in downtown
Ann Arbor? Within an easy driving distance of Petoskey, Michigan, so
that you could go for a cup of coffee?
An Old Yooper

Then please tell us what your true definition of "wilderness is. If it is
the dictionary one it probably will be something along the lines of a
relatively undeveloped/uninhabited area. Since area is relative, As far as
I'm concerned you have never been in the wilderness as there were developed
and inhabited parts of the area you were in(Earth's biosphere).

As far as you are concerned, you would be wrong " relatively
speaking", that is. Len calls the area around Petoskey, Michigan
wilderness. Or so he markets it as that to sell books.

As far as you are concerned, I have never been in wilderness. Well,
here are the areas that I have actually spent time in many, many years
ago, and remember as wilderness. Some were for months at a time in a
large tent. I call these wilderness: inland from the Arctic Ocean, on
the Coppermine River, NWT. Hudson Bay lowlands. Victoria Island.
Interior of Labrador. Ungava Peninsula, on east shore of Hudson Bay.
Northern Quebec.

So, please tell me what the relative similarity of these areas are to
Petoskey, Michigan. Just to make sure we are speaking in the same
relative terms; which of the above areas, or similar to these, have
you spent extended times in. And for the correct aspect of
*relativity*, have you been to, or spent any time in, or around,
Petoskey, Michigan?

Post by Blake Loyd
Do you see how ridiculous that sounds? The same can be applied to your
argument considering Len's definition of wilderness. Just because there is
a populated area within some certain distance does not mean the area someone
is in is not wilderness. Wilderness can be merely feet from what is not
wilderness.
The real question is whether or not Len's books are useful,
enlightening, accurate, and/or entertaining. If you have read them and
disagree with what he has put in them on some substantial matter fine. To
discount his writing due to your knowledge of subject matter is one thing.
To discount it because you don't like his definition of wilderness is
something entirely different.

As I have said, Len McDougall is welcome to call anything he wants
"wilderness". But when he uses the word as a "marketing" tool, then he
should have some responsibility to use the description with some level
of accuracy and honesty. IOW, does anyone buying a book hyped as
describing a wildeness area have a reasonable expectation that the
area actually approaches a wilderness setting.

If you are willing to accept "less than accurate" marketing hype
(because you consider things just "relative"), more power to you.
Enjoy.

My guess is that you have no real idea what the area, which he
describes as wilderness, actually looks like. I would guess you have
never been there. If you had, you might understand. There were a few
other people who posted to this thread, early on, who were also
familiar with the area, and also said "whoa; wait a minute!".

An Old Yooper

Post by Blake Loyd
Loyd

[R***@core.com]

Post by Old Yooper
On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 02:46:04 -0500, "Blake Loyd"

Post by Blake Loyd

Post by Old Yooper
I am willing to bet you a lot of money that if I sold you an expensive
trip for a week of camping, wildlife photography and fishing/hunting
in a wilderness area, and then plunked your butt down within 35 miles
of Petoskey, Michigan for that week, you would be looking for an
attorney to sue my butt for your money back. Or would you agree to pay
for a wilderness trip to any area that I picked to call wilderness?
How about any area that Len McDougall chooses to call wilderness?
If somebody writes a non-fictional book that is marketed as describing
situations that took place in a wilderness setting, would you expect
the setting to actually be wilderness? What is the limits you would
accept? Wilderness, by it's true definition? A wild bar in downtown
Ann Arbor? Within an easy driving distance of Petoskey, Michigan, so
that you could go for a cup of coffee?
An Old Yooper

Then please tell us what your true definition of "wilderness is. If it is
the dictionary one it probably will be something along the lines of a
relatively undeveloped/uninhabited area. Since area is relative, As far
as I'm concerned you have never been in the wilderness as there were
developed and inhabited parts of the area you were in(Earth's biosphere).

As far as you are concerned, you would be wrong " relatively
speaking", that is. Len calls the area around Petoskey, Michigan
wilderness. Or so he markets it as that to sell books.
As far as you are concerned, I have never been in wilderness. Well,
here are the areas that I have actually spent time in many, many years
ago, and remember as wilderness. Some were for months at a time in a
large tent. I call these wilderness: inland from the Arctic Ocean, on
the Coppermine River, NWT. Hudson Bay lowlands. Victoria Island.
Interior of Labrador. Ungava Peninsula, on east shore of Hudson Bay.
Northern Quebec.
So, please tell me what the relative similarity of these areas are to
Petoskey, Michigan. Just to make sure we are speaking in the same
relative terms; which of the above areas, or similar to these, have
you spent extended times in. And for the correct aspect of
*relativity*, have you been to, or spent any time in, or around,
Petoskey, Michigan?

Post by Blake Loyd
Do you see how ridiculous that sounds? The same can be applied to your
argument considering Len's definition of wilderness. Just because there
is a populated area within some certain distance does not mean the area
someone
is in is not wilderness. Wilderness can be merely feet from what is not
wilderness.
The real question is whether or not Len's books are useful,
enlightening, accurate, and/or entertaining. If you have read them and
disagree with what he has put in them on some substantial matter fine. To
discount his writing due to your knowledge of subject matter is one thing.
To discount it because you don't like his definition of wilderness is
something entirely different.

As I have said, Len McDougall is welcome to call anything he wants
"wilderness". But when he uses the word as a "marketing" tool, then he
should have some responsibility to use the description with some level
of accuracy and honesty. IOW, does anyone buying a book hyped as
describing a wildeness area have a reasonable expectation that the
area actually approaches a wilderness setting.
If you are willing to accept "less than accurate" marketing hype
(because you consider things just "relative"), more power to you.
Enjoy.
My guess is that you have no real idea what the area, which he
describes as wilderness, actually looks like. I would guess you have
never been there. If you had, you might understand. There were a few
other people who posted to this thread, early on, who were also
familiar with the area, and also said "whoa; wait a minute!".
An Old Yooper

Post by Blake Loyd
Loyd

I'm the one who made the post about how Michigan is more than half forest.

I don't really want to really get into one side or the other in this
argument on Len but I am concerned that it looks like I made it sound like
Michigan is 50 percent wilderness. The word I used is "forest." It's half
forest, much of it heavy. I'm not sure that any of Michigan qualifies as
true wilderness, since most of the woods is second growth. I'm not sure how
much of the world qualifies either.

It hit me some years ago when on the Yucatan peninsula just how subjective
my notion of wilderness was. When in the woods I could imagine that I was
the first person to ever be there, though I knew logically that wasn't the
case, especially since I was following trails. But when visiting Mayan
ruins and noting how ancient they looked, it occurred to me that the
forests in Michigan had contained native cultures even older than the
Mayans. The lack of habitation was an illusion. I began to wonder if an
untracked wilderness was actually real. People have lived everywhere. Just
some places they left more evidence.


--Rod

__________

Author of "Linux for Non-Geeks--Clear-eyed Answered for Practical Consumers"
and "Boring Stories from Uncle Rod." Both are available at
http://www.rodwriterpublishing.com/index.html

To reply by e-mail, take the extra "o" out of the name.

[Peter H]

Post by R***@core.com
It hit me some years ago when on the Yucatan peninsula just how subjective
my notion of wilderness was. When in the woods I could imagine that I was
the first person to ever be there, though I knew logically that wasn't the
case, especially since I was following trails. But when visiting Mayan
ruins and noting how ancient they looked, it occurred to me that the
forests in Michigan had contained native cultures even older than the
Mayans. The lack of habitation was an illusion. I began to wonder if an
untracked wilderness was actually real. People have lived everywhere. Just
some places they left more evidence.
--Rod

Statements such as these are much to pragmatic & far too factual for
today's dreamers of a "pure" wilderness to accept.

If you want "pure" wilderness, get plunked down in a large, foreign city
where you don't speak a single word of the local language.

Yep; I know places such as these are vanishing, also.

Pete H

[Mach Twain]

Post by R***@core.com
It hit me some years ago when on the Yucatan peninsula just how subjective
my notion of wilderness was. When in the woods I could imagine that I was
the first person to ever be there, though I knew logically that wasn't the
case, especially since I was following trails. But when visiting Mayan
ruins and noting how ancient they looked, it occurred to me that the
forests in Michigan had contained native cultures even older than the
Mayans. The lack of habitation was an illusion. I began to wonder if an
untracked wilderness was actually real. People have lived everywhere. Just
some places they left more evidence.

And they left it longer ago. Witness the occasional artifacts reported
imbedded in solid rock.

Mach Twain

[CanopyCo]

Post by Charles R. Hubbard
What is it with you people? I log on to this news group and to
misc.survivalism to hopefully learn some new things. It is very
disappointing to find these flame wars.

I know how you feel there.
But, like it or not, it is the norm here.

Post by Charles R. Hubbard
I do not know Mr. McDougall personally, but I have read his work and
found it to be very helpful in building my skill base. I have never
heard of Old Yopper before, so I can only assume that he has never
written anything that has been published. Working under this assumption,
I believe that I will choose to trust in Mr. McDougall's knowledge.

I have not read any of Mr. McDougall's books myself.
And my following statements are not meant to discredit McDougall in any way.
However, regarding weather being published makes a person's writing more
dependable, that is totally crap.
One book that comes immediately to mind is one that was being tooted as a
survival manual thinly disguised as a work of fiction. And to give credit where
credit is due, it was a tolerable good fiction book. Not very realistic, but
tolerable good fiction. It was not, in any stretch of the word, a survival
manual. I bought it for a survival manual written in the form of fiction. And
it was totally useless as a survival manual. Completely. But it was published.
From a published writer. But I get better information on any given day from the
unpublished writers in this group then I did from that entire book.

Post by Charles R. Hubbard
The point I keep coming back to is why is it such a point of contention
what is wilderness and what is not, and how does one persons opinion
hurt another.

So long as you are not staking your life on that opinion, then no harm done.
But if you are using the information as a bases for your expectations regarding
attempting the same activities yourself, then you better get accurate
information and not opinion.

Personally, I would feel better about a documented wilderness living type book
if the guy had been dropped out into some place that was around 25 miles
walking to the nearest human. And further then that to the nearest town. It
changes the mind set of a person to know that help is not 2 hours walk away.
And visiting is the same distance. It would be more like what or forefathers
did when they went into the wilderness. They could not walk 2 hours to the
nearest town. If they could, they did not think they were in the wilderness.

This is in no way meant to discredit McDougall's work, as I have not read it.
And it may well be that where he was was adequate for what he was writing in
his book. Just that animals that have never seen a human act different then
animals that are within a couple of hours of town.

[Old Yooper]

Post by Len McDougall, Outdoor Writer
So, Old Yooper, if you still think my homestead isn't in
wilderness, maybe you'd like to try to find it? Better yet, perhaps
you could read The Log Cabin: (borrow a copy from the Public Library),
that way you could present an informed opinion.

I guess that it is all in the eye of the beholder. It sounds like
"wilderness" to me, but someone else may view it differently. I
wouldn't let sematics bother me too much if I were you.

I know I should just let this thread die of natural causes, but I just
can't. I currently live in Paradise, Michigan. Off my back property
line is 1.2 million acres of Lake Superior State Forest, which is
bordered to the east by 1 million acres of Hiawatha National Forest,
and to the west by almost 900,000 acres of Ottawa National Forest.
There are wolves, bears, moose, eagles, and a cougar or two in back of
my home - the very same species that lived in the forest where I built
my cabin. The Upper Peninsula is no more wild than the place where I
built my homestead.
The idea that I could walk the 10 miles to Mackinaw City if I got
into trouble is based on a presumption of good health and fair
weather. I was alone most of the time, swinging an axe, and generally
working with sharp tools to manipulate trees heavier than most SUVs.
No one who hadn't been shown how to get to the site would find me, and
the cabin remains undiscovered by strangers to this day. If I'd been
seriously injured by a falling log, or by a missed axe stroke, the
consequences would have been severe, and quite probably fatal. And
let's not forget that this wilderness is in N. Michigan, where winter
can kill you just for standing around, and miles quadruple in length
when snow covers them.
I'd also like to point out a hard fact about the perception of
wilderness: there is virtually no place in the lower 48 states where
you can walk more than 5 miles in a straight line without encountering
a road.

You are absolutely wrong about this.

Better get a map out of certain areas of Nevada, Wyoming and Montana
and peer at them.

Even in Alaska, the nearest road is within 15 miles.

Care to provide a reference for that fact, or have you been everywhere
in Alaska and know that from your own observation.

Been to the arctic? Been to the interior lately?

I think you believe to much of your own rhetoric, to the point of
being unable to tell fact from fiction.

Your credibility just went down the toilet. But keep it up; the
entertainment is priceless.

An Old Yooper

Humans
have been making roads on this planet for a very, very long time.
Finally, I recall guiding a young fellow through Skegemog Swamp to
Skegemog Lake a few years back. The trip was only 4 miles, but we had
to cross bayous of chest-deep water broken by fallen trees that
themselves had trees and brush growing from their decaying trunks.
Our progress was less than 1 mile per hour. Finally, my client
stopped, gasping for breath and trying not to swallow mosquitoes, and
asked me how far we had left to travel. I told him it only about 300
yards. He looked at me and asked in dead seriousness, "How far is
that?" I've been roaming the backwoods long enough to not confuse
romance with reality.
Len McDougall, author of the books: The Log Cabin: An Adventure in
Individualism, Self-Reliance, and Cabin Building, The Complete
Tracker, The Field & Stream Wilderness Survival Handbook, The Snowshoe
Handbook, Practical Outdoor Projects, The Outdoors Almanac, Made for
the Outdoors, Practical Outdoor Survival
http://groups.msn.com/TimberwolfWildernessAdventures/home

[Old Yooper]

On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 18:21:46 -0500, Old Yooper

Post by Old Yooper

Post by Len McDougall, Outdoor Writer
So, Old Yooper, if you still think my homestead isn't in
wilderness, maybe you'd like to try to find it? Better yet, perhaps
you could read The Log Cabin: (borrow a copy from the Public Library),
that way you could present an informed opinion.

I guess that it is all in the eye of the beholder. It sounds like
"wilderness" to me, but someone else may view it differently. I
wouldn't let sematics bother me too much if I were you.

I know I should just let this thread die of natural causes, but I just
can't. I currently live in Paradise, Michigan. Off my back property
line is 1.2 million acres of Lake Superior State Forest, which is
bordered to the east by 1 million acres of Hiawatha National Forest,
and to the west by almost 900,000 acres of Ottawa National Forest.
There are wolves, bears, moose, eagles, and a cougar or two in back of
my home - the very same species that lived in the forest where I built
my cabin. The Upper Peninsula is no more wild than the place where I
built my homestead.
The idea that I could walk the 10 miles to Mackinaw City if I got
into trouble is based on a presumption of good health and fair
weather. I was alone most of the time, swinging an axe, and generally
working with sharp tools to manipulate trees heavier than most SUVs.
No one who hadn't been shown how to get to the site would find me, and
the cabin remains undiscovered by strangers to this day. If I'd been
seriously injured by a falling log, or by a missed axe stroke, the
consequences would have been severe, and quite probably fatal. And
let's not forget that this wilderness is in N. Michigan, where winter
can kill you just for standing around, and miles quadruple in length
when snow covers them.
I'd also like to point out a hard fact about the perception of
wilderness: there is virtually no place in the lower 48 states where
you can walk more than 5 miles in a straight line without encountering
a road.

You are absolutely wrong about this.
Better get a map out of certain areas of Nevada, Wyoming and Montana
and peer at them.

Even in Alaska, the nearest road is within 15 miles.

Care to provide a reference for that fact, or have you been everywhere
in Alaska and know that from your own observation.
Been to the arctic? Been to the interior lately?
I think you believe to much of your own rhetoric, to the point of
being unable to tell fact from fiction.
Your credibility just went down the toilet. But keep it up; the
entertainment is priceless.

I guess this very excellent piece of work isn't going to make you
happy, but it shows that you make up a lot of what you write as you go
along. Don't believe in research, do you?

Look at this (5 mins on google):

http://www.gi.alaska.edu/ScienceForum/ASF16/1670.html

Interesting:

1) Lower 48, it's possible to be 28 miles from a road.

2) Florida Everglades; 17 miles

3) Alaska:

" When she lengthened the buffer zones to 85 miles from villages
and trails listed on her GIS program, the most remote spot on mainland
Alaska was an upper branch of the Coleen River in the Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge close to the Canada border. The hill is about 85 miles
from both the villages of Old Crow in the Yukon Territory and Arctic
Village in Alaska’s Brooks Range."

"Because some of the trails included on her GIS program are historic
winter trails over tundra, Dissing dropped Alaska roads and trails for
another run of her GIS system. She found that the farthest place from
an Alaska village or town in mainland Alaska was a bend of the Etivluk
River about 15 miles from its confluence with the Colville River on
Alaska’s north slope. The closest villages--each about 120 miles from
the river bend--are Ambler to the southwest and Atqasuk to the north."

"Though 85 miles and 120 miles allow plenty of elbow room, Alaska’s
champion recluse seems to be St. Matthew, which sits alone in the
Bering Sea without road, airstrip, or town. The closest village is
Mekoryuk, on Nunivak Island off the Yukon River delta. St. Matthew’s
nearest neighbor is 209 miles away."


Keep up the good work; this is fun. You make it up, fly it by, and we
shoot it down.

Like I said, your credibility is suffering from what the sailors and
loggers in the bars in the Soo always called "overloading your ass
with your mouth".

An Old Yooper

Post by Old Yooper
An Old Yooper

Humans
have been making roads on this planet for a very, very long time.
Finally, I recall guiding a young fellow through Skegemog Swamp to
Skegemog Lake a few years back. The trip was only 4 miles, but we had
to cross bayous of chest-deep water broken by fallen trees that
themselves had trees and brush growing from their decaying trunks.
Our progress was less than 1 mile per hour. Finally, my client
stopped, gasping for breath and trying not to swallow mosquitoes, and
asked me how far we had left to travel. I told him it only about 300
yards. He looked at me and asked in dead seriousness, "How far is
that?" I've been roaming the backwoods long enough to not confuse
romance with reality.
Len McDougall, author of the books: The Log Cabin: An Adventure in
Individualism, Self-Reliance, and Cabin Building, The Complete
Tracker, The Field & Stream Wilderness Survival Handbook, The Snowshoe
Handbook, Practical Outdoor Projects, The Outdoors Almanac, Made for
the Outdoors, Practical Outdoor Survival
http://groups.msn.com/TimberwolfWildernessAdventures/home

[Winston §mith]

On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 20:55:22 -0500, Old Yooper

Post by Old Yooper
On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 18:21:46 -0500, Old Yooper

Post by Old Yooper

I'd also like to point out a hard fact about the perception of
wilderness: there is virtually no place in the lower 48 states where
you can walk more than 5 miles in a straight line without encountering
a road.

Yopper, what part of "virtually" don't you understand. He isn't
saying there isn't one odd corner where the world doesn't put the lie
to the common rule. What he says is correct for anyone that doesn't
go out of their way to find the one exception.

I know places that are called wilderness, and most people would think
so. Still there are roads. Dirt roads, fire roads that move from
time to time, some darn near impassible 4 wheel drive roads. But they
are there. And even the occasional cabin.

Post by Old Yooper

Post by Old Yooper
You are absolutely wrong about this.
Better get a map out of certain areas of Nevada, Wyoming and Montana
and peer at them.

I have. It's depressing how little area I can find that's truly
remote. That's with regular maps. If I got one with detailed fire
and access roads, it would be harder.

Post by Old Yooper

Post by Old Yooper

Even in Alaska, the nearest road is within 15 miles.

Care to provide a reference for that fact, or have you been everywhere
in Alaska and know that from your own observation.
Been to the arctic? Been to the interior lately?

Have you?

The parts of Alaska within the Arctic circle are darn near
unpopulated. Therefore of little interest to anyone but Eskimos and
polar bears. In any case it's a exceptional case.

snip

Post by Old Yooper
I guess this very excellent piece of work isn't going to make you
happy, but it shows that you make up a lot of what you write as you go
along. Don't believe in research, do you?
http://www.gi.alaska.edu/ScienceForum/ASF16/1670.html

"THE Most Remote Spot in Alaska". Not a general rule. The one single
exception. That's what "most" means.

Post by Old Yooper
1) Lower 48, it's possible to be 28 miles from a road.

"Possible". Again, the one exception.

Post by Old Yooper
2) Florida Everglades; 17 miles

Your quote below just shows how hard it was for the lady to get away
from it all. And she is only 15 miles from a river confluence.
Rivers ARE the roads in some areas. "Virtually" does not include
making a special project of it.

Len is a shameless self promoter, but he does have the experience.
You seem to be making a special project of picking nits here.

Post by Old Yooper
" When she lengthened the buffer zones to 85 miles from villages
and trails listed on her GIS program, the most remote spot on mainland
Alaska was an upper branch of the Coleen River in the Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge close to the Canada border. The hill is about 85 miles
from both the villages of Old Crow in the Yukon Territory and Arctic
Village in Alaska’s Brooks Range."
"Because some of the trails included on her GIS program are historic
winter trails over tundra, Dissing dropped Alaska roads and trails for
another run of her GIS system. She found that the farthest place from
an Alaska village or town in mainland Alaska was a bend of the Etivluk
River about 15 miles from its confluence with the Colville River on
Alaska’s north slope. The closest villages--each about 120 miles from
the river bend--are Ambler to the southwest and Atqasuk to the north."
"Though 85 miles and 120 miles allow plenty of elbow room, Alaska’s
champion recluse seems to be St. Matthew, which sits alone in the
Bering Sea without road, airstrip, or town. The closest village is
Mekoryuk, on Nunivak Island off the Yukon River delta. St. Matthew’s
nearest neighbor is 209 miles away."

--
W§ in m.s - http://members.1stconnect.com/anozira

[Jim Dauven]

I suppose this turkey has never noticed the chamberlain breaks
in Idaho, a road less wilderness 100 miles on a side or any other
of the wilderness areas in the United States. Also in the high
desert in most of the western states there are many places where
you can go for 10 or 20 miles and not cross a single road.

But what do you expect from some crackpot that hasn't made it out
of New York City in his life time.

The Independent

[Charles Scripter]

Post by Jim Dauven
I suppose this turkey has never noticed the chamberlain breaks
in Idaho, a road less wilderness 100 miles on a side or any other
of the wilderness areas in the United States. Also in the high
desert in most of the western states there are many places where
you can go for 10 or 20 miles and not cross a single road.

As near as I can tell, Jim is referring to a part of Payette National
Forest. http://www.fs.fed.us/r4/payette/ (where I find references to
Chamberlain Basin)

Which would put it somewhere around here:

http://www.mapquest.com/maps/map.adp?ovi=1&mapdata=OE4WNszgW9xLjweGLIGTMvdzKiEWKkYsWu5Ws1KgqRpXowlfj6ydLgEI979FBFAcajD54OE4t3Oj4AHvPAqrMzoubjrtqgiKsOcz5%252fmm78M6BMvSQo6Y4cIPpHQAheQbr6Z%252fzGrYSdhEbED0hriGycw7oIk6JE3vCHp3mWM%252f6vvO7t%252fXSprk%252b6uKNSOJffayEGDOpQPs9QUwp%252bIoCE1%252fvsNVHHl5eAMks4UkKrCAKitad0YhfI2FbarlYvaOwB%252bQQL6MjZPmJUs%253d&mqmap.x=174&mqmap.y=184

(perhaps between 95 and/or 55 running North-South, where the star is,
and the MAJOR road approximately 100 miles to the East of that, 93)

Or:

http://terraserver-usa.com/image.aspx?t=2&s=16&x=45&y=393&z=11&w=1

But zooming in, at about 1" equals 10 miles, we find roads about every
10-15 miles:

http://www.mapquest.com/maps/map.adp?ovi=1&zoom=4&mapdata=OE4WNszgW9w6VgNAJHxNV%2b9RhxXmnICKvE3h9X%2fbGVpARWSi3UKMNZlOPlkXRgs%2fmMiKD8pd6n6a0IPvPbT2gJWalfpm3OFVWxicNx5BJhgs%2bCEH8nVUqPydWNKNaMp%2fAyFhvbM5eiLV9ceAqO4ZyiBe%2fmGY4V0oyrvq7YFAj0TQV46VagZrgqAkq7lL97vh56RHIRrjvrj6DNMuSlvq49mdtxmhQ%2bokgWw%2bN4HKaeDH8YAqyM195YVMiamrOmlIB3qgD9PhT4DwEV3J7aZejQ%3d%3d

Note the small towns, and connecting roads apparently dotted all over
this "roadless wilderness".

Unfortunately, Mapquest doesn't show small secondary roads. But Topo
maps do (this is near "Yellow Pine, Idaho"):

http://terraserver-usa.com/image.aspx?t=2&s=16&x=48&y=389&z=11&w=1

Note the solid black lines (roads) and dotted black lines (rough
roads/trails).

Near as I can tell, there are as many 2-tracks there, as most any
other "wild area".

Post by Jim Dauven
But what do you expect from some crackpot that hasn't made it out
of New York City in his life time.

<Chuckle>...

This statement...from the same clown who in a different thread claimed:

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl2707457125d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=3FB33B73.EA9453CE%40web-ster.com

] If one were to look at the planet earth one one find that there is far
] more square miles of deserts, plains, and open terrain than there is
] bush.

[...]

And continued by claiming:

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl3998084963d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=3FB3D660.E556ED68%40web-ster.com

] Apparently you have never been in Wisconsin, North and South Dakota
] Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, Colorado, (
] eastern half), Utah, Nevada, California, (Eastern two thirds) Oregon,
] (Eastern 2/3 rds), Washington (Eastern 1/2), Idaho, (Southern Half),
] Montana (Eastern 2/3rds).

Wisconsin!... <Chuckle>...

[...]
] Now that doesn't mean there aren't rocks and trees to hide behind but
] to move through this terrain will leave you exposed.
]
] I guess you spent all your time not learning military history to be
] busy studying Geography. You know you should keep your fingers off
] the keyboard because every time you type what you don't know shows
] just how stupid and uneducated you really are.

But what can we expect from a crackpot who has never visited the
places he makes claims about.

Were he to visit the Midwest, he would learn that it's not at all open
territory. And he might find that a mile of Wisconsin (or Michigan)
swamp is much more than he cares to deal with...

[Winston §mith]

Post by Jim Dauven
I suppose this turkey has never noticed the chamberlain breaks
in Idaho, a road less wilderness 100 miles on a side or any other
of the wilderness areas in the United States. Also in the high
desert in most of the western states there are many places where
you can go for 10 or 20 miles and not cross a single road.
But what do you expect from some crackpot that hasn't made it out
of New York City in his life time.
The Independent

I'm not sure which turkey you are referring to. It would be helpful
if you left a little quote. If you mean Yooper, I'll let him speak
for himself.

If you mean me, let me give you some info. I live in Arizona. I was
raised in then rural Pennsylvania. Pa had good schools at that time
(can't say about today) but no jobs. Most of us wound up in NJ for
high tech work. Bell Labs in my case. That's where my reference to
Route 9 came from.

If you assume by that, that all people who visit NJ are tourists from
NY, you are wrong. In any case, I've been gone from there for 20
years and like to prowl the lesser visited parts of AZ. Wilderness?
No, unless you read a park service map. But still remote and it will
have to do until I retire. Which is why I have been studying maps of
NW states.

--
W§ in m.s - http://members.1stconnect.com/anozira

[cruxgems]

Post by Jim Dauven
I suppose this turkey has never noticed the chamberlain breaks
in Idaho, a road less wilderness 100 miles on a side or any other
of the wilderness areas in the United States. Also in the high
desert in most of the western states there are many places where
you can go for 10 or 20 miles and not cross a single road.

Looking east out my living room window in Washington State, I see
roadless forest that is uninterrupted until I get to Priest Lake,
Idaho. An airline distance of approximately 30 miles, with maybe a
couple of old logging skid roads.

[Charles Scripter]

Post by cruxgems
Idaho. An airline distance of approximately 30 miles, with maybe a
couple of old logging skid roads.

Logging roads are "roads" (hence it's not "roadless"/"trackless").

[Offbreed]

Post by Charles Scripter

Post by cruxgems
Idaho. An airline distance of approximately 30 miles, with maybe a
couple of old logging skid roads.

Logging roads are "roads" (hence it's not "roadless"/"trackless").

Unless the tree huggers are removing them.

They claim logging roads are roads when someone wants to put them in,
but claim they are not removing anything that is "technically" a road
taking them out.

[Winston §mith]

On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 14:56:11 -0000, Charles Scripter

Post by Charles Scripter

Post by cruxgems
Idaho. An airline distance of approximately 30 miles, with maybe a
couple of old logging skid roads.

Logging roads are "roads" (hence it's not "roadless"/"trackless").

Right, walk 15 miles in either direction and you hit a "real" road.
And you come to a logging road in less distance. Just about what Len
said.
--
W§ in m.s - http://members.1stconnect.com/anozira

[Old Yooper]

On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 21:46:24 -0700, Winston §mith

Post by Winston §mith
On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 20:55:22 -0500, Old Yooper

Post by Old Yooper
On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 18:21:46 -0500, Old Yooper

Post by Old Yooper

I'd also like to point out a hard fact about the perception of
wilderness: there is virtually no place in the lower 48 states where
you can walk more than 5 miles in a straight line without encountering
a road.

Yopper, what part of "virtually" don't you understand.

I understand the definition of the word, and the use, very well. The
definition: "existing in effect or essence though not in actual fact
or form". Hm-m-m-m; guess he should have picked a better word.

Post by Winston §mith
He isn't
saying there isn't one odd corner where the world doesn't put the lie
to the common rule. What he says is correct for anyone that doesn't
go out of their way to find the one exception.

Those examples shown were the extremes. In actual application, coming
back to his claimed 5 mile limit, he isn't even close. There are many,
many places in the lower 48 where you can walk a straight, 5 mile
compass course, and not hit a road, two-track, logging road or trail.
Obviously you haven't spent much time in the real boonies, or you
would know that.

I've done it myself, in Nevada. I've done it in Utah. I've done it
many places. Just because he, and apparently you, haven't, doesn't
make it so.

In fact, cDougall could be shown areas within the UP where it is
possibe to "walk more than 5 miles in a straight line without
encountering a road". He is just flat out wrong.

My guess is there are many reading this who have hicked such areas in
many of the lower 48, and may just chime in to show how wrong he and
you both are.

Post by Winston §mith
I know places that are called wilderness, and most people would think
so. Still there are roads. Dirt roads, fire roads that move from
time to time, some darn near impassible 4 wheel drive roads. But they
are there. And even the occasional cabin.

Post by Old Yooper

Post by Old Yooper
You are absolutely wrong about this.
Better get a map out of certain areas of Nevada, Wyoming and Montana
and peer at them.

I have. It's depressing how little area I can find that's truly
remote. That's with regular maps. If I got one with detailed fire
and access roads, it would be harder.

Post by Old Yooper

Post by Old Yooper

Even in Alaska, the nearest road is within 15 miles.

Care to provide a reference for that fact, or have you been everywhere
in Alaska and know that from your own observation.
Been to the arctic? Been to the interior lately?

Have you?

As a matter of fact, yes. Been to the arctic, and been to a lot of the
most remote places there. and below the tree line also; Alaska, Yukon
and Northwest Territories. Seen a lot of it from the right seat of
various bush planes. There were no roads, trails, etc, for 10's and
10's or miles. In many cases, 100's of miles. He simply doesn't know
what he is talking about, and it seems you don't either.

In fact, have you been to those places you are claiming are simple
exceptions?

Post by Winston §mith
The parts of Alaska within the Arctic circle are darn near
unpopulated. Therefore of little interest to anyone but Eskimos and
polar bears. In any case it's a exceptional case.

Go check on the interior, before you say this is the exception.

Post by Winston §mith
snip

Post by Old Yooper
I guess this very excellent piece of work isn't going to make you
happy, but it shows that you make up a lot of what you write as you go
along. Don't believe in research, do you?
http://www.gi.alaska.edu/ScienceForum/ASF16/1670.html

"THE Most Remote Spot in Alaska". Not a general rule. The one single
exception. That's what "most" means.

Post by Old Yooper
1) Lower 48, it's possible to be 28 miles from a road.

"Possible". Again, the one exception.

Post by Old Yooper
2) Florida Everglades; 17 miles

Your quote below just shows how hard it was for the lady to get away
from it all. And she is only 15 miles from a river confluence.
Rivers ARE the roads in some areas. "Virtually" does not include
making a special project of it.

Rivers are rivers. McDougall is talking about roads. You are really
stretching here. They may be the main means of access, but they are
not roads.

Post by Winston §mith
Len is a shameless self promoter, but he does have the experience.
You seem to be making a special project of picking nits here.

Not picking nits. Just getting tired of a self-proclaimed *expert*
offering unsupportable and unresearched misinformation in an
authoritive manner.

I've never said he didn't have the experience. He just carries it
beyond his actual *experience* to making athoritive statements that
are less than accurate.

Of course it is his right to do that, and it is your right to believe
anything he says. It is my right to point out his errors when he post
them in a public forum. (Have you actually noted how many devoted fans
he has doing that lately?)

My guess is a few snowmobilers are getting ready to take him to task
about the physics of snowmobiling. I'll bet some experienced
snowshoers will even be taking him to task about his lack-of-injury
comments. He is just a fountain of misinformation, especially when it
is used as adjectives for his self-promotion.

Obviously you haven't been paying attention to his posts for very long
or you would realize that misinformation seems to be his forte.

An Old Yooper

Post by Winston §mith

Post by Old Yooper
" When she lengthened the buffer zones to 85 miles from villages
and trails listed on her GIS program, the most remote spot on mainland
Alaska was an upper branch of the Coleen River in the Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge close to the Canada border. The hill is about 85 miles
from both the villages of Old Crow in the Yukon Territory and Arctic
Village in Alaska’s Brooks Range."
"Because some of the trails included on her GIS program are historic
winter trails over tundra, Dissing dropped Alaska roads and trails for
another run of her GIS system. She found that the farthest place from
an Alaska village or town in mainland Alaska was a bend of the Etivluk
River about 15 miles from its confluence with the Colville River on
Alaska’s north slope. The closest villages--each about 120 miles from
the river bend--are Ambler to the southwest and Atqasuk to the north."
"Though 85 miles and 120 miles allow plenty of elbow room, Alaska’s
champion recluse seems to be St. Matthew, which sits alone in the
Bering Sea without road, airstrip, or town. The closest village is
Mekoryuk, on Nunivak Island off the Yukon River delta. St. Matthew’s
nearest neighbor is 209 miles away."

[Winston §mith]

On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 03:29:29 -0500, Old Yooper

Post by Old Yooper
On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 21:46:24 -0700, Winston §mith

snip

Post by Old Yooper

Post by Winston §mith
He isn't
saying there isn't one odd corner where the world doesn't put the lie
to the common rule. What he says is correct for anyone that doesn't
go out of their way to find the one exception.

Those examples shown were the extremes. In actual application, coming
back to his claimed 5 mile limit, he isn't even close. There are many,
many places in the lower 48 where you can walk a straight, 5 mile
compass course, and not hit a road, two-track, logging road or trail.
Obviously you haven't spent much time in the real boonies, or you
would know that.
I've done it myself, in Nevada. I've done it in Utah. I've done it
many places. Just because he, and apparently you, haven't, doesn't
make it so.
In fact, cDougall could be shown areas within the UP where it is
possibe to "walk more than 5 miles in a straight line without
encountering a road". He is just flat out wrong.

I'll pick nits, here. I can describe many 5 mile straight line hikes
that don't cross a road. Radius of 5 miles would be another story.

Reason for picking nits - This seems to be a pissing contest and they
tend to use very narrow meanings, sort of like a high school debating
club. That's just a general rule and I don't know if it applies to
this thread. (See below)

snip

Post by Old Yooper

Post by Winston §mith

Post by Old Yooper
Been to the arctic? Been to the interior lately?

Have you?

No. And it's not where any of Len's clients are likely to go. If you
are experienced, you probably won't hire a guide. If you are not, Len
is not likely to take you to the most remote hostile place on the
planet.

Post by Old Yooper
As a matter of fact, yes. Been to the arctic, and been to a lot of the
most remote places there. and below the tree line also; Alaska, Yukon
and Northwest Territories. Seen a lot of it from the right seat of
various bush planes. There were no roads, trails, etc, for 10's and
10's or miles. In many cases, 100's of miles. He simply doesn't know
what he is talking about, and it seems you don't either.
In fact, have you been to those places you are claiming are simple
exceptions?

Again no. But why are they presented as note worthy?. If there are
hundreds or thousands of examples, then these quotes were poorly
written. If there are only a few, "virtually" covers it.

The simple language of it says these are special and unusual
conditions. Why on earth would their page be interesting if they said
"Route 9 though New Jersey is a very typical older highway where you
may go three miles between gas stations."

Post by Old Yooper

Post by Winston §mith
Len is a shameless self promoter, but he does have the experience.
You seem to be making a special project of picking nits here.

Not picking nits. Just getting tired of a self-proclaimed *expert*
offering unsupportable and unresearched misinformation in an
authoritive manner.

We in m.s are not often exposed. (See below)

Post by Old Yooper
I've never said he didn't have the experience. He just carries it
beyond his actual *experience* to making athoritive statements that
are less than accurate.
Of course it is his right to do that, and it is your right to believe
anything he says. It is my right to point out his errors when he post
them in a public forum. (Have you actually noted how many devoted fans
he has doing that lately?)

That is exactly what the freedom of usenet is all about. By all
means, keep on keeping on.

Post by Old Yooper
My guess is a few snowmobilers are getting ready to take him to task
about the physics of snowmobiling. I'll bet some experienced
snowshoers will even be taking him to task about his lack-of-injury
comments. He is just a fountain of misinformation, especially when it
is used as adjectives for his self-promotion.
Obviously you haven't been paying attention to his posts for very long
or you would realize that misinformation seems to be his forte.

Again, no. I've been aware of Len for a long time, but he doesn't
usually post in m.s, where I hang out, so I have not seen much of his
critics. We mostly read or ignore posters as each person wishes. Len
is generally regarded as spam and ignored.

This thread was dragged into m.s in progress, so we don't know the
history of it or the long term relationship he may have with other
groups. This sort of endless, pointless attack thread is exactly why
I stopped visiting r.b a long time ago. When last I saw it, well over
half the threads were off topic or of no interest to anyone but the
contestants.

It seems from what we have seen of the thread, it was about access to
help if one finds themselves in trouble in the backwoods. In 99.99%
of those cases, I think Len's statement is correct.

Post by Old Yooper
An Old Yooper

--
W§ in m.s - http://members.1stconnect.com/anozira

[Gunner]

On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 10:22:57 -0700, Winston §mith

Post by Winston §mith
We mostly read or ignore posters as each person wishes. Len
is generally regarded as spam and ignored.

Speak for yourself White Man. If I was in Michigan..Id love to take
advantage of some of his offerings.

Gunner

"As physicists now know, there is some nonzero probability that any object will, through quantum effects, tunnel from the workbench in your shop to Floyds Knobs, Indiana (unless your shop is already in Indiana, in which case the object will tunnel to Trotters, North Dakota). The smaller mass of the object, the higher the probability. Therefore, disassembled parts, particularly small ones, of machines disappear much faster than assembled machines."
Greg Dermer: rec.crafts.metalworking

[Heynony]

Len is generally regarded as spam and ignored

Len McDougall has established his credentials, by the quality of the
information he has posted here, for many years. He has nothing to
apologize for in the way he makes his living (one person's spam is,
well, another person's Spam).

This man has proved he is more knowledgable about the backcountry than
75% of the people who post here. Of course so is Truman Capote, and
he's dead. And even when alive, he never ventured more than a couple
hundred feet away from a barroom.

McDougall's problems (or at least a couple of his top 10) are that he
portrays himself as more knowledgable than anyone else who has ever
posed here, and he has the communication skills of someone who's made a
half-hearted attempt at English as a second language.

Not everything Len McDougall has ever written, here or in his "books,"
is wrong. If you know nothing, a person who is 75% right may be worth a
read. Just don't take him, or me, or anyone else who's authority is his
own self-pronouncements of expertise, seriously.

Me
Indoor Reader

[Gunner]

Post by Heynony

Len is generally regarded as spam and ignored

Len McDougall has established his credentials, by the quality of the
information he has posted here, for many years. He has nothing to
apologize for in the way he makes his living (one person's spam is,
well, another person's Spam).
This man has proved he is more knowledgable about the backcountry than
75% of the people who post here. Of course so is Truman Capote, and
he's dead. And even when alive, he never ventured more than a couple
hundred feet away from a barroom.
McDougall's problems (or at least a couple of his top 10) are that he
portrays himself as more knowledgable than anyone else who has ever
posed here, and he has the communication skills of someone who's made a
half-hearted attempt at English as a second language.
Not everything Len McDougall has ever written, here or in his "books,"
is wrong. If you know nothing, a person who is 75% right may be worth a
read. Just don't take him, or me, or anyone else who's authority is his
own self-pronouncements of expertise, seriously.
Me
Indoor Reader

Is this what they mean by "damned by faint praise" ?

<G>

Gunner
"As physicists now know, there is some nonzero probability that any object will,
through quantum effects, tunnel from the workbench in your shop to Floyds Knobs,
Indiana (unless your shop is already in Indiana, in which case the object will
tunnel to Trotters, North Dakota).
The smaller mass of the object, the higher the probability.
Therefore, disassembled parts, particularly small ones,
of machines disappear much faster than assembled machines."
Greg Dermer: rec.crafts.metalworking

[Winston §mith]

Post by Heynony

Len is generally regarded as spam and ignored

Len McDougall has established his credentials, by the quality of the
information he has posted here, for many years. He has nothing to
apologize for in the way he makes his living (one person's spam is,
well, another person's Spam).

I'm not in any way criticizing his credentials or knowledge. In fact
please note I was one of the first to come to his defense on factual
matters.

I'm only familiar with his posts to m.s and he doesn't post here very
often. He sometimes posts "information" and that is useful reading.
Most of the time it amounts to an ad for a course or adventure he is
organizing and nothing more. That is a promotion of a commercial
venture in a newsgroup. And that is the heart of the definition of
spam IMHO.

It's also the electronic version of massive junk mailing. It would be
neat to go to that stuff, but most of us can't consider it because of
limitations of distance, budget, or time. That too makes it spam.

If we must have advertizing, I'll put the same requirement I put on
commercial broadcasts. I'll hear and consider your ad if you provide
me with useful information or enjoyable entertainment. Just the ad
with no "free" instruction is the electronic version of an infomercial
- all ad, not content.

Post by Heynony
This man has proved he is more knowledgable about the backcountry than
75% of the people who post here. Of course so is Truman Capote, and
he's dead. And even when alive, he never ventured more than a couple
hundred feet away from a barroom.
McDougall's problems (or at least a couple of his top 10) are that he
portrays himself as more knowledgable than anyone else who has ever
posed here, and he has the communication skills of someone who's made a
half-hearted attempt at English as a second language.

A great many of us are lacking in humble factor. ;>}

Post by Heynony
Not everything Len McDougall has ever written, here or in his "books,"
is wrong. If you know nothing, a person who is 75% right may be worth a
read. Just don't take him, or me, or anyone else who's authority is his
own self-pronouncements of expertise, seriously.
Me
Indoor Reader

--
W§ in m.s - http://members.1stconnect.com/anozira

[Strider]

On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 21:26:08 -0700, Winston §mith

Post by Winston §mith

Post by Heynony

Len is generally regarded as spam and ignored

Len McDougall has established his credentials, by the quality of the
information he has posted here, for many years. He has nothing to
apologize for in the way he makes his living (one person's spam is,
well, another person's Spam).

I'm not in any way criticizing his credentials or knowledge. In fact
please note I was one of the first to come to his defense on factual
matters.
I'm only familiar with his posts to m.s and he doesn't post here very
often. He sometimes posts "information" and that is useful reading.
Most of the time it amounts to an ad for a course or adventure he is
organizing and nothing more. That is a promotion of a commercial
venture in a newsgroup. And that is the heart of the definition of
spam IMHO.
It's also the electronic version of massive junk mailing. It would be
neat to go to that stuff, but most of us can't consider it because of
limitations of distance, budget, or time. That too makes it spam.
If we must have advertizing, I'll put the same requirement I put on
commercial broadcasts. I'll hear and consider your ad if you provide
me with useful information or enjoyable entertainment. Just the ad
with no "free" instruction is the electronic version of an infomercial
- all ad, not content.

Post by Heynony
This man has proved he is more knowledgable about the backcountry than
75% of the people who post here. Of course so is Truman Capote, and
he's dead. And even when alive, he never ventured more than a couple
hundred feet away from a barroom.
McDougall's problems (or at least a couple of his top 10) are that he
portrays himself as more knowledgable than anyone else who has ever
posed here, and he has the communication skills of someone who's made a
half-hearted attempt at English as a second language.

A great many of us are lacking in humble factor. ;>}

Post by Heynony
Not everything Len McDougall has ever written, here or in his "books,"
is wrong. If you know nothing, a person who is 75% right may be worth a
read. Just don't take him, or me, or anyone else who's authority is his
own self-pronouncements of expertise, seriously.
Me
Indoor Reader

I like Len just fine and don't mind his occasional attempts at self
promotion. It's on topic according to the m.s. charter, unless
excessive.I'd go if I could, but it's nice to know that might be
available another time.

I can understand that someone might get put off by Len's habits. They
merely need to killfile the thread or block Len altogether. It's your
right. It's also my right to communicate with Len if I want to. The
trouble is, you guys who don't like him get in the way with a flame
war over something as trivial as "How big is a wilderness".

How about if you guy call a truce Len is willing to speak his mind on
some interesting topics and I'd like to hear it without a flame war
over something totally unrelated.

My thanks in advance.

Strider

[Charles Scripter]

Post by Winston §mith
It's also the electronic version of massive junk mailing. It would be
neat to go to that stuff, but most of us can't consider it because of
limitations of distance, budget, or time. That too makes it spam.

Wait, it's spam because you're interested in the subject, but not
willing to drive that far, or can't afford it? Uhhh.... <evil grin>

It's a good thing I didn't invite you snow camping next weekend...
It's about a days drive for me. But that is "too far" for some. (and
I wouldn't want my post to be considered "spam", due to distance ;)

[Winston §mith]

On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 15:03:49 -0000, Charles Scripter

Post by Charles Scripter

Post by Winston §mith
It's also the electronic version of massive junk mailing. It would be
neat to go to that stuff, but most of us can't consider it because of
limitations of distance, budget, or time. That too makes it spam.

Wait, it's spam because you're interested in the subject, but not
willing to drive that far, or can't afford it? Uhhh.... <evil grin>

Len (or anyone else) doesn't know my interests when they send it. He's
not really hoping I personally will find a way. He doesn't even know
I exist.

I get flyers from the Hummer and Jaguar dealers in the mail. I'm
interested. I can't afford. They have no reason to think I'm going
to be tempted (never stopped in, etc). I'm sure everybody in town
gets the same flyer. Yup, that's a mass mailing of junk mail - paper
spam. They know only 0.001% will even be curious, but with enough
flyers sent, that's enough customers to make it worth while.

I'm not saying Hummer can't mail them and Len can't post them. I just
reserve the right to put an accurate name to the practice. Others are
of course free to form their own opinions.

Post by Charles Scripter
It's a good thing I didn't invite you snow camping next weekend...
It's about a days drive for me. But that is "too far" for some. (and
I wouldn't want my post to be considered "spam", due to distance ;)

Sounds like fun. But, I assume, you were not doing it as a commercial
venture. That is a big difference.

I hope everyone will note, I'm not complaining about Len. (In fact I
came to his defense.) I'm not saying it's completely off topic. I'm
not saying he should not be allowed to do it. All I said was that
advertisements to vast numbers of people (I'm counting on a lot of m.s
lurkers here), when it's clearly obvious that most will be physically
incapable in responding, is a form of spam. It's the electronic
equivalent of those Hummer flyers - an electronic mass mailing.

--
W§ in m.s - http://members.1stconnect.com/anozira

[Tim May]

Post by Old Yooper
On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 21:46:24 -0700, Winston §mith

Post by Winston §mith
On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 20:55:22 -0500, Old Yooper

Post by Old Yooper
On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 18:21:46 -0500, Old Yooper

I'd also like to point out a hard fact about the perception of
wilderness: there is virtually no place in the lower 48 states where
you can walk more than 5 miles in a straight line without encountering
a road.

Yopper, what part of "virtually" don't you understand.

I understand the definition of the word, and the use, very well. The
definition: "existing in effect or essence though not in actual fact
or form". Hm-m-m-m; guess he should have picked a better word.

Nope, you're the one who doesn't the usage of the word. Citing a
particular definition to support some weird interpreation you have is
not what usage is about. In any case, here's a definition from the
American Heritage Dictionary, which I expect is similar to one
virtually everyone here uses:


   The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth
Edition.  2000. 

virtually


SYLLABICATION:
vir·tu·al·ly

PRONUNCIATION:
  vûrch--l

ADVERB:
1. In fact or to all purposes; practically: The city was virtually
paralyzed by the transit strike. 2. Almost but not quite; nearly:
³Virtually everyone gets a headache now and then² (People).


--Tim May

[Noah Simoneaux]

On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 03:29:29 -0500, Old Yooper <***@godscountry.net>
wrote:

(piggybacking)

Post by Old Yooper
On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 21:46:24 -0700, Winston §mith

Post by Winston §mith
On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 20:55:22 -0500, Old Yooper

Post by Old Yooper
On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 18:21:46 -0500, Old Yooper

I'd also like to point out a hard fact about the perception of
wilderness: there is virtually no place in the lower 48 states where
you can walk more than 5 miles in a straight line without encountering
a road.

I grew up in a piece of Louisiana known as the Atchafalaya Basin. It's a pretty
big piece of country with very few roads in it. Of course, there aren't many
places in there you could WALK 5 miles in any direction, but you could get in a
boat and go 5 miles in lots of directions and not find any roads. ;)

[Bart Bailey]

Post by Noah Simoneaux
(piggybacking)

Post by Old Yooper
On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 21:46:24 -0700, Winston §mith

Post by Winston §mith
On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 20:55:22 -0500, Old Yooper

Post by Old Yooper
On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 18:21:46 -0500, Old Yooper

I'd also like to point out a hard fact about the perception of
wilderness: there is virtually no place in the lower 48 states where
you can walk more than 5 miles in a straight line without encountering
a road.

I grew up in a piece of Louisiana known as the Atchafalaya Basin. It's a pretty
big piece of country with very few roads in it. Of course, there aren't many
places in there you could WALK 5 miles in any direction, but you could get in a
boat and go 5 miles in lots of directions and not find any roads. ;)

My recollections of the Atchafalaya (Jeanerette, Breaux Bridge) were
that you didn't have to "walk" the five miles at all, the mosquitoes
would carry you. ;-)

[Noah Simoneaux]

Post by Bart Bailey

Post by Noah Simoneaux
(piggybacking)

Post by Old Yooper
On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 21:46:24 -0700, Winston §mith

Post by Winston §mith
On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 20:55:22 -0500, Old Yooper

Post by Old Yooper
On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 18:21:46 -0500, Old Yooper

I'd also like to point out a hard fact about the perception of
wilderness: there is virtually no place in the lower 48 states where
you can walk more than 5 miles in a straight line without encountering
a road.

I grew up in a piece of Louisiana known as the Atchafalaya Basin. It's a pretty
big piece of country with very few roads in it. Of course, there aren't many
places in there you could WALK 5 miles in any direction, but you could get in a
boat and go 5 miles in lots of directions and not find any roads. ;)

My recollections of the Atchafalaya (Jeanerette, Breaux Bridge) were
that you didn't have to "walk" the five miles at all, the mosquitoes
would carry you. ;-)

Yeah, the little ones would. The big ones would just eat you where they found
you. ;)

[Bart Bailey]

Post by Winston §mith
I know places that are called wilderness, and most people would think
so. Still there are roads. Dirt roads, fire roads that move from
time to time, some darn near impassible 4 wheel drive roads. But they
are there. And even the occasional cabin.

Reminds me of a sign I once saw on a mountain trail in Colorado;
"Impassable, not even jackassable"

[Gunner]

On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 20:55:22 -0500, Old Yooper

Post by Old Yooper
On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 18:21:46 -0500, Old Yooper

Post by Old Yooper

Post by Len McDougall, Outdoor Writer
So, Old Yooper, if you still think my homestead isn't in
wilderness, maybe you'd like to try to find it? Better yet, perhaps
you could read The Log Cabin: (borrow a copy from the Public Library),
that way you could present an informed opinion.

I guess that it is all in the eye of the beholder. It sounds like
"wilderness" to me, but someone else may view it differently. I
wouldn't let sematics bother me too much if I were you.

I know I should just let this thread die of natural causes, but I just
can't. I currently live in Paradise, Michigan. Off my back property
line is 1.2 million acres of Lake Superior State Forest, which is
bordered to the east by 1 million acres of Hiawatha National Forest,
and to the west by almost 900,000 acres of Ottawa National Forest.
There are wolves, bears, moose, eagles, and a cougar or two in back of
my home - the very same species that lived in the forest where I built
my cabin. The Upper Peninsula is no more wild than the place where I
built my homestead.
The idea that I could walk the 10 miles to Mackinaw City if I got
into trouble is based on a presumption of good health and fair
weather. I was alone most of the time, swinging an axe, and generally
working with sharp tools to manipulate trees heavier than most SUVs.
No one who hadn't been shown how to get to the site would find me, and
the cabin remains undiscovered by strangers to this day. If I'd been
seriously injured by a falling log, or by a missed axe stroke, the
consequences would have been severe, and quite probably fatal. And
let's not forget that this wilderness is in N. Michigan, where winter
can kill you just for standing around, and miles quadruple in length
when snow covers them.
I'd also like to point out a hard fact about the perception of
wilderness: there is virtually no place in the lower 48 states where
you can walk more than 5 miles in a straight line without encountering
a road.

You are absolutely wrong about this.
Better get a map out of certain areas of Nevada, Wyoming and Montana
and peer at them.

Even in Alaska, the nearest road is within 15 miles.

Care to provide a reference for that fact, or have you been everywhere
in Alaska and know that from your own observation.
Been to the arctic? Been to the interior lately?
I think you believe to much of your own rhetoric, to the point of
being unable to tell fact from fiction.
Your credibility just went down the toilet. But keep it up; the
entertainment is priceless.

I guess this very excellent piece of work isn't going to make you
happy, but it shows that you make up a lot of what you write as you go
along. Don't believe in research, do you?
http://www.gi.alaska.edu/ScienceForum/ASF16/1670.html
1) Lower 48, it's possible to be 28 miles from a road.

Define road.

Gunner

Post by Old Yooper
2) Florida Everglades; 17 miles
" When she lengthened the buffer zones to 85 miles from villages
and trails listed on her GIS program, the most remote spot on mainland
Alaska was an upper branch of the Coleen River in the Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge close to the Canada border. The hill is about 85 miles
from both the villages of Old Crow in the Yukon Territory and Arctic
Village in Alaska’s Brooks Range."
"Because some of the trails included on her GIS program are historic
winter trails over tundra, Dissing dropped Alaska roads and trails for
another run of her GIS system. She found that the farthest place from
an Alaska village or town in mainland Alaska was a bend of the Etivluk
River about 15 miles from its confluence with the Colville River on
Alaska’s north slope. The closest villages--each about 120 miles from
the river bend--are Ambler to the southwest and Atqasuk to the north."
"Though 85 miles and 120 miles allow plenty of elbow room, Alaska’s
champion recluse seems to be St. Matthew, which sits alone in the
Bering Sea without road, airstrip, or town. The closest village is
Mekoryuk, on Nunivak Island off the Yukon River delta. St. Matthew’s
nearest neighbor is 209 miles away."
Keep up the good work; this is fun. You make it up, fly it by, and we
shoot it down.
Like I said, your credibility is suffering from what the sailors and
loggers in the bars in the Soo always called "overloading your ass
with your mouth".
An Old Yooper

Post by Old Yooper
An Old Yooper

Humans
have been making roads on this planet for a very, very long time.
Finally, I recall guiding a young fellow through Skegemog Swamp to
Skegemog Lake a few years back. The trip was only 4 miles, but we had
to cross bayous of chest-deep water broken by fallen trees that
themselves had trees and brush growing from their decaying trunks.
Our progress was less than 1 mile per hour. Finally, my client
stopped, gasping for breath and trying not to swallow mosquitoes, and
asked me how far we had left to travel. I told him it only about 300
yards. He looked at me and asked in dead seriousness, "How far is
that?" I've been roaming the backwoods long enough to not confuse
romance with reality.
Len McDougall, author of the books: The Log Cabin: An Adventure in
Individualism, Self-Reliance, and Cabin Building, The Complete
Tracker, The Field & Stream Wilderness Survival Handbook, The Snowshoe
Handbook, Practical Outdoor Projects, The Outdoors Almanac, Made for
the Outdoors, Practical Outdoor Survival
http://groups.msn.com/TimberwolfWildernessAdventures/home

" ..The world has gone crazy. Guess I'm showing my age...
I think it dates from when we started looking at virtues
as funny. It's embarrassing to speak of honor, integrity,
bravery, patriotism, 'doing the right thing', charity,
fairness. You have Seinfeld making cowardice an acceptable
choice; our politicians changing positions of honor with
every poll; we laugh at servicemen and patriotic fervor; we
accept corruption in our police and bias in our judges; we
kill our children, and wonder why they have no respect for
Life. We deny children their childhood and innocence- and
then we denigrate being a Man, as opposed to a 'person'. We
*assume* that anyone with a weapon will use it against his
fellowman- if only he has the chance. Nah; in our agitation
to keep the State out of the church business, we've
destroyed our value system and replaced it with *nothing*.
Turns my stomach- " Chas , rec.knives

[Charles Scripter]

Post by Winston §mith
On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 20:55:22 -0500, Old Yooper

Post by Old Yooper
1) Lower 48, it's possible to be 28 miles from a road.

Define road.

Apparently road doesn't mean "passable 2-track", as it does to most of
us, Gunner... ;)

Maybe The Old Yooper is getting chilly Up there, and figures a good
flame war will heat things up. ;) <grin>

Yeah, the winters do get long...

Some friends are planning a winter campout in a couple weeks (near
Calumet)...last snow report was about 29" on the ground. Perhaps a
little skimpy for making snow trenches and whatnot, but it'll have to
do. Mmmm... Bonfires, homebrew beer, meat cooking on open fire...

Too bad I can't figure out how to mail ya some pastys (I often fill a
cooler, when I get back for a visit)...

So Gunner, are we making ya homesick yet? :)

[Gunner]

On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 19:22:01 -0000, Charles Scripter

Post by Charles Scripter

Post by Winston §mith
On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 20:55:22 -0500, Old Yooper

Post by Old Yooper
1) Lower 48, it's possible to be 28 miles from a road.

Define road.

Apparently road doesn't mean "passable 2-track", as it does to most of
us, Gunner... ;)
Maybe The Old Yooper is getting chilly Up there, and figures a good
flame war will heat things up. ;) <grin>
Yeah, the winters do get long...
Some friends are planning a winter campout in a couple weeks (near
Calumet)...last snow report was about 29" on the ground. Perhaps a
little skimpy for making snow trenches and whatnot, but it'll have to
do. Mmmm... Bonfires, homebrew beer, meat cooking on open fire...
Too bad I can't figure out how to mail ya some pastys (I often fill a
cooler, when I get back for a visit)...
So Gunner, are we making ya homesick yet? :)

BASTARD!!!!!!!!!!!

right now Id kill for a pasty..sigh..whimper..moan...

<G>

Gunner


"As physicists now know, there is some nonzero probability that any object will,
through quantum effects, tunnel from the workbench in your shop to Floyds Knobs,
Indiana (unless your shop is already in Indiana, in which case the object will
tunnel to Trotters, North Dakota).
The smaller mass of the object, the higher the probability.
Therefore, disassembled parts, particularly small ones,
of machines disappear much faster than assembled machines."
Greg Dermer: rec.crafts.metalworking

[Mach Twain]

(McDougall wrote)

I'd also like to point out a hard fact about the perception of
wilderness: there is virtually no place in the lower 48 states where
you can walk more than 5 miles in a straight line without encountering
a road.
Even in Alaska, the nearest road is within 15 miles.

Your credibility just went down the toilet. But keep it up; the
entertainment is priceless.

Naah.... his credibility left here long ago, on a bear thread.

Consider trimming his signature with all his books and such.

Mach Twain