corvus wrote:With respect PeterJ ( and I have no real opinion on this topic) other than that we really need saws and such ,tents are for those of us on this forum only for fun.
corvus
PeterJ wrote:corvus wrote:With respect PeterJ ( and I have no real opinion on this topic) other than that we really need saws and such ,tents are for those of us on this forum only for fun.
corvus
Well given the choice of a tent or a saw for a few days in the bush, I would take the tent every time. Yep I think it would be more fun in a tent than sheltering under a saw.
Not true (e.g. Palm Valley) ...and when it's nature that is doing the "modifying" then its still natural. Way too big a topic to discuss here, but if you are referring to the Aboriginal influence -- "While there are records indicating change in fire occurrence, just how important the influence of people was in the evolution and dynamics of Australian vegetation is much more uncertain." (online source). You'll find lots and lots of discussion on this in scientific literature.Moondog55 wrote:Bearing in mind that there are almost NO natural areas left on the mainland, almost all of Australia has been heavily modified over the last 10,000 years.
So there's the rub! How to discourage the not so "reasonable experienced" who can't discern "which areas should be left as natural as possible". Basically, LNT says "A little thinking" isn't enough - it demands A LOT of thinking.Moondog55 wrote:A little thinking will tell any reasonable experienced person which areas are OK to play around in and which areas should be left as natural as possible.
walkinTas wrote:So there's the rub! How to discourage the not so "reasonable experienced" who can't discern "which areas should be left as natural as possible". Basically, LNT says "A little thinking" isn't enough - it demands A LOT of thinking.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 98 guests