Nevermind

A few of Philip Terrie’s topics in Friday’s lecture crushed some pre-conceived notions that I had. For one, his description of the zones of the Forever Wild land caught me by surprise. Terrie referred to some of these zones as “more” or “less” wild than other zones. I had naively been under the impression that land was either wild or it wasn’t. The chapter of the atlas on the Adirondack governments discussed the master land plans, which clarified some of these details for me. However, I find that using a gradient or scale for ‘wildness’ is hard to grasp when the word is so difficult to define in it of itself. What makes an area wilder than another? Density of development seems to be The unit of measurement favored by the governing bodies of the Adirondacks seems to be density of development, but that definition becomes a slippery slope once past human activities (logging, for example) have been taken into account.  

I was also disappointed to hear about the corruption that went on within the Department of Environmental Conservation. According to Terrie, it sounds as though the corruption that arguably inspired the foundation of the park is still a force to be reckoned with. As much as I would like to believe that these motives don’t exist, I have learned if nothing else that environmental policy always involves a multitude of conflicting interests. The worst part is that it is hard to tell which of these is/are the best - and the best for whom.