[Thematic-Device]

I'm sorry, maybe its me, but I've never viewed Nature as something which should not be enjoyed. Nor as something so fragile that they cannot withstand Kite Flying. You know what we did to the last group which banned kite flying? So listen you unwashed hippies, you can take your tree hugging granola munching ass elsewhere if all you're going to do is to buy up land so people can't use it.

So much of the land which is available in the northeast, and which could be used for camping is closed lest it disturb "nature". And the places which do allow for camping have the campsites crammed in at such high density, one wonders why you would leave your backyard at all?

I know you're worried about campfires destroying habitat, and trash. But there are two things to this. First fuel for campfires is selectively picked, and targets only dry wood (not green or rotten) which is quite frankly the least useful and most dangerous wood (for the ecosystem), this is wood which would be cleared by forest fires if every fire weren't being put out by fire depts.

As for litter, there is a simple solution, put the campsites which you aren't going to patrol out in the wilderness, and you won't need to worry about inexperienced campers going there with any frequency. And if you're really worried about campfires, you can always do what Kejimkujik does, and provide (and charge for) wood.

Lets compare something for a second, a proper campground map

http://www.pc.gc.ca/pn-np/ns/kejimkujik ... it6a_E.asp

and crappy high-density commercial camping

http://dep.state.ct.us/stateparks/maps/blackrockcg.pdf

[Blue_Nose]

Nature's a tough old gal.

We have our share of Black Rocks here, too, nd worse... not many that ae provincial/national parks, though.

[Arctic_Menace]

Dude, get a grip....Not all environmentalists are hippies, and not all hippies are the way you describe them.....Plus, granola is good....

[Thematic-Device]

Arctic_Menace wrote:

Dude, get a grip....Not all environmentalists are hippies,

Far too many are, you'll have a number of sane individuals who have taken the effort to inform themselves about the issues, who shower, and look presentable when they argue their position...

And then there is the obnoxious remainder who can't be bothered to use deoderant, nor wear a suit in the state legislature. And they're the ones who are the target of my wrath, not just for the crap like this, but also for giving the first group a bad name.

[PluggyRug]

IceOwl wrote:

So, in order for one's opinions and ideas to have any worth, one must dress in a suit and wear deoderant? I wonder why the British ever listened to Gandhi, then...

Of course they must, do you have a suit, do you wear it at important meetings, would you like to create a good first impression.

If none of the above then your comment is irrelevant.