Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/03/22

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: Re: [Leica] Urban forest
From: Eric Welch <ewelch@ponyexpress.net>
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 1999 16:14:18 -0600

At 12:48 PM 3/22/99 -0800, you wrote:
>its called Forest Park. Unfortunately we're talking miles of evergreens
>which for me are not real trees, they get boring quick.
>And I recall that Forest Park in St. Louis where I went to school is
>number 2.

City parks. Groomed to their teeth. Portland has some good parks, and I've 
photographed St. Louis Forest Park (Location of the Worlds Fair back in the 
early part of the century).

But these are hardly anything that's even close to wilderness. Portland's a 
cool city. I'd love to live there. But if you want Wilderness, you have to 
go about 100 miles southeast to the Mount Jefferson Wilderness area before 
you really find something that resembles wilderness. There are spots here 
and there. But even in Oregon, my home state, there are too few truly 
wilderness places any more that don't show the scars of the timber 
industry,  mining or some other "development." Maybe Ansel's pictures hold 
a bit of nostalgia for me, when I could drive 30 miles and hike through 
woods where there isn't another human, or sign of one, for miles. A 
characteristic which used to be the rule and not the exception around those 
parts.

But too many people are taking offense so I'm going to stop contributing to 
this thread.

Eric Welch
St. Joseph, MO
http://www.ponyexpress.net/~ewelch

Some people say that I'm superficial, but that's just on the surface.