I would like to coin a new word: roadlessness. It appears most commonly as an adjective, simply as roadless, in its use within conservation circles, such as in "roadless wilderness areas." The first roadless wilderness area was established in 1924 by the U.S. Forest Service in southwest New Mexico. As a U.S. Forest Service employee, Aldo Leopold was instrumental in the development of the concept and its initial implementation. My purpose in coining this new word is to be able to speak of roadlessness as an essential component of wilderness and not simply as a descriptive characteristic or quality of a wilderness tract within which all motorized travel is not permitted. The core element of roadlessness is the complete absence of motorized vehicles of any number, size, and configuration. Pristine wilderness areas are not without roads in their own right, such as game trails, the migratory routes of prehistoric and native peoples, and the very lay of the land itself.

A Google search for roadlessness results in a few hits, most of which are for various on-line dictionaries. The term appears to have been used in a few U.S. Forest Service publications. My claim to coinage may have been premature. If that be so, I make a claim to encourage its common usage and expanded meaning. One Google hit was Tom Turner's 2009 book, Roadless Rules, where Roadlessness is the title of one chapter, and curiously, the word appears no where else in the entire chapter.

The local library provided me with a copy of the collected works of a Canadian outdoor writer, Andy Russell. The book is titled Wild Country, The Best of Andy Russell. I was struck by an observation made by the editor in the introduction which cited a pivotal event in the life of Russell, that is, the establishment of roads within Canada's public lands and the Province of Alberta, in particular. Road building on public lands in the 1950's was an occasion for Andy Russell to rethink his lifestyle and enterprises and to significantly alter both. After I read this brief reference to the very opposite of roadlessness, I found myself thinking of works and authors where I have previously encountered discussions of the intrusiveness of roads in public lands. As I pulled a few volumes off my book shelf and reviewed the notes of other reads, I was struck by the timeframe during which this concept entered the outdoor and conservation literature. It was early in the 20th century. I suspect that it coincides with the rise of automobile ownership within the general population.

I offer the following list of authors by way of history and background and as my inspiration to coin a new word and/or encourage its common usage.
     Edwin Dahlberg, 1882 - 1971
     Aldo Leopold, 1887 - 1948
     Sigurd Olson, 1899 - 1982
     Eric Morse, 1904 - 1986
     Andy Russell, 1915 - 2005
     Mark Spragg, 1952
     Philip Connors, 1972 (?)
Looking at these birth years, I am struck with how quickly the automobile was seen as posing a critical impact on wilderness. The majority of these folks were contemporaries of one another, although I doubt that they all were personal acquaintances of one another. (My brief list is in no way intended to be complete, by any means or measure.)

I will grant you there may well have been and continue to be considerable nostalgia for the old ways among this group of folks, but there was also a keen insight into where things were headed and how important it was to let some places just be--places where man travels afoot, on horseback, or by paddle and portage.  Roadlessness is essential to the preservation of the ecosystem--the natural community of flora and fauna within their particular geography. These are places that move in geological epochs and evolutionary eras, where we get to experience our own vulnerability and ever so short season on this earth. Where else do we learn that we have more in common with annual grasses and flowering plants than with perennials and even less with that which sustains itself and all else?

There remain those times that, even at 71 years of age, I find myself in situations pondering the question "Just what rule applies here?"

The situation is in reference to counter seating, as in restaurant lunch counter, and applicable to all meals and ever so brief repasts taken in this setting. My observation is that folks always leave at least one stool in between themselves and patrons already in situ. Rule One can be stated as "One or more vacant stools shall remain between individual patrons." An exception is when two or more folks are a party of sorts and then side by side seating is permissible.

Rule Two comes into play when there are insufficient empty stools and Rule One cannot be applied. Before taking an adjourning stool, the expectation is that new arrival asks "Is this place taken?" One does not ask "May I join you?" The latter question may assume or presume a level of engagement beyond a common activity in a shared space and more of a shared activity in a common space. Such engagement may follow simple co-presence, but it is impolite to couch one's request in the terms of a pick-up line, albeit veiled, thinly or otherwise. Rule Two can be stated as "Ask prior permission before occupying an adjourning stool." A Sub-rule to Rule Two is that the new arrival is to select an empty stool next to an individual of the same gender. If that is not possible and the only available stools are next to individuals of an alternate gender, then select a stool next to the individual who appears to be in a party of sorts thus allowing for their safety in numbers.

There is also a Rule Three, commonly called The Good Morning Rule, which applies when taking a stool next to an individual with whom one has some familiarity. The new arrival simply establishes occupancy accompanied by the usual sound effects to make one's presence known, a proverbial knock on the door. The appropriate time of day greeting follows. A quick mutual assessment of the tone indicates to the co-seaters what will follow--quiet or conversation. One individual may throw out a teaser line referencing the weather--current or forecast. The response or lack of a response from the other sets the mood and/or tone--quiet or conversational.

Even with the best of intentions with the goal of living the self-examined life to the fullest, these situations are wrought with potential and actualized errors. Not everyone knows these rules, nor is everyone conscientious in applying them. Finally, there are folks whose primary objective is not a bit of nutritional sustenance, but the maximization of the opportunity to mingle--social sustenance. When faced with a rule violation in such a situation, a call to 911 is inappropriate. At these times, it is best to reach back, find the necessary reserves to push through the next 30 or 45 minutes and focus on your cold toast.

From a very small sample size, I have reason to believe that these same or very similar rules apply to bar stools. From my limited experience, I have found that there is a greater propensity for conversation over quiet between occupants of bar stools. I have heard talk that couched or thinly veiled pick-up lines are more acceptable in the bar context or, at least, a lot more common. Humor is frequently employed as a test or teaser line. The topic of Bar Rules, as an ancillary set of Stool Rules and their additional Sub-rules, warrant further study and, hopefully, clarification.

The house kitty corner across the street is for sale and has been for a number of months. Either I am curious or simply have too much time on my hands, I have been taking note of folks who stop by to take a look. Some are escorted by one of the local real estate agents; others appear to be "just looking" as they walk the yard. A third group is even more subtle; these folks slowly drive by and turn onto the side street (The house sits on a corner lot.) to get the view from another perspective and determine if the property has a possible "better side." The boldest of these drivers-by may even turn into the alley for a third point of view.

I try to get some idea of the particular folks looking the place over and who must might be a potential purchaser and eventual new neighbor. There are out-of-state and in-state license plates among the visitors. The vehicles, for the most part, are quite modest. If there has been a Corvette or a Hummer among those stopping by, I have missed them. The visitors/interested parties/prospective buyers range in age from young adults to well matured adults. There also has been apparent off-spring of these folks some of which are of the teenage variety.

After who, the question becomes why. Is the occupant-to-be intending to make this their primary residence or will it become a part-time residence or second home? The second home option raises an additional question: will the house be part of the local short-term rental market? Will it appear in the Airbnb system?

My speculation has me favoring year-a-around owner occupancy with the addition of children and pets. I won't speculate about the probability of a backyard chicken coop, but I won't rule it out either. My quick read of the city ordinance on the subject of animals would allow for the keeping of fowl as long as they are not at large. There is a reference to "barking dogs and crying cats," but no mention of noisy roosters or fowl without noting gender.

More questions come to mind:
What will be the new owner's personal philosophy with respect to the proper maintenance height of grass and the insistence mono-culture over vari-culture lawns?

What are the personally acceptable outside dates for the display of outside Christmas/Holiday lights and decorations? Will their tastes tend towards the minimalist or the extravagant? Will they be even more discrete and limit themselves to interior decorations? Will they be non-celebrants of this or other holidays? (There is, in fact, a city ordinance which stipulates that "holiday lighting" is exempt from provisions of the ordinance between November 30th and January 30th. That destroys my argument that fireworks are holiday lighting. Or are they permitted during that 62 day window?)

Are they dog or cat people? Inside or outside? Big dogs or not so big? (I don't size cats.)

When the realtor and any prospective buyers are around, I try to maintain a low profile staying inside and away from the windows. I don't want to negatively influence the decisions of these folks. They will have to make their call based on externals, that is, the appearance of my place, as to whether or not they would like to buy a home in my neighborhood. They can fantasize about who might live in that red house kitty corner across the street from the one they are considering. If they should find out they are wrong at some future date, they have only their fantasy to blame. My rationale will be that I have enough difficulty living up to my own self image, let alone trying to fulfill some one's fantasy.

By the way, my lawn mowing philosophy is medium height with regular mowing.

I have a bit of a follow-up to offer to my post of July 20th, where I brought up the notion of the inappropriateness of humor within the context of commentary on our current political scene.

I have noticed a change of tone in Garrison Keillor's recent columns. They appear on occasion in the New York Times and more regularly in the Reader, the free paper out of Duluth, MN. (The Reader offers itself as "The Best Paper Money Can't Buy.") Traditionally, Garrison has employed humor in his critique of and comment on imagined as well as real events--be they based in Lake Wobegon or Washington, DC. Recent columns appear to have set aside the humor. The Reader's by-line may be telling; Garrison is described as a "columnist, radio host, and author." Wikipedia continues to describe Garrison as an "American author, storyteller, humorist, voice actor, and radio personality."
(Emphasis added.)

Rather than the use of humor for diversion or a satirical critique, Garrison quietly offers an alternate focus by way of counterbalance to the chaos in the enterprise of politics and governance. He celebrates communities marked by civility, compassion, and diversity as he writes of the summer solstice in Norway or summertime travel in New York City subways. We are challenged to reach for our better selves enriching our lives and the lives of those around us by celebrating the diversity of thought, political identity, ethnicity, race, geography, and socio-economics present in our national and international communities. We are asked to take note of the goodness that surrounds us, the capacity for resilience and repentance--the former always a good thing--the latter when appropriate. We avoid mocking the sickness present in certain spheres. We get on with healing--doing right by folks.

The summer of 2017 marks a return to a former practice and a re-found disregard for marauding black bears. After a few years of absence, the hummingbird and thistle feeders are back up. There were a few nights early on when I took the thistle feeder in at dark and put it back out in the morning. I no longer bother. I haven't seen any bear activity in the immediate neighborhood. The next-door neighbor has a dumpster, which would seem to be a prime target in the immediate area. It had been raided by the bruins in summers past. For the summer of 2017, it appears that it is no longer or not yet on the bears' list of preferred dining spots.

An article in today's local newspaper (Ashland Daily Press) reports that 40% of the diet of bears "harvested" in northern Wisconsin was comprised of bait. Hunters can bait bears for 180 days from mid-April through the bear hunting season in late October. The Department of Natural Resources estimates that some 4 million gallons of bait are consumed annually. It could be that hunters are providing bears with the good stuff so dumpster diving for sour food scraps mixed in with the regular household trash, to include cat litter and dog poop, no longer has the charm that it may at one time held.

But I digress. I intended to talk about birds and bird feeders or is it more appropriate to call them bird bait stations? It all comes down to the harvesting euphemism.

In any case and perchance due to a bit of good luck or the lack of bad luck on my part, the feeders have been left for the birds. Hummingbirds and gold finches make for quality touches to the yard. Each, in their own way, is not unlike a flowering plant in the landscape. Unlike flowers, the presence of these two is not limited to a brief period of bloom like most perennial flowers. Each also brings its personal style. The hummingbirds define kinesis. The particular characteristics of their flight remind one of fighter pilots. They may not have the white silk scarf of the movie version of a World War II ace, but the adult males have an iridescent magenta ascot when the lighting is just right. Magenta may not the most accurate color descriptor, but once I read this description of the color in Wikipedia, it just seemed to be so right, hands down.  "Magenta is an extra-spectral color, meaning that it is not found in the visible spectrum of light. Rather, it is physiologically and psychologically perceived as the mixture of red and violet/blue light, with the absence of green." (Wikipedia) Much about hummingbirds is unexpected, that is, outside of the usual spectrum of possibilities that we commonly observe in nature, so why should we not describe their coloring as an "extra-spectral"?

The male goldfinches are decked out in full bling mode--gold leaf tuxedos with black accents. They look stunning in any light--the full sun of mid-day to the half lights of dawn and dusk. The females in their spring gold (Yes, spring gold was a Pontiac Firebird color in 1969.) attire make for handsome couples on the two perch thistle feeder.

There is a single chick-a-dee that hangs around the yard and frequents the thistle feeder. There is a working man quality to his black, gray, and white outfit. It may not stand out all that much on the summer stage flush with greens. I easily recall the contrast such an outfit brings to a winter scene in its stark monochrome. Chick-a-dees and nuthatches are to winter what hummingbirds and goldfinches are to summer. I am more than willing to accommodate an occasional one or more of these winter regulars to stop by during the tourist season. If it insures the return of several when the pretty birds of summer are long gone, I am all the more willing to welcome them to the table of summer treats. I am simply paying forward to the winter of 2017-2018.

I have not used this blog to comment on the national or state political scene since last fall. This action or lack of action has been the result of an explicit decision to avoid the topic. I haven't changed my mind with this post, but I will comment on not commenting on that very topic.

So many of the events of the past eight months defy traditional political analysis. Journalists have been forced to alter their practice in order to maintain some semblance of relevancy and legitimacy. Comedians and humorists are having more than enough material for their extended daily monologues and weekly columns. It is as if we are faced with a choice of crying or laughing and we choose the latter. I have asked myself the question: "Are there times when laughter as an alternative to crying is an indefensible choice?" In such cases, the laughter may well come at too great of an expense. It belittles the seriousness of the underlying situation and makes light of the potentially disastrous consequences of the behavior of those responsible for governance. I have answered this question for myself by avoiding most late night and cable comedy shows altogether. Abstinence also seems to be a good policy when it comes to limiting one's exposure to cable news. The repetitiveness within the 24 hour news cycle makes for more hype than information.

As I collected my thoughts and made a few notes as I began this post, the language of the theater clearly dominated as I considered my choice of descriptive words with which I could speak of the contemporary political scene. In addition to scene, there was actor, stage, drama, tragedy, comedy, fantasy, science fiction, minstrel show, make-up, costume, and suspension of disbelief. It is as if the script has been torn up and the director fired. Are we watching several one-man shows all taking place on a single stage at the same time? 

There are those things

Only a lover can do

Wants to do

Will do