Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/03/22
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]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.