Name (required):

  Expression ^{(Optional mood/title along with your name) Examples: (happy, sad, The Joyful, etc.) help)}

  E-mail address (optional):

* Type your message here:
>"Does the term natural quiet capture human footsteps, >talking, breathing?" > >An interesting and complexing question--which relates >to John Sullivan's previous post--namely, what sounds >are a part of "natural quiet" and how is that division >made? One person's annoyance is another's mere >interference. > >Ms. Norwood's waterfall question is a perfect example. > For some a waterfall is, while interferring with >other sounds, a part of the natural soundscape. For >others, the noise generated by the falls are an >annoyance because they interfere with an individuals >ability to hear other sounds, such as birds or wind >through the trees. While this example may be a bit >trifling, it raises broader questions. > >At what point is "natural quiet" an integral component >of wilderness and not an individual or cultural >definition? How should that be decided and what >should be the basis? > >Scientific studies provide information but are not and >cannot be, of themselves, the deciding mechanisms of >policy; the importance placed on the meanings of these >scientific studies is. Science, it seems, will not >resolve this issue, it can be the basis of sound >decisions, but those decisions have to be made by >people--Park Service employees--who have to reckon >with and manage the public's discordant expectations >of a Park experience. > >How should the line be drawn in defining what are, and >are not, acceptable sounds in our Parks? What are >your impressions of the suggestion to manage Parks use >by soundscape districts? > >Andrew Hildner >Center of the American West

Notice: Copies of your message may remain on this and other systems on internet. Please be respectful.