Can "wilderness" be defined? To what degree? Is something wild if it doesn't have any attachment to civilization? How much of it does there need to be to be considered wild? A cat that has never had a home? A small patch of land that has never been cultivated? Defining "wilderness" tends to pose a problem - one of interpretation. For example, yesterday I went camping at a state park. It was a dismal day, misting, foggy, chilly, and it was in the middle of the week. These conditions virtually made the park empty. I was the only person in the two primitive camp grounds (meaning you had to hike your belongings into the campsite, and some campsites are almost 1/2 a mile from the parking lot) and only 3 RV sites that were occupied. My interpretation therefore, was that yes, I was in the wilderness. I was sharing a couple hundred acres with only a few people. And I was the only one in a tent. I was able to hear the crickets, birds, coyotes, and other critters running around day and night. But is it really wild? Any given weekend, especially during the summer, there are hundreds of not thousands of people in this state park. How wild is it when I can hear the jet planes approaching a nearby airport every five minutes? How wild is it when I can hear the cars off in the distance going over the dam of the lake? It's all in interpretation. For me, my experience was wild. I had the shelter of my tent and I was sharing it and the surrounding area with nothing else but the natural environment. I was vulnerable. But does vulnerability make something wild? Perhaps not. But for me, this experience was different than if I would have stayed during the summer months or weekends when it was more populated. The presence of others would have made it a less wild experience even though it was the same campsite and the same tent. Civilization removes wilderness. At least that's how I see it now....
