The Bush to call cow tracks & Jeep trails: Highways ??

[Ian St. John]

"scrape at mindspring dot com" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 22 Jul 2003 17:34:21 GMT, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
>
> >I doubt it. Most people view wildnerness as something to be preserved
intact,
> >not raped and pillaged.
>
> By "most", do you mean a "small percentage"?

Not a small percentage which can be easily verified by just looking at the number of
pro-environement websites and organsations. The polls are not needed to guage the support, just to
quantify it.

http://www.leaveitwild.org/reports/reports.html
http://www.leaveitwild.org/reports/zogby_poll_results_0103.pdf "Congress is considering setting
aside some publicly owned lands as Wilderness Areas, which would protect them for wildlife and
recreation, such as hiking, fishing, hunting, and camping. But the areas would be closed to new oil
and gas drilling, mining, logging, off-road vehicles, and new roads. "

So they clearly indicated what they meant by 'wilderness' in the poll. You lose moron.

> If so, you're right. Otherwise, you';re as full of **** as any other birdwatcher that wants
> everyone to recreate as YOU see fit.

False and shown false.

>
> Be gone, lowly troll.

The troll here is obviously you. The low IQ. The brutish logic. Yes. Clearly.

 

[Ian St. John]

"scrape at mindspring dot com" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 15:13:44 -0500, "Brian McGarry"
>
> >I'm not interested in having some pretty surroundings or protecting a
bunch
> >of animals that long ago, out lived their usefulness.
>
> Correct. Are you better off or worse off since the dinosaurs died out?

Non sequitor. The moves may portray dinosaures as living coexistent with humans but the scientists
know that they acutally died out tens of millions of years before mankind evolved.

>
> Personally, I can't think of a single reason I'd be better off if they were still here. Getting to
> work would really suck.

More non-sequitors. We are not talking about carnosaurs but of the wilderness. You apparnetly live
in a concrete box, eat plastic and cardboard predigested by the great 'big wheel" and are a very
small cog wheel in the big machine.

 

[Brian McGarry]

"scrape at mindspring dot com" <[email protected]>
>
> Correct. Are you better off or worse off since the dinosaurs died out?
>
> Personally, I can't think of a single reason I'd be better off if they were still here. Getting to
> work would really suck.

Our Forefathers had good reason to kill off all those Lions, Tigers and Bears (wolves too). They
kill livestock.....

Too bad they didn't finish killing them all off. Blast the Losers off the face of the Earth. Then we
wouldn't be having these ridiculous augments, about protect million acre animal welfare zoos.

 

[Brian McGarry]

"Ian St. John" wrote about "Brian McGarry"

> You are, perhaps, the most pathetic excuse for a human being I have ever
had
> the misfortune to 'meet' on usenet.

Ouch!

 

[Scrape At Minds]

On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 16:31:22 -0400, "Ian St. John" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Oops. I guess not. You see the wilderness only as a badly run zoo. I see. You are, perhaps, the
>most pathetic excuse for a human being I have ever had the misfortune to 'meet' on usenet.

Please don't be so hasty in bestowing this title. I'd like a shot at it, if you don't mind.

 

[Brian McGarry]

"Ian St. John" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> >
> > Do you really believe than humans can destroy the earth?
>
> Nope. I only believe that they can damage the biosphere. Of course, I have
a
> hard time justifying the extent of the damage to the biosphere.

Yeah Dewd, Kewl.... that Pauly Shore really reeked some damage to the "Biosphere in that movie.
>
>
> I am not 'useful' to you so I am not worthy of living? Do you have these delusions of being
> 'master of the world' often or just when the drugs kick in?

All human life is sacred and should be protected! From the unborn to the mass murderer. I'm Pro-life
and against capital punishment.

 

[Ian St. John]

"Matt" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> "Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
<snip>
> > >
> > I doubt it. Most people view wildnerness as something to be preserved
> intact,
> > not raped and pillaged.
>
> Spare us the Straw Man arguments. Only a certified eco-whack uses terms like "rape and pillage" to
> define an 18" piece of singletrack thru the woods.

Speaks a 4WDer of course whose image of nature is dependent on the levels of mud he can stir up and
the number of species he can terrify with his hemi head V8. It is more a field of 'I can **** on
nature and win' than an appreciation of either beauty or nature.

 

[The Real Bev]

scrape at mindspring dot com wrote:
>
> On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 15:13:44 -0500, "Brian McGarry"
>
> >I'm not interested in having some pretty surroundings or protecting a bunch of animals that long
> >ago, out lived their usefulness.
>
> Correct. Are you better off or worse off since the dinosaurs died out?
>
> Personally, I can't think of a single reason I'd be better off if they were still here. Getting to
> work would really suck.

Sierra Club quandary: Should they support global warming because it will stave off the environmental
destruction to be caused by glaciers during the next ice age? Decisions, decisions, decisions...

--
Cheers, Bev

"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000
feet." -- Anon.

 

[Matt]

"Ian St. John" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Michael Rothwell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > I believe in conservation, I dont believe in "wilderness" area because that makes it un-usable
> > to the general public.
>
> The value of wilderness is not exclusively as the playground of the RVer
and
> FWDer. Their must be a range of preservation levels including purely 'unspoiled' wilderness that
> is reserved for the 'self interest' of the
flora
> and fauna, or you have nothing but 'badly run zoos' to paraphrase another poster.

And you will find very few in the OHV community who would argue with a balanced, compromising
approach such as you seem to be suggesting. Our experiences here in California however indicate that
that would never satisfy those on the environmentalist side, except of course, as an incremental
step towards a total ban on OHV's and a Wilderness (with a capital 'W') designation slapped on every
unpaved inch of the state. I can't think of a single riding area that hasn't at some point come
under attack by these folks. Ask them if we should be able to ride *anywhere* and the answer is
usually "no". Those that do grudgingly admit that we should have *some* place to go can never offer
a meaningful answer to the obvious followup "okay then, where?". There's alway some reason that the
area in question (whether it's the one they're trying to shut down or anyplace else that is
specifically named) will suffer ecological damage tantamount to nuclear winter if OHV's are allowed
continued access of any degree.

--
Matt 02 RM-250 (me) 02 TTR-125L (wife) 03 KTM 65SX (son)

 

[The Real Bev]

"Ian St. John" wrote:
>
> "scrape at mindspring dot com" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > On 22 Jul 2003 17:34:21 GMT, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
> >
> > >I doubt it. Most people view wildnerness as something to be preserved intact, not raped and
> > >pillaged.
> >
> > By "most", do you mean a "small percentage"?
>
> Not a small percentage which can be easily verified by just looking at the number of
> pro-environement websites and organsations. The polls are not needed to guage the support, just to
> quantify it.
>
> http://www.leaveitwild.org/reports/reports.html
> http://www.leaveitwild.org/reports/zogby_poll_results_0103.pdf "Congress is considering setting
> aside some publicly owned lands as Wilderness Areas, which would protect them for wildlife and
> recreation, such as hiking, fishing, hunting, and camping. But the areas would be closed to new
> oil and gas drilling, mining, logging, off-road vehicles, and new roads. "
>
> So they clearly indicated what they meant by 'wilderness' in the poll. You lose moron.

Hunting? HUNTING? So riding a pedal-driven mountainbike would be forbidden, but it would be OK to
kill Bambi and his friends? Strange sort of religion...

--
Cheers, Bev

Don't you just KNOW that there is more than one Sierra Club member who is absolutely sure that the
dinosaurs died out because of something humans did?

 

[Matt]

"Ian St. John" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Matt" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> > "Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> <snip>
> > > >
> > > I doubt it. Most people view wildnerness as something to be preserved
> > intact,
> > > not raped and pillaged.
> >
> > Spare us the Straw Man arguments. Only a certified eco-whack uses terms like "rape and pillage"
> > to define an 18" piece of singletrack thru the woods.
>
> Speaks a 4WDer of course whose image of nature is dependent on the levels
of
> mud he can stir up and the number of species he can terrify with his hemi head V8. It is more a
> field of 'I can **** on nature and win' than an appreciation of either beauty or nature.

wow, it sure didn't take you long to reach a rhetoric level of "screeching fanatic", don't forget
you guys are the ones who came here (RMD) looking for a fight.

BTW, none of the above characterizations are the least bit accurate. If you'd take the time to look
at the groups this thread is crossposted to you won't see any 4WD stuff; I -ride- offroad
(motorcycles and mountain bikes), don't really know what a "hemi head" is, and care very much about
the areas I ride in, including volunteering for trail maintenance. But don't worry, I don't really
expect that to impress someone who probably goes to seminars to find out how to make a better
"lockdown" device.

--
Matt 02 RM-250 (me) 02 TTR-125L (wife) 03 KTM 65SX (son)

 

[Mx Tuner]

On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 16:44:30 -0400, "Ian St. John" <[email protected]> spewed forth:

>You apparnetly live in a concrete box, eat plastic and cardboard predigested by the great
>'big wheel"

It tastes pretty good covered with white gravy.

MX Tuner

 

[Jim Hall]

"Ian St. John" <[email protected]> wrote:

>We do need wilderness to survive as humans. Only those who have been 'dehumanised' to the degree of
>becoming pretty much a 'alw of the jungle' animal do not need nature. You even state that we NEED
>the environment while you do it only on the basis of 'exploitation'. Your flaw is your failure to
>understand that endless and unlimited exploitation will destroy the environment that we need ( to
>make sustainable for the future).

You are right of course. I can see that you are ready to take the next step and enter into the
brotherhood of Still-Hikers Unlike environment-degrading ATVer's, Motionful Hikers, and extractive
resourse-using corporate behemoths, Still-Hiking eliminates the disagreeable environmental
consequences of human interaction with the ecosphere.

Available for rental or purchase at your nearest Forest Kiosk (tm) Forest Slippers are constructed
of high quality and low-impact organic hemp. They are lined with down gently massaged from
free-range ducks and geese and are carefully packaged in aromatic leaves of the Peruvian Balalaika
tree (which has naturally-organic insect-repelling properties).

< Someone page Kurt. This thing is crossposted to seven newsgroups. There is a MW Inc. marketing
opportunity here going to waste.>

Still-Hiking The *only* sustainable environmental ethos.
c.2003 MikeW Inc. all rights reserved

 

[Ian St. John]

"Matt" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> "Ian St. John" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > "Michael Rothwell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > > I believe in conservation, I dont believe in "wilderness" area because that makes it un-usable
> > > to the general public.
> >
> > The value of wilderness is not exclusively as the playground of the RVer
> and
> > FWDer. Their must be a range of preservation levels including purely 'unspoiled' wilderness that
> > is reserved for the 'self interest' of the
> flora
> > and fauna, or you have nothing but 'badly run zoos' to paraphrase
another
> > poster.
>
> And you will find very few in the OHV community who would argue with a balanced, compromising
> approach such as you seem to be suggesting.

Which was my point. The one dimensional viewpoint of Michael is not shared even among his
peer group.

> Our experiences here in California however indicate that that would never satisfy those on the
> environmentalist side, except of course, as an incremental step towards a total ban on OHV's and a
> Wilderness (with a capital 'W') designation slapped on every unpaved inch of the state. I can't
> think of a single riding area that hasn't at some point come under attack by these folks.

One can turn this around and point to the fact that while one RVer may not do much damage there are
a growing number of them and there is not one inch of wilderness that is not under attack by four
wheel drive goons.

> Ask them if we should be able to ride *anywhere* and the answer is usually "no".

Right. The point, which you seemed to agree with above, is that some land should be preserved
completely while other land should be 'mixed use' and other land should be commercial. The idea that
ALL land is just waiting to be torn up is pretty much a non-starter.

> Those that do grudgingly admit that we should have *some* place to go can never offer a meaningful
> answer to the obvious followup "okay then, where?".

They aren't god any more than you are so the question of 'where' demands a certain amount of study.
One would want to locate it in the areas of maximum access and minimum impact. The problem is that
there are no ends to the number of 'weekend warriors' and they EACH want THEIR piece of the pie.

> There's alway some reason that the area in question (whether it's the one they're trying to shut
> down or anyplace else that is specifically named) will suffer ecological damage tantamount to
> nuclear winter if OHV's are allowed continued access of any degree.

There is little queston that OHVs do damage terrain so the question is one of granting areas for
Wilderness and other areas of 'Off Road Trails'. You cannot allocate all of the land to either.

>
> --
> Matt 02 RM-250 (me) 02 TTR-125L (wife) 03 KTM 65SX (son)

 

[Ian St. John]

"The Real Bev" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> "Ian St. John" wrote:
> >
> > "scrape at mindspring dot com" <[email protected]> wrote in
message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > > On 22 Jul 2003 17:34:21 GMT, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
> > >
> > > >I doubt it. Most people view wildnerness as something to be
preserved
> > > >intact, not raped and pillaged.
> > >
> > > By "most", do you mean a "small percentage"?
> >
> > Not a small percentage which can be easily verified by just looking at
the
> > number of pro-environement websites and organsations. The polls are not needed to guage the
> > support, just to quantify it.
> >
> > http://www.leaveitwild.org/reports/reports.html
> > http://www.leaveitwild.org/reports/zogby_poll_results_0103.pdf "Congress is considering setting
> > aside some publicly owned lands as Wilderness Areas, which would protect them for wildlife and
> > recreation, such as hiking, fishing, hunting, and camping. But the areas would be closed to new
> > oil and gas drilling, mining, logging, off-road vehicles,
and
> > new roads. "
> >
> > So they clearly indicated what they meant by 'wilderness' in the poll.
You
> > lose moron.
>
> Hunting? HUNTING? So riding a pedal-driven mountainbike would be forbidden, but it would be OK to
> kill Bambi and his friends? Strange sort of religion...

Wilderness ( as defined in this poll) is clearly open to hunting and fishing and camping. Try "ducks
unlimited" or your local game licensing office to get a freaking clue. The point is to preserve the
area for the wild life, not the "wild" life and the 'religion' here is yours of saying no hunting
while killing off all the predators as threats. The qeustion was posed of the continental U.S. where
game is running rampant due to the lack of wolves and other predators so we must do the best we can
to preserve the 'balance' of nature in these areas.

Where possible, it would be even better to have complete ecosystems with predators and all and
limited access requiring licensing by environmental groups as 'wilderness aware', but that would
require building a predator fence around the entire thing ( to keep the predators *in*) and is
probably not feasible except is some areas of the most beauty and isolation. The 'hard' wilderness,
so to speak as opposed to the 'medium' wilderness spoken of in the polls and the 'soft' wilderness
where mechnised transport is allowable.

It would be interesting to do a study to determine the way to maximize the value for the land set
aside, preserving contiguity between the 'hard' conservation areas and the 'wilderness' areas so as
to give the maximum range to wildlife while maximizing the opportunity for the public to see
wildlife. P.S. if you do not have to carry a gun into an area for protection it is 'not' wilderness
but another national or state park (i.e. Safe areas where the clueless city dweller can gaze at
nature without understanding it or needing to understand it ).

 

[Scrape At Minds]

On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 16:55:52 -0400, "Ian St. John" <[email protected]> wrote:

>> >I doubt it. Most people view wildnerness as something to be preserved
>intact,
>> >not raped and pillaged.
>>
>> By "most", do you mean a "small percentage"?
>
>Not a small percentage which can be easily verified by just looking at the number of
>pro-environement websites and organsations. The polls are not needed to guage the support, just to
>quantify it.
>
>http://www.leaveitwild.org/reports/reports.html
>http://www.leaveitwild.org/reports/zogby_poll_results_0103.pdf "Congress is considering setting
>aside some publicly owned lands as Wilderness Areas, which would protect them for wildlife and
>recreation, such as hiking, fishing, hunting, and camping. But the areas would be closed to new oil
>and gas drilling, mining, logging, off-road vehicles, and new roads. "

You couldn't have found a more unbiased choice of sources. How do you reckon those fishers, hunters
and campers are going to get way back into that "wilderness"?

>So they clearly indicated what they meant by 'wilderness' in the poll. You lose moron.

When people discover what you and your ilk mean by "wilderness", they (the majority) are clearly
against what you propose.

>> If so, you're right. Otherwise, you';re as full of **** as any other birdwatcher that wants
>> everyone to recreate as YOU see fit.
>
>False and shown false.

Where? On the Leave It Wild Website? You bet.

>> Be gone, lowly troll.
>
>The troll here is obviously you. The low IQ. The brutish logic. Yes. Clearly.

Stop it. You're killing me.

 

[Ian St. John]

"Matt" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> "Ian St. John" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > "Matt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > > "Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> > <snip>
> > > > >
> > > > I doubt it. Most people view wildnerness as something to be
preserved
> > > intact,
> > > > not raped and pillaged.
> > >
> > > Spare us the Straw Man arguments. Only a certified eco-whack uses terms like "rape and
> > > pillage" to define an 18" piece of
singletrack
> > > thru the woods.
> >
> > Speaks a 4WDer of course whose image of nature is dependent on the
levels
> of
> > mud he can stir up and the number of species he can terrify with his
hemi
> > head V8. It is more a field of 'I can **** on nature and win' than an appreciation of either
> > beauty or nature.
>
>
> wow, it sure didn't take you long to reach a rhetoric level of "screeching fanatic", don't forget
> you guys are the ones who came here (RMD) looking for a fight.

Who was looking for a fight? Now that I know which of the crosspostings you come from I can delete
your newgroup. Thanks. <rec.motorcyle.dirt deleted>

>
> BTW, none of the above characterizations are the least bit accurate.

Gee. Every time I think of you I remember that commercial with the SUV and the watchers looking at
the deer when YOU ( or your avatar ) roar up and ask them what they are looking at...

It is so appropriate of the attitude here of 4WD and offroad motorcycle fanatics.

> If you'd take the time to look at the groups this thread is crossposted to you won't see any 4WD
> stuff; I -ride- offroad (motorcycles and mountain bikes), don't really know what a "hemi head" is,
> and care very much about the areas I ride in, including volunteering for trail maintenance.

And then I'm sure you won't mind biking in the local obsolete landfill or industrial wasteland. I
have no problem with this. It is the demand of MTB and 4WDer for 'unspoiled wilderness' to trample
that is the real issue.

> But don't worry, I don't really expect that to impress someone who probably goes to seminars to
> find out how to make a better "lockdown" device.

Lockdown device??? You mean bicycle lock? I am not an inventor and no inventor goes to 'seminars' to
get his inventions.

Unlike you I have ridden into some real wild areas ( J5 bombadier and Honda 90 Trail bikes ) with
some serious big timber and have some appreciation for the value of just walking through the place
and watching nature firsthand rather than trying to scare everything with loud noises and deep beer
belching. Fly-in lodge with most of the fuel brought in by a trailer on the J5 ( nothing stops that
beast ) through a swampy area about every other month.

It fell to the loggers a couple of years ago who built road in and cut down all of the trees ( many
too big to put your arms around ) while others are now using the logging road to ship out tailings
from an old gold mine for 'reprocessing' to remove the remaining values. You take your life in your
hands on those road as the trucks don't stop for anything.

All in all it turned the area from an unspoiled wilderness into a lunar landscape.

You should be proud. It is now suitable for your kind as there is little left to destroy.

 

[Ian St. John]

rec.motorcycles.dirt trimmed.

"Jim Hall" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Ian St. John" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >We do need wilderness to survive as humans. Only those who have been 'dehumanised' to the degree
> >of becoming pretty much a 'alw of the jungle' animal do not need nature. You even state that we
> >NEED the environment
while
> >you do it only on the basis of 'exploitation'. Your flaw is your failure
to
> >understand that endless and unlimited exploitation will destroy the environment that we need ( to
> >make sustainable for the future).
>
> You are right of course. I can see that you are ready to take the next step and enter into the
> brotherhood of Still-Hikers Unlike environment-degrading ATVer's, Motionful Hikers, and extractive
> resourse-using corporate behemoths, Still-Hiking eliminates the disagreeable environmental
> consequences of human interaction with the ecosphere.

You have problems understanding simple words like 'sustainable'?

>
> Available for rental or purchase at your nearest Forest Kiosk (tm) Forest Slippers are constructed
> of high quality and low-impact organic hemp. They are lined with down gently massaged from
> free-range ducks and geese and are carefully packaged in aromatic leaves of the Peruvian Balalaika
> tree (which has naturally-organic insect-repelling properties).

I see that you are ready to exploit anything. I'm sure you do your 'advertising' from the comfort of
an air conditoned skyscraper and have absolutely no contact with your products. The recycled
disposable diapers that go into your 'all organic peruvian Balalaika tree leaves' that you soak with
DEET are really no substitute for the real thing which is now in very short supply due to the demand
for executive desks.

>
> < Someone page Kurt. This thing is crossposted to seven newsgroups. There is a MW Inc. marketing
> opportunity here going to waste.>
>
> Still-Hiking The *only* sustainable environmental ethos.
> c.2003 MikeW Inc. all rights reserved

I'll tell you what. We'll let you sell 'virtual tours' of the wilderness for conveniently located
kiosks that can employ abandoned buildings in your city. I'm sure they can supply an endless source
of 'fresh pine scent' to add versimilitude.

>

Not true. The Forest is for everyone, not just the morons.

 

[Scrape At Minds]

On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 16:44:30 -0400, "Ian St. John" <[email protected]> wrote:

>> >I'm not interested in having some pretty surroundings or protecting a
>bunch
>> >of animals that long ago, out lived their usefulness.
>>
>> Correct. Are you better off or worse off since the dinosaurs died out?
>
>Non sequitor. The moves may portray dinosaures as living coexistent with humans but the scientists
>know that they acutally died out tens of millions of years before mankind evolved.

Try a tad harder to get the point and then report back. Thanks.

>> Personally, I can't think of a single reason I'd be better off if they were still here. Getting
>> to work would really suck.
>
>More non-sequitors. We are not talking about carnosaurs but of the wilderness. You apparnetly live
>in a concrete box, eat plastic and cardboard predigested by the great 'big wheel" and are a very
>small cog wheel in the big machine.

See above. The whole "getting the point" thing is a difficult concept sometime, but I think you
might get it if you work at it. But in the meantime, feel free to hurl more stinging "insults".

 

[Scrape At Minds]

On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 14:52:17 -0700, The Real Bev <[email protected]> wrote:

>> >I'm not interested in having some pretty surroundings or protecting a bunch of animals that long
>> >ago, out lived their usefulness.
>>
>> Correct. Are you better off or worse off since the dinosaurs died out?
>>
>> Personally, I can't think of a single reason I'd be better off if they were still here. Getting
>> to work would really suck.
>
>Sierra Club quandary: Should they support global warming because it will stave off the
>environmental destruction to be caused by glaciers during the next ice age? Decisions, decisions,
>decisions...

Not even a worry. Nuclear winter and global warming will cancel each other out. You won't even need
new clothes.