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

[Scrape At Minds]

On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 19:13:50 -0400, "Ian St. John" <[email protected]> wrote:

>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.

Hey, look, it's the Harrison Ford Land Bridge thingy.
W.B.Lyttle 94 Husaberg FE350 02 Yamaha TT-R125L (youngun's) New hauler: 03 Chevy Silverado (2772
miles) BRC, ARRA, USA-ALL and like that

 

[Scrape At Minds]

On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 18:59:57 -0400, "Ian St. John" <[email protected]> wrote:

>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.

Not "one inch"? Damn. It must be much worse than I thought.

>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.

How much damage do hiking boots do to the terrain? It's all a matter of degree, isn't it? If you'll
tolerate hiking in the "wilderness", your argument is hypocritical at best.

 

[Brian McGarry]

"Ian St. John" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> 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 ).

Totally agree Ian: With a little more ecological awareness you could become a member of the
Still-Hiking movement....Read on:

Brother, (President of dues paying club $$$)

I care and join your movement for still hiking conditionally.

I care because I ask for your endorsement of my new product, "Trail Slippers"(tm)

Conventional hikers tear at Mother's skin with spiked, heavy boots. My new product, "Trail Slippers"
caress and heal Mother's skin, making her feel vital, and young even, as one shambles toward their
"center." Sensitive, neutured -- whoops, neutral colors, create the atmosphere of harmony necessary
for licenced participation in the exciting new sport you call Extreme Still Hiking.

We also have the "Activist Deluxe" (tm) model, available for the gift giving Winter
Solestace season.

Activist Deluxe feature a built in "Panic button" which automatically reports ORV incursions, and
broadcasts the alert to at least 10 reporting stations using the Sierra Club frequency. For every
pair of Activist Deluxe Trail Slippers sold, we will donate (a portion of the profits) to the
non-profit Shamabla Society, giving the founder the means to financially meet the needs of our
cause, which are many and large. Buy two pair.

Should you, brother, care to discuss kickbacks, -- ooooh, what an insensitive word, let's say
"forest refunds"-- for endorsing trail slippers to your many members you can count on our full
support and corporate sponsorship. Furthermore, discussing legislation, mandating the use of Trail
Slippers (tm) is encouraged as a necessary step in saving our forests for future generations.

Thank you, for bringing this new and sensitive sport to our Ecozone. Your level of conciousness must
be very high, because I approve.

Piece.

Kurt Trail Slippers(tm) International.

Trail Slippers are Manufactured with pride in China. Retail price is a gentle $249.00 Each.

"IRKurt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> I almost shed a tear yesterday. I was being transported to my
Still-Hiking
> post, when I saw a sign, affixed to a tree, scrawled in crayon, on a Ben
and
> Jerry's ice cream carton, that read:
>

I did tear-up while reading this....truly a testimonial worthy of recording in the historical annals
of the Still-Hiking movement.

To think, just a few short months ago; I would of laughed at such a sign....and scoffed at the
Eco-Utopian whacko that would believed he could protect the forest from selfish recreational
activities with such a feeble sign.

But now, after listening to Still-Hiking founder MikeW, words of enlightenment, my soul is now one
with the forest slime.

Not since the teachings of John Muir and founding of the Sierra Club, have we've been transcended to
a higher aura of ecological enlightenment.

Shouts of praise to our founder MikeW!

MikeW has taught us to understand that our lungs breath in and out the same air, as the micro-slime,
that we once trampled uncaringly under our lugged hiking boots.

No slimy critters are to small, all will be protected by the Still-Hiking Micro-Eco Warriors.

The gods and mystics of all the great religions joined together and focused their spirituality into
MikeW. Thanks and praise the heavens for sending us MikeW and the Still-Hiking movement.

The next time when you are lacing up your Hiking Boots, consider these humble, yet immortal words:

Instead don a pair of Still-Hiking Forest Slippers and make up your own little 'This Forest is
Klosed' sign, become a Still-Hiking Micro-Eco Warrior....

The Still-Hiking Creed: No Forest slime whether plant or animal will be left behind. All will
received equal and fair treatment and special protection regardless of their origin. It' is my duty
as a Still-Hiking Micro-Eco Warrior to protect all Slime.

Brian Stll Hiking #7348868-012 Become one with the Slime And this post from the googles acheivesthan
mimic Ian's words: Probably a total ban on all human incursions into the park would be best... (for
the children as well as the animals). As far as the Park's original intent, (for the enjoyment of
the public) Authorized, Licensed Personnel could don Forest Slippers, make infrequent incursions
with cam-corders and the park could be viewed on tape, from home, with host, Jesse James.

I tell ya, Still-Hiking is the least intrusive, most sustainable of all outdoor recreation. All
others need to be rendered into the populist catagory "unsustainable."

Kurt

 

[Matt]

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

I'll let Michael speak for himself, but I think you misunderstood him.

>
> > 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.

I don't have anything to do with "four wheel drive" enthusiasts, goon or otherwise. The point you
are missing is that the number of available riding areas has been shrinking dramatically (especially
here in CA) while (as you pointed out) the number of people seeking someplace to ride has increased.
When you cram more and more people into fewer and fewer riding areas you run into exactly the kind
of safety and sustainability problems we are seeing now in some areas.

>
> > 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.

um, I said 'they don't think we should be able to ride *anywhere*' not EVERYWHERE. ie. the vast
majority of radical environmentalists don't want us to be able to ride at all! *We* have proven
time and again that we're willing to compromise, while the enviro side (again, especially here in
California) fights tooth and nail, using every tactic and excuse available to close our already
meager riding areas. Want an example right from the top? Check out the voting record of Paul
Spitler (former head of the California Wilderness Coalition) who managed to greasily politic his
way to head of the state OHMVR commission where he makes no bones about the fact that his sole
purpose there is screw us.

>
> > 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.

We have done a lot more than just whine "we need -some- place to ride". It's more like we say "how
about here?" Answer: NO. "Well, then how about over here" Answer: NO. "Well, what about..." NO, NO,
NO!! See how that works?

And if you're trying to imply that increased riding areas would simply lead to ever increasing
demand (ie. more riders), then you know very little about the economics and physical realities of
dirt bike riding. It's dangerous, time-consuming and very, very expensive. The pool of people
interested in and willing to invest the time, risk and money necessary is most definitely finite. In
fact, I would guess that the increase brought about by additional riding areas would be
statistically insignificant. What more riding areas *would* accomplish is spreading the current
riding public over a much larger area making the areas far more safe and sustainable. You could
quadruple the areas where riding is allowed and the percentage of all public land that that would
represent would still be so small that Joe Average would never notice the difference. Those areas
would however, be far less crowded, safer and could easily recover from the impact of OHV use with
reasonable management.

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

 

[Ian St. John]

"scrape at mindspring dot com" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 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.

There was no point, which is what I responded to.

Dinosaurs have little relevance to the ecosystems of today. Even their dung is fossilized.

If you were trying to make the point that killing off most of the biodiversity of today would
eventually be healed ( in a few million years ) as the cockroaches and worms of today take over the
niche that used to be filled by mammals such as man, then I have to agree, but I still do not see
any point to your post. You seem to have no more brain than a stegosaur about the size of an acorn )
and deserve to contribute to 'evolution in action' but please let the rest of us deal with the issue
with a bit of intelligence.

 

[Michael Rothwel]

Ian St. John wrote:

>>>"Michael Rothwell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>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
>
> Which was my point. The one dimensional viewpoint of Michael is not shared even among his
> peer group.
>

You may want to read that again. I clearly state that the area belongs to all, and that I am a
conservationist (much more so than you seem to be). Wilderness areas make it impossible for anyone
to enjoy. I have been deap into Wilderness areas (3 days by horse), several times, and then look on
a map and find that I didn't see 1/1000th of the area there. I dont know anyone that has. I dont
condone 4WDers going and destroying every place, just as you dont. But I will garuntee you that no
4WD will even get close to many areas that I have been to. I can also garuntee you that very few, if
any, hikers will ever get close. However, a motorcycle (which does little damage in the proper
hands) can get you to many areas so that you can enjoy the wilderness. You see, that's the
difference between me and the "tree huggers" - I believe that the land belongs to all and should be
able to be enjoyed by any who desire to do so, the "tree hugger" believes that no-one should enjoy
area that they have never been too and probably will never go to. Dont change my words to make me
out to be a "rapist and pilager", I take care of the land on which I recreate - I dont litter
(unlike many hikers), and I dont go off trail (unlike many hikers and horseback riders). I dont see
that as "one dimensional".

If you want to be "fair" then, for every square mile of Wilderness land, we need to have a square
mile for hiking, another for horseback, another for mountain bikes, another for motorcycles,
another for 4WD, etc.... This approach is wasteful and impractical. We simply need more "multi-use"
lands available. Where I ride, many motorcycles travel the trails, yet nearly no damage has been
done to the area (I dont consider an 18" trail damage). Cows, horses, and other animals do as much
or more damage.

I'm done now - say what you will.

 

[Ian St. John]

"scrape at mindspring dot com" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 18:59:57 -0400, "Ian St. John" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >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.
>
> Not "one inch"? Damn. It must be much worse than I thought.

There is also no evidence that you ( or they ) think. It seems to be more of an emotional issue
relating to being denied as a child.

>
> >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.
>
> How much damage do hiking boots do to the terrain? It's all a matter of degree, isn't it? If
> you'll tolerate hiking in the "wilderness", your argument is hypocritical at best.

I'll tolerate limited hiking is the 'protected areas', moderate hiking in 'wilderness areas' and as
much walking as you can stand in the cities and countryside. It *is* a matter of degree and multiple
levels of protection. The point of the thread is that the public wants more Wilderness areas
preserved. Take a hint.

 

[Brian McGarry]

There is only one way to settle the "Wilderness Area" arguments:

In order to save our back-country, the radical contingency of the Earth Liberation groups have added
a new page to their playbook.

These groups are willing to go to the extremes and risk all, to protect the Environment from human
exploitation

Noble Eco-Warriors have risked criminal prosecution to torch back-country development projects.
While these fires are attention grabbing events, they had no effect in halting development.

A realization has taken hold, a more radically course of action is required, to save our precious
back-country from further exploitation.

To all Eco-Warriors that care and are willing risk everything, to Save the Planet.

It's become necessary, to render the back-country in such a condition, that will make it impossible,
to be exploited by the Greedy Developers.

In the last few years we've had record Forest Fires....

Noble Eco Warriors, the call has gone out It's time to implement the Final Solution. The environment
will be protected from greedy developers. Save the Earth...it's in your hands.

 

[Ian St. John]

"scrape at mindspring dot com" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 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"?

Mostly by foot if they want to see any game. Of course there could be 'elevated tramways' to
maximize access without disturbing the wildlife, perhasp connected to particular 'staging areas'
where accomodations could be rented. Not to turn the area into 'Disneyland' of course, but to make
it available for controlled recreational use. The point is the 'control' so that every asshole
doesn't have to plow his half acre into mud.

>
> >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.

I read the definition given by the poll and clearly the majority are in favor of it.

>
> >> 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.

The website merely published the poll and results. The necessary literacy is your problem.

>
> >> Be gone, lowly troll.
> >
> >The troll here is obviously you. The low IQ. The brutish logic. Yes. Clearly.
>
> Stop it. You're killing me.

I almost wish that were true.. but I let slime molds and slugs live, I have to be fair.. you are at
least their equal on the evolutionary scale... I think..

 

[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]...
> > > "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.
>
> I'll let Michael speak for himself, but I think you misunderstood him.
>
> >
> > > 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.
>
> I don't have anything to do with "four wheel drive" enthusiasts, goon or otherwise.

And they point to the two wheelers as the cause of the damage, while the ..

> The point you are missing is that the number of available riding areas has been shrinking
> dramatically (especially here in CA) while (as you pointed out) the number of people seeking
> someplace to ride has increased. When you cram more and more people into fewer and fewer riding
> areas you run into exactly the kind of safety and sustainability problems we are seeing now in
> some areas.

So, how much land do you really need? Or do you wnat to serially wreck it all as each parcel
becomes degraded?

>
> >
> > > 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.
>
> um, I said 'they don't think we should be able to ride *anywhere*' not EVERYWHERE. ie. the vast
> majority of radical environmentalists don't want us to be able to ride at all! *We* have proven
> time and again that we're willing to compromise, while the enviro side (again, especially here in
> California) fights tooth and nail, using every tactic and excuse available to close our already
> meager riding areas.

Ooh. ooh. What a horrible fate. To have resistance to mindless destruction? I have no problem with
limited areas available, but you have to maintain those areas so you don't need more and more as the
prior area becomes damaged beyond repair.

> Want an example right from the top? Check out the voting record of Paul Spitler (former head of
> the California Wilderness Coalition) who managed to greasily politic his way to head of the state
> OHMVR commission where he makes no bones about the fact that his sole purpose there is screw us.

>
> >
> > > 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.
>
> We have done a lot more than just whine "we need -some- place to ride". It's more like we say "how
> about here?" Answer: NO. "Well, then how about over here" Answer: NO. "Well, what about..." NO,
> NO, NO!! See how that works?

Nope. The fact that YOU feel hard done by does NOT establish anything but your own self centered
inability to deal with compromise. Take two qualudes and call me tomorrow.

>
> And if you're trying to imply that increased riding areas would simply lead to ever increasing
> demand (ie. more riders), then you know very little about the economics and physical realities of
> dirt bike riding. It's dangerous, time-consuming and very, very expensive. The pool of people
> interested in and willing to invest the time, risk and money necessary is most definitely finite.

Gee. If that were so then there would be very few areas needed for the MTBs, FWDs, quadwheelers,
etc etc etc. Fact is that there are enough self centered weekend warriers to tear up most of the
public land.

> In fact, I would guess that the increase brought about by additional riding areas would be
> statistically insignificant. What more riding areas *would* accomplish is spreading the current
> riding public over a much larger area making the areas far more safe and sustainable. You could
> quadruple the areas where riding is allowed and the percentage of all public land that that would
> represent would still be so small that Joe Average would never notice the difference. Those areas
> would however, be far less crowded, safer and could easily recover from the impact of OHV use with
> reasonable management.

Oh, the reasonableness of it all. It is so overwhelming. All we have to do is kill off Joe Public to
support the whining brats of the Suburban Blight and it will all be better. Wow. What a concept.
I'll tell you what. We'll reserve this planet for your entertainment as soon as we find a similar
one in pristine condition.

 

[Brian McGarry]

"Michael Rothwell" <[email protected]> wrote in message

> - I dont litter (unlike many hikers), and I dont go off trail (unlike many hikers and horseback
> riders).

Michael, littering in the back-country is OK....It's just making deposits for future archeologists
to dip up.

 

[Ian St. John]

rec.motorcycles.dirt removed.

"Michael Rothwell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Ian St. John wrote:
>
> >>>"Michael Rothwell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >>>>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
> >
> > Which was my point. The one dimensional viewpoint of Michael is not
shared
> > even among his peer group.
> >
>
> You may want to read that again. I clearly state that the area belongs to all, and that I am a
> conservationist (much more so than you seem to be). Wilderness areas make it impossible for anyone
> to enjoy. I have been deap into Wilderness areas (3 days by horse), several times, and then look
> on a map and find that I didn't see 1/1000th of the area there. I dont know anyone that has. I
> dont condone 4WDers going and destroying every place, just as you dont. But I will garuntee you
> that no 4WD will even get close to many areas that I have been to. I can also garuntee you that
> very few, if any, hikers will ever get close.

The point is also not to put 1,000 hikers into the wilderness area so that it will all be properly
trampled on. The idea is to preserve some of the original ecosystems. The public is a COST of that
preservation and counter to the intent that must be born as a compromise to obtain support.

> However, a motorcycle (which does little damage in the proper hands) can get you to many areas so
> that you can enjoy the wilderness. You see, that's the difference between me and the "tree
> huggers"

You believe that it is your right to do damage for your own enjoyment, I understand. You have a
'value system' in which nothing that is not shat upon by your particular anus is of any value. It is
the 'self centered' viewpoint of the 'wilderness usage' crowd that is the very thing that the
pro-wilderness environmentalists are opposed to.

It is also the self centered damage that all you assholes do that makes the 'tree huggers'
determined to block the damage.

> - I believe that the land belongs to all and should be able to be enjoyed by any who desire to do
> so, the "tree hugger" believes that no-one should enjoy area that they have never been too and
> probably will never go to.

And so you believe that anything you can get to, you ahve the right to destroy, irrespective of the
values of the public that may never see the land but value the existence of the unspoiled
wilderness. You are such a slug on the evolutionary path.

> Dont change my words to make me out to be a "rapist and pilager", I take care of the land on which
> I recreate - I dont litter (unlike many hikers), and I dont go off trail (unlike many hikers and
> horseback riders). I dont see that as "one dimensional".

We all have a 'line' we won't cross. I commend you for not being quite as damaging as some of your
peer group and suggest that a virtual tour would be as satisfying with none of the need to actually
kill, maim, or destroy. The problems here are all in your head in terms of your 'need' to pulverise
nature in some sort of 'dominance game'.

>
> If you want to be "fair" then, for every square mile of Wilderness land, we need to have a square
> mile for hiking, another for horseback, another for mountain bikes, another for motorcycles,
> another for 4WD, etc....

Sounds like a good approach but one would have to check the numbers. No reason that 4WDs need the
same amount of land. In fact, it might be good to surround an area of 'true wilderness' by a jeep
trail so your noxious and noiseome passtime can act as a 'virtual fence' by scaring the wildlife
into keeping away from the borders. This border would give a long 'trail' while taking not that
much land.

> This approach is wasteful and impractical. We simply need more "multi-use" lands available. Where
> I ride, many motorcycles travel the trails, yet nearly no damage has been done to the area (I dont
> consider an 18" trail damage). Cows, horses, and other animals do as much or more damage.

I think your statement in parenthesis is clearly an indicator of your delusional state.

>
> I'm done now - say what you will.

Gee thanks. I did.

 

[Ian St. John]

"Brian McGarry" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Ian St. John" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >
> > 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 ).
>
> Totally agree Ian: With a little more ecological awareness you could
become
> a member of the Still-Hiking movement....Read on:

Meaningless noise deleted. Oh, gee. Nothing left. Well, let us try to inject a little reason here.

The maximum useage of land might be adjoining 'hard' wilderness with limited access, side by side
with a 'wilderness area' as defined in the poll with hunting, fishing and other recreationsal uses (
and some limitations on numbers ) with a surrounding 'motorised trails' area for those who just have
to dig up the dirt, which would be both long and thin ( thus maximizing the trail for the minimum
area required ) while providing a 'virtual fence' to keep wildlife inside as they flee the noise,
smoke, and disruption. There may have to be connecting corridors with 4WD/MTB overpasses but it has
been noted that such corridors may not be effective if they are hard for the wild population to find
so it may be better to make the individual areas larger and more self contained so that minimal
interconnection is needed.

 

[Brian McGarry]

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

Mr. St. John is here to see you.

Beautiful day isn't it. So how much Wilderness Area would you like? Great! So Ten Billion More
Acres It Is!

 

[Scrape At Minds]

On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 21:17:20 -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.
>
>There was no point, which is what I responded to.
>
>Dinosaurs have little relevance to the ecosystems of today. Even their dung is fossilized.
>
>If you were trying to make the point that killing off most of the biodiversity of today would
>eventually be healed ( in a few million years ) as the cockroaches and worms of today take over the
>niche that used to be filled by mammals such as man, then I have to agree, but I still do not see
>any point to your post. You seem to have no more brain than a stegosaur about the size of an acorn
>) and deserve to contribute to 'evolution in action' but please let the rest of us deal with the
>issue with a bit of intelligence.

If you're just interested in name calling, just say so.

Would your life be better today if dinosaurs roamed the planet? Would your life be worse if the
kangaroo rat no longer had free reign of some parcel of land?

Your tendancy to speak only in absolutes does nothing for your argument.

And, really, get some help with your insults.

 

[Ian St. John]

"Brian McGarry" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> There is only one way to settle the "Wilderness Area" arguments:

Agreed. A poll should be conducted to establish what level of wilderness areas the public wants. I
think that was the point of the thread. Have you caught up yet?

 

[Brian McGarry]

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

> Wow. What a concept. I'll tell you what. We'll reserve this planet for your entertainment as soon
> as we find a similar
one
> in pristine condition.

So Ian, how would you manage this "new pristine planet"?

Would everyone have an electric car or would all cars be outlawed, because to manufacture them would
require mining, to obtain the raw materials?

No way Dewd, cars are kewl, we need them to drive to the back-country pristine paradise, but no
roads, yeah that's it, no earth ripping 4 lane roads crossing our new planet.

We'll have Flying cars!

That it, the new planet will have flying electric cars made out of sticks and twigs. Flying Subaru
Outbacks....

Yikes we better set a sticks and twigs gathering quotas, so our new compose heap, doesn't collapse
from greedy stick and twigs gatherers.

 

[Scrape At Minds]

On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 21:21:46 -0400, "Ian St. John" <[email protected]> wrote:

>> >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.
>>
>> Not "one inch"? Damn. It must be much worse than I thought.
>
>There is also no evidence that you ( or they ) think. It seems to be more of an emotional issue
>relating to being denied as a child.

That's your answer?

>> >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.
>>
>> How much damage do hiking boots do to the terrain? It's all a matter of degree, isn't it? If
>> you'll tolerate hiking in the "wilderness", your argument is hypocritical at best.
>
>I'll tolerate limited hiking is the 'protected areas', moderate hiking in 'wilderness areas' and as
>much walking as you can stand in the cities and countryside. It *is* a matter of degree and
>multiple levels of protection. The point of the thread is that the public wants more Wilderness
>areas preserved. Take a hint.

So the "damage" that's acceptable to you is coincidentally the amount that you'll be causing? Once
again, completely hypocritical. If you're willing to impose "damage quotas", you need to be
consistent. No hiking anywhere but previously constructed concrete paths in order to cause no more
"damage" anywhere to "wilderness". Why do you feel that the damage you do is more noble than the
damage someone else might do? I've seen some horse trails that were in pretty bad shape. Should
horses be banned from the "wilderness"?

 

[Brian McGarry]

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

> The maximum useage of land might be adjoining 'hard' wilderness with
limited
> access, side by side with a 'wilderness area' as defined in the poll with hunting, fishing and
> other recreationsal uses ( and some limitations on numbers ) with a surrounding 'motorised trails'
> area for those who just
have
> to dig up the dirt, which would be both long and thin ( thus maximizing
the
> trail for the minimum area required ) while providing a 'virtual fence' to keep wildlife inside as
> they flee the noise, smoke, and disruption. There may have to be connecting corridors with 4WD/MTB
> overpasses but it has
been
> noted that such corridors may not be effective if they are hard for the
wild
> population to find so it may be better to make the individual areas larger and more self contained
> so that minimal interconnection is needed.

That's all sounds so pleasant Ian, but where do the loggers and miners fit into your ecological
protected playland for the elitist recreationalist?

God help us ! Do you have clew about where every modern convenience that surrounds you comes from?

 

[Scrape At Minds]

On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 21:57:46 -0400, "Ian St. John" <[email protected]> wrote:

>> 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"?
>
>Mostly by foot if they want to see any game. Of course there could be 'elevated tramways' to
>maximize access without disturbing the wildlife, perhasp connected to particular 'staging areas'
>where accomodations could be rented. Not to turn the area into 'Disneyland' of course, but to make
>it available for controlled recreational use. The point is the 'control' so that every asshole
>doesn't have to plow his half acre into mud.

How do you imagine the equipment to build your "elevated tramways" would get into the pristine
wilderness to accomplish that? Please spell it out in detail as my stagasaurus/acorn sized brain has
a hard time comprehending what is likely to follow next.

>> >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.
>
>I read the definition given by the poll and clearly the majority are in favor of it.

Clearly the majority of those that are in favor of it are likely in favor of it. That's about it.

>I almost wish that were true.. but I let slime molds and slugs live, I have to be fair.. you are at
>least their equal on the evolutionary scale... I think..

But I disagree. With your last two words.

Does the Leave the Wilderness Alone Website have artist's renderings of the "elevated tramway"?