"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]...
> > >
> > > "Matt" <
[email protected]> wrote in message
> > >
news:[email protected]...
> > > > "Ian St. John" <
[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > >
news:[email protected]... 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
..
I didn't point anything at anyone, I just said "I don't have anything to do with "four wheel drive"
enthusiasts, goon or otherwise." Do you have a reading comprehension problem or can you only make
your point my deliberately misinterpreting my words?
>
> > 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?
As some here have already pointed out, it works quite well to manage a riding area by rotating the
trails (periodically close some, and reopen others). The closed areas recover very nicely, in a
short time the natural vegetation takes over and the trails disappear. By doing this and managing
runoff in hilly areas to prevent erosion by proper trail construction and repair, a riding area is
totally sustainable. This is not feasible however, when you have a large riding public crammed into
fewer and fewer, smaller and smaller riding 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.
>
> 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.
Answered above.
> > > > 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.
you have an unusual definition of 'compromise', well, unusual outside of the radical
environmentalist community anyway.
> > 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.
There's that comprehension problem again, I said "finite" not "tiny".
> > 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.
yawn, typical eco-extremist hyperbole. Ian, 'compromise' doesn't mean everyone -else- "compromises"
until you get your way 100%.
--
Matt 02 RM-250 (me) 02 TTR-125L (wife) 03 KTM 65SX (son)