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



Status
Not open for further replies.
Brian McGarry wrote:

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

Thank you for reminding me to hire Swedish contractors for the installation. They have log
harvesters that can selectively log, debark and trim trees one by one without killing the remaining
trees and without damaging the soil. Unlike the 'moonscape' clearcutting that the clueless
Americans feel is the 'only way'. I admit that it will be hard to retrain the local yokels to use
their brains.

> Please spell it out in detail as my stagasaurus/acorn sized brain has a hard time comprehending
> what is likely to follow next.

I think you just said it all.

>
> >> >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'm not even sure if YOU know what you just said. The majority of Americans are in favor of 10% or
more of the land being reserved for Wilderness areas as defined by the poll. I guess this is too
hard for you to comprehend?

> >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.

Showing that disagreement takes no brains.

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

Ha Ha. I forget when I last met someone that amused me so with his mindless antics. This shows I
have a VERY short memory...
 
"Brian McGarry" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Ian St. John" <[email protected]> wrote in message
<snip>
> > 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?

The other 90% of the land. Are you really that clueless?

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

Do you know what a clue is? Or how to spell it? You seem to be a product of the American so called
education system. If you can't make a sustainable economy reserving 90% of the land you will NEVER
make a sustainable economy even with 100% of the land. And if you cannot make a sustainable economy,
you are no more than a dinosaur waiting for the next extinction event.
 
On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 00:28:45 -0400, "Ian St. John" <[email protected]> wrote:

>> How do you imagine the equipment to build your "elevated tramways" would get into the pristine
>> wilderness to accomplish that?
>
>Thank you for reminding me to hire Swedish contractors for the installation. They have log
>harvesters that can selectively log, debark and trim trees one by one without killing the remaining
>trees and without damaging the soil. Unlike the 'moonscape' clearcutting that the clueless
>Americans feel is the 'only way'. I admit that it will be hard to retrain the local yokels to use
>their brains.

You're posting from a Canadian ISP. Are you in Canada?

> Please
>> spell it out in detail as my stagasaurus/acorn sized brain has a hard time comprehending what is
>> likely to follow next.
>
>I think you just said it all.

You left out any detail. Miss the point again?

>I'm not even sure if YOU know what you just said. The majority of Americans are in favor of 10% or
>more of the land being reserved for Wilderness areas as defined by the poll. I guess this is too
>hard for you to comprehend?

I'm sure I know, but I'm equally as sure that it sailed over your head.

>. I think..
>>
>> But I disagree. With your last two words.
>
>Showing that disagreement takes no brains.

Nope. It's plainly obvious, but thanks for putting in the effort.

>> Does the Leave the Wilderness Alone Website have artist's renderings of the "elevated tramway"?
>
>
>Ha Ha. I forget when I last met someone that amused me so with his mindless antics. This shows I
>have a VERY short memory...

No argument here.
 
In article <[email protected]>, Michael Rothwell
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>>
>> The wildnerness belongs to all of us, not just you who would rape and
pillage
>> it.
>
>That's right, the wilderness belongs to ALL of us. This means that I can
ride
>my motorcycle there,

Let's see, the White House belongs to all of us too. Can you walk into the Oval Office? How about
the Supreme Court building? That belongs to all of us. Can you camp out in the hallway?

> you can hike there, my neighbor can ride his horse there. What's wrong with you tree huggers is
> that you think that if it "belongs to
all
>of us" it really only belongs to the people who use it as YOU see fit. I believe in conservation, I
>dont believe in "wilderness" area because that
makes
>it un-usable to the general public.
 
In article <[email protected]>, scrape at mindspring dot com
<[email protected]> wrote:
>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"? If so, you're right. Otherwise, you';re as full of
>**** as any other birdwatcher that wants everyone to recreate as YOU see fit.
>
>Be gone, lowly troll.
>
>
I suggest you read these things called "polls."
 
In article <[email protected]>, "Brian McGarry"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>"Ian St. John" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> >
>> > Manage 'all' public lands for the benefit of the public. Return
>Wilderness
>> > Areas to a productive source of a natural resource based public wealth.
>>
>> What 'public wealth' are you referring to? The only way that the land 'produces public wealth' is
>> as national winderness areas. As 'natural resource sources' they produce private profits for
>> their destruction.
>
>Public wealth is created by private businesses...JOBS.

Not the only way.

>
>Do you really believe than humans can destroy the earth?

Yes. Look up "ozone layer and CFCs."

>
>I'm not interested in having some pretty surroundings or protecting a bunch of animals that long
>ago, out lived their usefulness.

TS. Lots of us are.

>
>I promote using public lands for the benefit of the public. Not making them into million area de
>facto zoos.
>
>
>
>

Most public lands are this way; leave the remaining bit alone.
 
In article <[email protected]>, "Brian McGarry"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>> The wildnerness is already there.
>
>Right you are Lloyd, the Wilderness Areas are natural resources waiting to be exploited for
>our benefit.
>
>Don't worry, it'll take centuries before we log and mine it all.
>
>
>> The wildnerness belongs to all of us, not just you who would rape and
>pillage
>> it.
>
>Again, do really believe that humans have capabilities to destroy the Earth?

Remember how close we came to destroying the ozone layer?

>If manage our natural resources poorly, humans suffer the consequences. The Earth will more or less
>continue, the same as always.
>
>Neither the Earth or Mankind need Wilderness Areas to survive, but humans do need to exploit the
>environment to survive.
>
>
>
>
>
Not every square inch of it, though. And riding a polluting bike through a pristine forest is hardly
necessary for survival.
 
On 23 Jul 2003 16:33:35 GMT, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker) wrote:

>I suggest you read these things called "polls."

Which ones? The ********, made-up ones or the factual ones that dispute what you're saying?
 
On 23 Jul 2003 16:35:45 GMT, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker) spewed forth:

>>Do you really believe than humans can destroy the earth?

>Yes. Look up "ozone layer and CFCs."

Okay, *now* do a little more research and see what the biggest contributors are to the destruction
of the ozone layer.

Yup, they were bellowing smoke millions of years before man ever walked the earth.

MX Tuner
 
In article <[email protected]>, "Brian McGarry"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>"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.
>
>
>
Too bad your branch of the evolutionary tree wasn't similarly hunted to extinction. Or don't you
believe in evolution?
 
In article <[email protected]>, scrape at mindspring dot com
<[email protected]> wrote:
>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"?

You mean if they can't drive their Hummers in, they can't get there? How did people ever get
anywhere 100 years ago?

>
>>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.

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

Looks like we have another Mikey V retard here. Pave it to save it, what a great idea Ian.
--
_________________________
Chris Phillipo - Cape Breton, Nova Scotia http://www.ramsays-online.com
 
On 23 Jul 2003 16:44:17 GMT, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker) wrote:

>>When people discover what you and your ilk mean by "wilderness", they (the majority) are clearly
>>against what you propose.
>
>Then cite a poll to prove it.

Pointless exercise. I don't believe your polls and you don't believe mine.
 
>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.

ROFLMAO - using anti-gravity levitation devices perhaps?

Kontrolled Rekreational Purpozez!!
 
"scrape at mindspring dot com" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 23 Jul 2003 16:44:17 GMT, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
>
> >>When people discover what you and your ilk mean by "wilderness", they (the majority) are clearly
> >>against what you propose.
> >
> >Then cite a poll to prove it.
>
> Pointless exercise. I don't believe your polls and you don't believe mine.

Polls are 'data' not a belief system. You are just substituting ignorance for fact.
 
scrape at mindspring dot com <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> Would your life be better today if dinosaurs roamed the planet?

Utterly pointless waste of words and question mark.

> Would your life be worse if the kangaroo rat no longer had free reign of some parcel of land?

Do you even understand the first thing about the balance of an ecosystem? It's much like a house of
cards - remove one card and the whole structure becomes weak. Remove too many, or the wrong one, or
leave it weakened for too long, the whole structure fails.

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

At least he had an argument, which is infinately more than could be said for your pathetically
uninformed nonsense of an 'opinion'.

> And, really, get some help with your insults.

You are your own perfect insult - what would anyone need help for?

Shaun aRe
 
>Thank you for reminding me to hire Swedish contractors for the installation. They have log
>harvesters that can selectively log, debark and trim trees one by one without killing the remaining
>trees and without damaging the soil. Unlike the 'moonscape' clearcutting that the clueless
>Americans feel is the 'only way'. I admit that it will be hard to retrain the local yokels to use
>their brains.

Why not jjkust walk in there and do it by hand? Why all the heavy equipment? :) "Soil Damage" is a
hysterical overstatement, Moonscapes are another one. Clueless Americanns is a third. "Local Yokels"
shows smug contempt for people who don't chose to pursue eco-elitism from a hovering ivory-tower.

The Swedes *do* have a good Bikini Team however.
 
"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)
 
"Ian St. John" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "scrape at mindspring dot com" <[email protected]> wrote in
message
> news:[email protected]...
> > On 23 Jul 2003 16:44:17 GMT, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
> >
> > >>When people discover what you and your ilk mean by "wilderness", they (the majority) are
> > >>clearly against what you propose.
> > >
> > >Then cite a poll to prove it.
> >
> > Pointless exercise. I don't believe your polls and you don't believe mine.
>
> Polls are 'data' not a belief system. You are just substituting ignorance for fact.

All polls prove is that by phrasing the question appropriately, including some information while
excluding some, it is possible for someone with an agenda to get pretty much whatever result they
happen to be looking for. But you already knew that, you were justing -pretending- to be
ignorant, right?

--
Matt 02 RM-250 (me) 02 TTR-125L (wife) 03 KTM 65SX (son)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

J
Replies
0
Views
469
Triathlon
John N . Kessle
J
J
Replies
0
Views
450
Triathlon
Judy Christophe
J