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

[Scrape At Minds]

On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 12:28:41 +0100, "Shaun Rimmer" <[email protected]> wrote:

>> The point that sails safely untouched over your head may have been wasted on you personally, but
>> hardly wasted altogether.
>
>The irony in that stamement of yours is truly astounding, heheheheheh.......

truly that miniscule?

>
>> > 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'.
>>
>> There you go with the hyperbole again.
>
>So, mentally remove (can you even do that?!?) the 'infinately' from the above, if a slight
>exageration is enough to hinder your comprehension of the truth - the message is still there, and
>it still stands, hyperbole or no.

Message? If you say so. The whole sentence made no sense. "Infinate" (sic) is a slight "exageration"
(sic)? You had a tough time in a lot of your classes, didn't you?

Free "ad hominem attack". Attempt to point at it as a reason why everything you say is right.

>> > And, really, get some help with your insults.
>> >
>> >You are your own perfect insult - what would anyone need help for?
>>
>> Please take a moment from time to time and read over your posts before hitting <Enter>.
>
>Oh grow up/wise up/ do whatever it is you need to do to stop being so darned 'silly' - I'm
>perfectly happy with my post(s) as it was (they are), and am perfectly capable of thinking on my
>feet, as well as knowing what I've written without the need to read over it. Your comment suggests
>you have problems in these areas.

I'm sure you're happy with them. I'm sure you can think with your feet, too. But, really, do have a
look over your gibberish first. It borders on nonsense.

>Anyone would think you a carthorse, blinkered as you are.

By "anyone", do you mean yourself? Or is this where you attempt to add numbers to your "cause"?

 

[Shaun Rimmer]

scrape at mindspring dot com <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 12:28:41 +0100, "Shaun Rimmer" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> >> The point that sails safely untouched over your head may have been wasted on you personally,
> >> but hardly wasted altogether.
> >
> >The irony in that stamement of yours is truly astounding,
heheheheheh.......
>

> truly that miniscule?

Hit a nerve did I? Did something fly right over your head yet again? Or is it that your one o those
poor folks that just cannot comprehend irony? - I vote all three apply to you.

> >> > 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'.
> >>
> >> There you go with the hyperbole again.
> >
> >So, mentally remove (can you even do that?!?) the 'infinately' from the above, if a slight
> >exageration is enough to hinder your comprehension of
the
> >truth - the message is still there, and it still stands, hyperbole or no.
>
> Message? If you say so. The whole sentence made no sense. "Infinate" (sic) is a slight
> "exageration" (sic)?

So? Couple of typos and I 'quoted' one of them - BFD. Being pedantic is the last resort of a
weak mind.

> You had a tough time in a lot of your classes, didn't you?

Heheheheheh - classic! You're easier meat than a free lunch. If I wasn't having so much fun
watching you become increasingly foolish, I'd give you a break (you obviously need it - tired often
are you?).

> Free "ad hominem attack".

You attacked me? Where? Heheheheh...........

> Attempt to point at it as a reason why everything you say is right.

Do your own bidding you silly fool.

> >> > And, really, get some help with your insults.
> >> >
> >> >You are your own perfect insult - what would anyone need help for?
> >>
> >> Please take a moment from time to time and read over your posts before hitting <Enter>.
> >
> >Oh grow up/wise up/ do whatever it is you need to do to stop being so
darned
> >'silly' - I'm perfectly happy with my post(s) as it was (they are), and
am
> >perfectly capable of thinking on my feet, as well as knowing what I've written without the need
> >to read over it. Your comment suggests you have problems in these areas.
>
> I'm sure you're happy with them. I'm sure you can think with your feet, too.

I asked my feet, and they tel me they could out think you with their hands tied behind their backs,
heheheheh........

> But, really, do have a look over your gibberish first. It borders on nonsense.

It's not my writing that's giberish, just your severely compromised comprehensive abilities thjat
has you percieving it that way. Go read a Peter and Jane book or something, come back when you're up
to adult language use.

> >Anyone would think you a carthorse, blinkered as you are.
>
> By "anyone", do you mean yourself? Or is this where you attempt to add numbers to your "cause"?

Who knows? Who cares? What "cause"? Personally, IDGAF whether I have the 'numbers' or not (?!?!?!?)
- you are too bizarre! ',;~}~

Shaun aRe - Are you always out to lunch? Bet your health suffers, heheheheh.........

 

[Woodsrider978]

"Doug Bashford" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...

> No, they are the product of Rick Sieman, Pat Chicas et al DIRT BIKE mag, off-road.com Media and
> the copy cats. The Sahara Club branch of Wise Use is alive and well there.

You really couldn't be more wrong. As someone else posted a lot of us don't bother reading those
highly circulated publications other than at the grocery store. Even then, you have to read between
the advertisers lines. Way back when I enjoyed reading Ricks articles and pieces, but I also took it
with a grain of salt like everything else I read. To say that I, or anyone else that rides off-road
is a 'product of' his influence or that of any other form of media is reaching at best. My beliefs,
my understandings and my knowledge come from life experiances, not from what someone that I don't
know typed out on a keyboard somewhere.

> They just love riding dirtbikes and got sucked into it.

Yup, I'd rather ride than do most anything else I can think of. I absoluely love going to the
mountains and riding in the woods. But I've also discovered that I enjoy doing my part to maintain
the places I ride as well. My whole family regularly particpates in work days at the NF riding parks
in our area, as well as private property that we have the privaledge of being able to ride on.

> Now its part of the culture to badmouth enviros. It's manly.

I'm so sorry you see it that way, for nothing could be further from the truth. The fact is that the
small number of off-roaders that are involved with land use and invironmental issues get information
from a wide varity of sources. The vast majoruty of the rest have a very whimsical attitude about it
all. A very good friend of mine when discussing land use issues once made the statement that "...we
don't need to worry about all that stuff, it'll never happen here." The sad truth is that most of
the enviro bashing that is done is based on experiance with them. However, most of us realize that
those particular folks are hopefully part of the 'fringe' and not representitive of the whole group.

> They would gag before they would write: "I love nature", even tho I bet most of them do.

I love nature. I really really love nature. But not from afar. I like to in amongst it. Theres
nothing quite like twisting through the trees on a really tough section of single track. Or reaching
the crest of a big hill and then taking in the view from the top. Or gathering up at the end of the
day and rehashing the days events. Man, thats what makes life great, you know?

> That's not manly. "Super Hunkey" (umph!) Seman told them so. Ya gunna argue with a name like that?

In reality, Rick has reported his experiences. There is far more to him than the Sahara Club. The
man nearly lost everything he owned trying fight what he considered to be wrong doing on the part of
the BLM and the Sierra Club. His demeanor comes from life and the things he has been through, just
like the rest of us.

BTW, I have argued with him. He's a good debater and quite passionate about his beliefs. Very
intelligent and has lots of experience in the off road arena. But like the rest of us, he's just one
guy with an opinion.

Bruce McCrary Deep in the Woods of NC Cannondale E440R

 

[Scrape At Minds]

On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 13:14:16 +0100, "Shaun Rimmer" <[email protected]> wrote:

>> >> The point that sails safely untouched over your head may have been wasted on you personally,
>> >> but hardly wasted altogether.
>> >
>> >The irony in that stamement of yours is truly astounding,
>heheheheheh.......
>>

>> truly that miniscule?
>
>Hit a nerve did I? Did something fly right over your head yet again? Or is it that your one o those
>poor folks that just cannot comprehend irony? - I vote all three apply to you.

Inasmuch as "hitting a nerve" is what you're trying to accomplish - sorry, you failed again. You
have, however, accomplished painting yourself as truly boring.

>> Message? If you say so. The whole sentence made no sense. "Infinate" (sic) is a slight
>> "exageration" (sic)?
>
>So? Couple of typos and I 'quoted' one of them - BFD. Being pedantic is the last resort of a
>weak mind.

Youi attempted to quote one of them. You changed "infinate" to "infinately". What are some of the
middle resorts? What is the first resort? Which is your favorite resort?

>> You had a tough time in a lot of your classes, didn't you?
>
>Heheheheheh - classic! You're easier meat than a free lunch. If I wasn't having so much fun
>watching you become increasingly foolish, I'd give you a break (you obviously need it - tired often
>are you?).

Evertime I read your garbage, I can't help but picturing Dim from "A Clockwork Orange" writing it.

<the rest of your mastabatory **** snipped

 

[Ian St. John]

"scrape at mindspring dot com" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...
> On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 10:39:03 GMT, [email protected] (Doug Bashford) 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.
> >
> >But I think you see Ian St. John's point. The problem here, and it's a huge one, is that one guy
> >is saying "you enviros" want it all, and another says just as silly, "you ORVes" want it all.
> >That's BS.
> >
> >Fact is, some enviros want it all, yes. Fact is, some ORVers want it all, yes. And they are
> >whackos. Tiny insignificant minority whackos.
>
> Unfortunately, in the name of "compromise", I've seen lots of land made unavailable to the OHV
> community and none ever made available. For the most part, the OHV community is willing to
> compromise and the Sierra Club side is not.

So here we see where this whacko stands....

>
> >Ok, here's consistent. The goal is use it, but don't use it up, and preserve some, which
> >biologically means the same thing. Here's yer formula.
> >
> >----- The General Sustainability Formula: ----- S=E/PC, sustainable if S is larger than one.
> >Ecosystem vigor ÷ (Pop X per capita ConsumptionWaste stream) -----
> >http://www.psnw.com/~bashford/e-sust-f.html
> >
> >What that says is, some land is very fragile and some is very tough. You can bend it, you can
> >dent it, but don't break it.
> >
> >If we happen to be thinking big, and the system in question is the world, then S and E/PC is the
> >source of all of our wealth, all of our jobs, all of our food, etc.
> >
> >If we happen to be thinking smaller, and the system in question is a forest, then S and E/PC is
> >the source of all of that wealth, all of those jobs, all of our recreation, visual resources,
> >grazing rights, etc.
> >
> >In general, the higher the S, the bigger the pie, the more wealth for each. The more ya dent it,
> >the less wealth there is per person, the smaller the slice.
> >
> >That's the bottom line. Beyond that, it doesn't answer a lot of questions, but ya gatta know
> >where the bottom line is.
>
> Yep. Sounds like dirt bikes are going to be needing a lot more land and the birdwatchers - a lot
> less. I'm going to leave it to you to sell it to them. Thanks.

Demonstration of whackoness.

>
> >>- I've seen some horse trails that were in pretty bad shape.
> >>- Should horses be banned from the "wilderness"?
> >
> >So the real answer to yer question is, ain't life a *****, ya can't have a perfect world, deal
> >with it as best ya can. In my opinion, the blame & hate game is a sorry excuse for that.
>
> Nah, that ain't the "real" answer. That's the "real sidestepper".

And termination of brain activity.

 

[Jim Hall]

"WoodsRider978" <[email protected]> wrote:

>In reality, Rick has reported his experiences. There is far more to him than the Sahara Club. The
>man nearly lost everything he owned trying fight what he considered to be wrong doing on the part
>of the BLM and the Sierra Club. His demeanor comes from life and the things he has been through,
>just like the rest of us.

I believe, although I am not 100% sure, that the "Sahara Club" came about as a way for Rick to raise
money to pay legal bills. He and Louis McVey (the "Phantom Duck of the Desert") were sued by the BLM
for encouraging a "Unofficial Barstow to Vegas Trail RIde" (a peaceful protest ride over existing
dirt roads) after the Barstow to Vegas motorcycle race was cancelled due to "environmental"
concerns. (Many feel these were trumped-up, and there is a very strong movement to bring the race
back, but that is a different issue.).

After years of litigation, Rick won the lawsuit but it tore his life apart and pretty much
bankrupted him. If there is any man alive who has the right to be bitter with regard to
"environmentalists", or the power of government to jack up the lives of private citizens for
exercising their rights to peacefully protest acts of government, it is Rick Sieman. If Rick wants
to rant, he's entitled.

Rick lives in Mexico now, and God bless him. He has paid his dues.

Jim Hall 520 EXC and others turning Money into Noise...

 

[Michael Rothwel]

Shaun Rimmer wrote:
>>We're all still waiting for your examples. But I guess that they would be hard to produce.
>>
>>Michael
>
>
> "Oh, do your own googling, you lazy *******."
>
>
> Shaun aRe - IDGAF if you want to keep your head up your ****, but maybe you should worry. ',;~}~
>

See, that's the problem. I ask for facts, you tell me to find them myself. I've been trying to find
"facts" for several years, but they just don't exist. Google searches will just produce left wing
lies that are fairly easily proved incorrect.

Call me names if you want, but don't act like a spoiled child when I ask for proof of something that
doesn't exist.

Michael.

btw - I'm not worried about the location of my head - it's thinking quiet clearly.

--
There is no worse tyranny than to force a man to pay for what he does not want merely because you
think it would be good for him. -- Robert Heinlein

 

[Bruce McCrary]

Good post, and true, so very very true.

Bruce McCrary Deep in the Woods of NC Cannondale E440R

"Jim Hall" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "WoodsRider978" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >In reality, Rick has reported his experiences. There is far more to him than the Sahara Club. The
> >man nearly lost everything he owned trying
fight
> >what he considered to be wrong doing on the part of the BLM and the
Sierra
> >Club. His demeanor comes from life and the things he has been through,
just
> >like the rest of us.
>
> I believe, although I am not 100% sure, that the "Sahara Club" came about as a way for Rick to
> raise money to pay legal bills. He and Louis McVey (the "Phantom Duck of the Desert") were sued by
> the BLM for encouraging a "Unofficial Barstow to Vegas Trail RIde" (a peaceful protest ride over
> existing dirt roads) after the Barstow to Vegas motorcycle race was cancelled due to
> "environmental" concerns. (Many feel these were trumped-up, and there is a very strong movement to
> bring the race back, but that is a different issue.).
>
> After years of litigation, Rick won the lawsuit but it tore his life apart and pretty much
> bankrupted him. If there is any man alive who has the right to be bitter with regard to
> "environmentalists", or the power of government to jack up the lives of private citizens for
> exercising their rights to peacefully protest acts of government, it is Rick Sieman. If Rick wants
> to rant, he's entitled.
>
> Rick lives in Mexico now, and God bless him. He has paid his dues.
>
> Jim Hall 520 EXC and others turning Money into Noise...

-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1
Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

 

[Lloyd Parker]

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (MX
Tuner) wrote:
>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.

Humans and their CFCs.

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

Wrong. Volcanoes emit Cl in the form of water-soluble HCl, which gets rained out. Try taking a
science class.

 

[Lloyd Parker]

In article <[email protected]>, scrape at mindspring dot com
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 10:39:03 GMT, [email protected] (Doug Bashford) 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.
>>
>>But I think you see Ian St. John's point. The problem here, and it's a huge one, is that one guy
>>is saying "you enviros" want it all, and another says just as silly, "you ORVes" want it all.
>>That's BS.
>>
>>Fact is, some enviros want it all, yes. Fact is, some ORVers want it all, yes. And they are
>>whackos. Tiny insignificant minority whackos.
>
>Unfortunately, in the name of "compromise", I've seen lots of land made unavailable to the OHV
>community and none ever made available. For the most part, the OHV community is willing to
>compromise and the Sierra Club side is not.

Once wildnerness is made unwild, it's gone. "Compromise" is like a virgin "compromising" on just
"one time."

>
>>Ok, here's consistent. The goal is use it, but don't use it up, and preserve some, which
>>biologically means the same thing. Here's yer formula.
>>
>>----- The General Sustainability Formula: ----- S=E/PC, sustainable if S is larger than one.
>>Ecosystem vigor ÷ (Pop X per capita ConsumptionWaste stream) -----
>>http://www.psnw.com/~bashford/e-sust-f.html
>>
>>What that says is, some land is very fragile and some is very tough. You can bend it, you can dent
>>it, but don't break it.
>>
>>If we happen to be thinking big, and the system in question is the world, then S and E/PC is the
>>source of all of our wealth, all of our jobs, all of our food, etc.
>>
>>If we happen to be thinking smaller, and the system in question is a forest, then S and E/PC is
>>the source of all of that wealth, all of those jobs, all of our recreation, visual resources,
>>grazing rights, etc.
>>
>>In general, the higher the S, the bigger the pie, the more wealth for each. The more ya dent it,
>>the less wealth there is per person, the smaller the slice.
>>
>>That's the bottom line. Beyond that, it doesn't answer a lot of questions, but ya gatta know where
>>the bottom line is.
>
>Yep. Sounds like dirt bikes are going to be needing a lot more land and the birdwatchers - a lot
>less. I'm going to leave it to you to sell it to them. Thanks.
>
>>>- I've seen some horse trails that were in pretty bad shape.
>>>- Should horses be banned from the "wilderness"?
>>
>>So the real answer to yer question is, ain't life a *****, ya can't have a perfect world, deal
>>with it as best ya can. In my opinion, the blame & hate game is a sorry excuse for that.
>
>Nah, that ain't the "real" answer. That's the "real sidestepper".

 

[Scrape At Minds]

On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 10:05:21 -0400, "Ian St. John" <[email protected]> wrote:

>> >Fact is, some enviros want it all, yes. Fact is, some ORVers want it all, yes. And they are
>> >whackos. Tiny insignificant minority whackos.
>>
>> Unfortunately, in the name of "compromise", I've seen lots of land made unavailable to the OHV
>> community and none ever made available. For the most part, the OHV community is willing to
>> compromise and the Sierra Club side is not.
>
>So here we see where this whacko stands....

Let's see... How succinctly can I put this? Hmmmm. Here we go. Blow me, turd teeth.

>> Yep. Sounds like dirt bikes are going to be needing a lot more land and the birdwatchers - a lot
>> less. I'm going to leave it to you to sell it to them. Thanks.
>
>Demonstration of whackoness.

Please see above. Thanks.

>> >>- I've seen some horse trails that were in pretty bad shape.
>> >>- Should horses be banned from the "wilderness"?
>> >
>> >So the real answer to yer question is, ain't life a *****, ya can't have a perfect world, deal
>> >with it as best ya can. In my opinion, the blame & hate game is a sorry excuse for that.
>>
>> Nah, that ain't the "real" answer. That's the "real sidestepper".
>
>And termination of brain activity.

Did your mother beat you more than what you would have considered "normal" for a gene pool reject
like yourself?

Reply not necessary.

 

[Lloyd Parker]

In article <[email protected]>,
Michael Rothwell <[email protected]> wrote:
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>>>
>>>That's all sounds so pleasant Ian, but where do the loggers and miners fit into your ecological
>>>protected playland for the elitist recreationalist?
>>
>>
>> They buy their own land instead of ruining MINE, that's what they do.
>>
>
>Wow, loggers and miners have come and logged/mined YOUR land?

Yep. The land I own jointly with 220 million others.

> If you want some land protected from everything that YOU deem "bad" then go and buy, with your own
> money, the land and post no tresspassing signs. It is now getting to the point that I'm almost
> forced to buy land, a great deal of land, just to enjoy the sports that I enjoy because people
> like you think that only what YOU enjoy is important.

 

[Andrew Langer]

In article <[email protected]>, Lloyd Parker says...
>

>>>
>>> When is a cow track or foot path a ''highway''?
>>
>>Well, let's see. Revise Statute 2477 preceeded the invention of the automobile by some 40 years.
>>What do you think the definition of *highway* was 40 years before the existence of the first
>>automobile, eh? Most likely footpaths, cowpaths, horsepaths and wagon paths because that's all
>>there was 40 years before the invention of the fukin' automobile.
>
>The definition wasn't an overgrown trail not used for 50 years.

Yeah, well, Dr. Parker, just why in the world do you think that those trails went unused for 50
years? Could it be possibly because the federal government asserted jurisdiction over those trails,
and those who had theretofore held rights in them were unwilling to impinge on what the federal
government claimed as its own?

- Andrew Langer

Any posts by Andrew Langer are his own, written by him, for his own enjoyment (and the education of
others). Unless expressly stated, they represent his own views, and not those of any other
individuals or entities. He is not, nor has he ever been, paid to post here.

 

[Scrape At Minds]

On 24 Jul 2003 18:58:54 GMT, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker) wrote:

>>Unfortunately, in the name of "compromise", I've seen lots of land made unavailable to the OHV
>>community and none ever made available. For the most part, the OHV community is willing to
>>compromise and the Sierra Club side is not.
>
>Once wildnerness is made unwild, it's gone. "Compromise" is like a virgin "compromising" on just
>"one time."

It;s all semantics.

 

[Matt]

"scrape at mindspring dot com" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...
> On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 10:39:03 GMT, [email protected] (Doug Bashford) 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.
> >
> >But I think you see Ian St. John's point. The problem here, and it's a huge one, is that one guy
> >is saying "you enviros" want it all, and another says just as silly, "you ORVes" want it all.
> >That's BS.
> >
> >Fact is, some enviros want it all, yes. Fact is, some ORVers want it all, yes. And they are
> >whackos. Tiny insignificant minority whackos.

Doug, I wish that were true. Unfortunately, characterizing the percentage of those in the
environmental movement who want to eliminate OHV access altogether as "insignificant" is absolutely
ludicrous. Whackos, yes, but "insignificant?", no way.

A quick peek at pretty much anything the supposedly mainstream Sierra Club has to say on the subject
makes it very clear they will be satisfied with nothing less than a total ban, and many of them
would love to eliminate mountain bikes as well. Barbara Boxer's Wilderness Bill would lock us out of
huge amounts of public land and she has total support from every enviro group you could name (except
those who don't think her bill goes far enough!). Environmentalists have gained a majority number of
the seats on the state OHV commission and are using every opportunity to close riding areas and deny
funding (OUR Green sticker money) to those areas they can't close. I could go on.

ORVers don't want (or expect) 100% access or anything even close, we just want more than the meager
amount we have now (or at the very least, not to LOSE any more). And the losses over the last
several years have been staggering.

Hikers have access to pretty much 100% of all public land in California, they have *exclusive*
access to the vast majority. I can't locate a recent figure but I seem to recall that OHVs are
permitted on something like 4.7% of public land in this state (or maybe it's 0.47%) and enviro
groups have been (sucessfully) chipping away at that number every year, using every conceivable
excuse. One site I found that is attempting to catalog and quantify the losses can be found at:
http://www.crowley-offroad.com/closed_areas_california_ohv.htm

>
> Unfortunately, in the name of "compromise", I've seen lots of land made unavailable to the OHV
> community and none ever made available. For the most part, the OHV community is willing to
> compromise and the Sierra Club side is not.

THIS is the reality unfortunately. There is NO parity between the two sides on this issue.

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

 

[Matt]

"Doug Bashford" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
> On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 00:22 "Ian St. John" wrote
> >- "Brian McGarry" 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?
>
> Laughing. Ian, ya gatta remember, these guys really do assume you (as an evil enviro, as portrayed
> by Sahara Club et al) want to fence everybody out of the forest. That's what most enviros want,
> isn't it? Everybody knows they are whacked out subhumans who love bugs more than people.
>
>
> >- > 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.
>
> No, they are the product of Rick Sieman, Pat Chicas et al DIRT BIKE mag, off-road.com Media and
> the copy cats. The Sahara Club branch of Wise Use is alive and well there. They just love riding
> dirtbikes and got sucked into it. Now its part of the culture to badmouth enviros. It's manly.
> They would gag before they would write: "I love nature", even tho I bet most of them do. That's
> not manly. "Super Hunkey" (umph!) Seman told them so. Ya gunna argue with a name like that?

c'mon Doug, there have been countless examples in this very thread that refute that cartoonish
image. Several of us have made comments regarding our appreciation of and love for the places we
ride. I "badmouth" enviros because I continue to personally experience their unreasonable,
uncomproming attitudes and behavior and suffer more and more each year from their highly successful
campaign to lock us out of public land. I can't make it any clearer than that.

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

 

[Jay C]

"Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >Okay, *now* do a little more research and see what the biggest contributors are to the
> >destruction of the ozone layer.
>
> Humans and their CFCs.

Nope, but good guess. It's cow farts.

Jay

 

[Michael Rothwel]

Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>>They buy their own land instead of ruining MINE, that's what they do.
>>>
>>
>>Wow, loggers and miners have come and logged/mined YOUR land?
>
>
> Yep. The land I own jointly with 220 million others.
>
>

Thank you for proving my point. It is OUR land "jointly owned", and as long as I take care of it, I
should be able to use it, just like everyone else. I bet that I take care of the area in which I
ride, better than most tree-huggers take care of anything.

Michael

--
There is no worse tyranny than to force a man to pay for what he does not want merely because you
think it would be good for him. -- Robert Heinlein

 

[Ian St. John]

"Jay C" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...
> "Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > >Okay, *now* do a little more research and see what the biggest contributors are to the
> > >destruction of the ozone layer.
> >
> > Humans and their CFCs.
>
> Nope, but good guess. It's cow farts.

Nope. Try learning something. You are probably confusing the issues of global warming and ozone
depletion. Not very bright.

http://www.faqs.org/faqs/ozone-depletion/

 

[Andy Weaks]

Andrew Langer wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>, Lloyd Parker says...
> >
>
> >>>
> >>> When is a cow track or foot path a ''highway''?
> >>
> >>Well, let's see. Revise Statute 2477 preceeded the invention of the automobile by some 40 years.
> >>What do you think the definition of *highway* was 40 years before the existence of the first
> >>automobile, eh? Most likely footpaths, cowpaths, horsepaths and wagon paths because that's all
> >>there was 40 years before the invention of the fukin' automobile.
> >
> >The definition wasn't an overgrown trail not used for 50 years.
>
> Yeah, well, Dr. Parker, just why in the world do you think that those trails went unused for 50
> years? Could it be possibly because the federal government asserted jurisdiction over those
> trails, and those who had theretofore held rights in them were unwilling to impinge on what the
> federal government claimed as its own?
>
>

or maybe they just became unused because there wasn't anything economic there and therefor they give
up what flimsy "rights" they had to them. Anyway, it is FEDERAL LAND and I would guess that all
Americans should have a say what goes on on OUR land. It isn't just fat

MY land. Uses that cause degradation just for a few ***** and giggles maybe shouldn't be allowed.