M
Matt
Guest
"Doug Bashford" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
> In <[email protected]> On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 12:15, "Matt" wrote
> >- "scrape at mindspring dot com" wrote
> >- > On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 10:39(Doug Bashford) wrote:
>
> ...........snip
> >- > >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.
>
> I disagree, but for the sake of argument I will not challenge that, nor the below. I'll say
> "could be."
indeed. You'd have an extremely hard time finding any evidence to prove otherwise. If you can, in
fact, locate -any- public statement from -any- major enviro group that says anything close to "OHVs
should have at least some access" and, even better, "and here's where we think they should be able
to ride" I would truly love to see it. Really.
> Instead, I'll just try to put some context on that "fact" -- one you may not have noticed.
[ snip a bunch of stuff that apparently came from Rick Siemen's writings ]
You highly overestimate Rick Siemen's influence and it's completely inaccurate and disingenuous
(or maybe you really believe it) to imply that his attitudes and approach reflect those of the
general OHV community. I'm around a lot of dirt bikers and NO ONE I know talks or thinks like
that. I've also been to my share of public meetings and never experienced that kind of behavior,
from either side.
I'm also mystified with you apparent belief that the mainstream dirt bike media reflects those kind
of attitudes. I subscribe to Dirt Rider, Motocross Action and Racer X, and frequently glance thru
several others. My biggest complaint is that most of them pretty much ignore access issues. When
they do occasionally say something, it most definitely does not contain the kind of extremist
rhetoric you descibe. Nor does the stuff I read which does focus on access issues (eg. The Blue
Ribbon Coalition magazine, and occasionally, AMA stuff [when they're not too busy preserving the
Harley posers' all-important right to ride helmetless]) describe or in any way advocate those kind
of tactics.
As someone else here pointed out Rick has a long history with extreme environmentalists and given
his apparent experiences with them, his bitterness and anger is understandable, but he doesn't speak
for me, nor to I consider the kind of tactics described in those quotes as acceptable or productive
in any way.
> >- mainstream Sierra Club has to say on the subject makes it
> >- very clear they will be satisfied with nothing less than a total
> >- ban,
>
> If that were true, then gee, I wonder why? What do you expect? Mr. Spock from Star Trek to go to
> those negotiations? I am quite aware that it is not rational to portray all ORVers as Sahara
> Clubbers, but what exactly about terrorism is rational? Zero?
>
> I'm sure it's great fun squealing about and threatening and hating evil eco-freaks, but is it
> possible that this attitude might be counter productive where it matters most?
This kind of behavior can be found on both sides, well, the squeeling and hating anyway, as
evidenced in these very discussions, and yes, I agree it is counterproductive.
> >- 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!).
>
> You are quite wrong pal. Cause you are talking to one. The Commetee to Save the Kings River. They
> wanted to put Wilderness here in Fresno Co too, they had maps and everything. We took a vote, it
> was unanomous. No. They smiled and went away. That's why there's no Wilderness in Fresno Co on
> Boxer's bill. But there is something about saving the Kings River.
I've never heard or that group and don't know the specifics of the case but I don't see how it
disproves my point. Perhaps they felt you had already achieved the kind of exclusion they're trying
to impose everywhere else?
> >- 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.
>
> And I'm sure sometimes you do. So what we have here is kind of a Catch-22 isn't it. Kinda
> circular. You call them eco-freaks, and then they are not likely to be too helpful, are they?
And if we'd just been nice to them and hadn't called them mean names, everything would be different?
Please. Which do you suppose came first, the closures or the angry responses?
> Ya know, I've worked shoulder to shoulder with hunting clubs, fisherman clubs, 4WD clubs, Forest &
> BLM rangers and biologists cleaning up meadows and doing forest restoration work. Never a
> motorcycle club.
I do my share of trail work, both as a dirt biker and a mountain biker. Others here do to. I can't
speak to your experiences (or lack thereof) with specific groups, but it sounds anecdotal at best.
> >- 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.
>
> And what have you done to earn it? Or anybody's respect? Threaten to spit on them, ruin their
> carrer, marraige, bank account, break a few fingers? Call them eco-freaks etc?
As I said before, I do trail work, I take care of the areas I ride in, I vote, I go to public
meetings and I write letters and make phone calls in an attempt to influence legislation. And I have
never threatened, spit on, etc etc anybody.
Tell me this, have you personally been the victim of (or even witnessed) any of the above kinds of
violence you describe, or did you just read some extremist literature and decide that that's how all
motorized recreationists think and behave?
>
> >- 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
>
> What you say is reasonable. But your sport is very high impact. That's what makes the difference.
>
> One problem you need to accept is that a bike tearing up a 60 degree grassy hill is like a bus of
> people in the woods tossing litter out all the windows nonstop. You both leave ugly unatural
> tracks which last for years, sometimes much longer. True or false?
>
> But the difference between 100 buses doing that, and 100 bikes is, the bus litter just get uglier,
> the bikes start doing damage.
>
> ...so ya gatta limit where that can be done.
>
>
> >- > 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.
>
> Well there should be fairness. But can you see how opening up large tracks of quasi-pristine areas
> to dirt bikes might ruin it for everyone else? Including the cattle grazers? Turn grass or duff
> covered hills to bare mineral soil and growing erosion ruts? We've all seen these, I've seen some
> five feet deep. ...And that by definition, it would kill it's quasi-pristine nature?
I discussed sustainabilty of riding areas elsewhere in this thread so I won't repeat it all here,
but in brief, the kind of irreparable damage you describe only occurs in certain highly sensitive
areas (which I agree should be protected) or when an area is badly overridden, a result of too many
people crammed into too small of an area. When sufficient land is available (and I don't mean a huge
amount, something still in the single digit percentage range) trails can be rotated in and out of
use to allow for recovery. I have seen this done in certain state riding areas very successfully. In
areas where snow cover limits the riding season, this rotation isn't even necessary since the the
trails are almost gone by spring thaw.
Doug, get over your obsession with Rick Siemen and the "Sahara Club", the vast majority of dirt
bikers have never even heard of them and don't share those views. We're just like everyone else,
attack us, call us names (like that Ian guy did) and most will probably respond in kind (or ignore
you). Try to discuss the issues and show an open mind and we will too. Who knows, you might learn
something, we might learn something, we may even find some middle ground and accomplish something.
>
> In <[email protected]> On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 12:15, "Matt" wrote
> >- "scrape at mindspring dot com" wrote
> >- > On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 10:39(Doug Bashford) wrote:
>
> ...........snip
> >- > >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.
>
> I disagree, but for the sake of argument I will not challenge that, nor the below. I'll say
> "could be."
indeed. You'd have an extremely hard time finding any evidence to prove otherwise. If you can, in
fact, locate -any- public statement from -any- major enviro group that says anything close to "OHVs
should have at least some access" and, even better, "and here's where we think they should be able
to ride" I would truly love to see it. Really.
> Instead, I'll just try to put some context on that "fact" -- one you may not have noticed.
[ snip a bunch of stuff that apparently came from Rick Siemen's writings ]
You highly overestimate Rick Siemen's influence and it's completely inaccurate and disingenuous
(or maybe you really believe it) to imply that his attitudes and approach reflect those of the
general OHV community. I'm around a lot of dirt bikers and NO ONE I know talks or thinks like
that. I've also been to my share of public meetings and never experienced that kind of behavior,
from either side.
I'm also mystified with you apparent belief that the mainstream dirt bike media reflects those kind
of attitudes. I subscribe to Dirt Rider, Motocross Action and Racer X, and frequently glance thru
several others. My biggest complaint is that most of them pretty much ignore access issues. When
they do occasionally say something, it most definitely does not contain the kind of extremist
rhetoric you descibe. Nor does the stuff I read which does focus on access issues (eg. The Blue
Ribbon Coalition magazine, and occasionally, AMA stuff [when they're not too busy preserving the
Harley posers' all-important right to ride helmetless]) describe or in any way advocate those kind
of tactics.
As someone else here pointed out Rick has a long history with extreme environmentalists and given
his apparent experiences with them, his bitterness and anger is understandable, but he doesn't speak
for me, nor to I consider the kind of tactics described in those quotes as acceptable or productive
in any way.
> >- mainstream Sierra Club has to say on the subject makes it
> >- very clear they will be satisfied with nothing less than a total
> >- ban,
>
> If that were true, then gee, I wonder why? What do you expect? Mr. Spock from Star Trek to go to
> those negotiations? I am quite aware that it is not rational to portray all ORVers as Sahara
> Clubbers, but what exactly about terrorism is rational? Zero?
>
> I'm sure it's great fun squealing about and threatening and hating evil eco-freaks, but is it
> possible that this attitude might be counter productive where it matters most?
This kind of behavior can be found on both sides, well, the squeeling and hating anyway, as
evidenced in these very discussions, and yes, I agree it is counterproductive.
> >- 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!).
>
> You are quite wrong pal. Cause you are talking to one. The Commetee to Save the Kings River. They
> wanted to put Wilderness here in Fresno Co too, they had maps and everything. We took a vote, it
> was unanomous. No. They smiled and went away. That's why there's no Wilderness in Fresno Co on
> Boxer's bill. But there is something about saving the Kings River.
I've never heard or that group and don't know the specifics of the case but I don't see how it
disproves my point. Perhaps they felt you had already achieved the kind of exclusion they're trying
to impose everywhere else?
> >- 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.
>
> And I'm sure sometimes you do. So what we have here is kind of a Catch-22 isn't it. Kinda
> circular. You call them eco-freaks, and then they are not likely to be too helpful, are they?
And if we'd just been nice to them and hadn't called them mean names, everything would be different?
Please. Which do you suppose came first, the closures or the angry responses?
> Ya know, I've worked shoulder to shoulder with hunting clubs, fisherman clubs, 4WD clubs, Forest &
> BLM rangers and biologists cleaning up meadows and doing forest restoration work. Never a
> motorcycle club.
I do my share of trail work, both as a dirt biker and a mountain biker. Others here do to. I can't
speak to your experiences (or lack thereof) with specific groups, but it sounds anecdotal at best.
> >- 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.
>
> And what have you done to earn it? Or anybody's respect? Threaten to spit on them, ruin their
> carrer, marraige, bank account, break a few fingers? Call them eco-freaks etc?
As I said before, I do trail work, I take care of the areas I ride in, I vote, I go to public
meetings and I write letters and make phone calls in an attempt to influence legislation. And I have
never threatened, spit on, etc etc anybody.
Tell me this, have you personally been the victim of (or even witnessed) any of the above kinds of
violence you describe, or did you just read some extremist literature and decide that that's how all
motorized recreationists think and behave?
>
> >- 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
>
> What you say is reasonable. But your sport is very high impact. That's what makes the difference.
>
> One problem you need to accept is that a bike tearing up a 60 degree grassy hill is like a bus of
> people in the woods tossing litter out all the windows nonstop. You both leave ugly unatural
> tracks which last for years, sometimes much longer. True or false?
>
> But the difference between 100 buses doing that, and 100 bikes is, the bus litter just get uglier,
> the bikes start doing damage.
>
> ...so ya gatta limit where that can be done.
>
>
> >- > 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.
>
> Well there should be fairness. But can you see how opening up large tracks of quasi-pristine areas
> to dirt bikes might ruin it for everyone else? Including the cattle grazers? Turn grass or duff
> covered hills to bare mineral soil and growing erosion ruts? We've all seen these, I've seen some
> five feet deep. ...And that by definition, it would kill it's quasi-pristine nature?
I discussed sustainabilty of riding areas elsewhere in this thread so I won't repeat it all here,
but in brief, the kind of irreparable damage you describe only occurs in certain highly sensitive
areas (which I agree should be protected) or when an area is badly overridden, a result of too many
people crammed into too small of an area. When sufficient land is available (and I don't mean a huge
amount, something still in the single digit percentage range) trails can be rotated in and out of
use to allow for recovery. I have seen this done in certain state riding areas very successfully. In
areas where snow cover limits the riding season, this rotation isn't even necessary since the the
trails are almost gone by spring thaw.
Doug, get over your obsession with Rick Siemen and the "Sahara Club", the vast majority of dirt
bikers have never even heard of them and don't share those views. We're just like everyone else,
attack us, call us names (like that Ian guy did) and most will probably respond in kind (or ignore
you). Try to discuss the issues and show an open mind and we will too. Who knows, you might learn
something, we might learn something, we may even find some middle ground and accomplish something.
