|   MTB trails getting shut down? GREENS CAUGHT RED HANDED | PK RIPPER
Apr 2, 2002 11:44 PM | | This is one method green groups have been using to get our trails closed. I think the groups involved and connected need to be sued and arrested. How come IMBA has never said a word on this issue? Imagine how much money you could get if the Sierra Club or CBD is involved in stuff like this.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pdupont/?id=105001823 |
| with all due respect... | zacho
Apr 3, 2002 3:09 AM | | with all due respect...i seriously mean no offense...but that article is the biggest pile of horse sh*t to come out of an editorial section in a long time...the whales are safe, yeah...so now the 'greens' are looking for a new cause...but the moron that wrote that letter is just some angry republican with a newspaper spot...just remember that not everything you read is real... especially is something called OPINIONjournal...take it from an environmental engineer with over 3000 dollars invested in my mountain bike...i have stock in both sides...and there's players on both sides that i'm not very fond of...
zacho |
| No, he's right. | MPH
Apr 3, 2002 4:09 AM | | Check out the column by Richard Cunningham in the May issue of Mountain Bike Action. This doesn't address the issues about global warming, but it does mention how the Sierra Club is instumental in taking away access to lands that are not environmentaly sensitive.
Here in West Virginia, the Fish & Wildlife Dept has taken away access to trails that were originaly part of the Canaan 24 hr races.
And now they're trying to close off other "classic" routes in that area, that will have a big economic impact (to the detrement) of that area.
These green-radicals (who border on a cult mentality) don't care what political affiliation you have - just as long as ALL "mechanical devices" are banned. Wheelchairs, chainsaws, motorized vehicles, and the big one, bicycles. Horses are still allowed to create bomb craters on muddy trails to their hearts content. |
| Yep, if they had their way the only place you'd be able to... | wfl3
Apr 3, 2002 5:18 AM | | ...ride is along side the cars. Every biker should know what's going on. We constantly have "hikers" trying to get bikes banned from the trails that were built by the bikers (both hiking and biking trails were built by bikers - appeasement didn't work in the '30s-'40s and it doesn't work now). They always show up to bitch fests, but NEVER show up for trail maintenence days. I guess we are in that era where it's easier to bitch for something than to work for it, oh well - rant off. |
| re: I think he's right too...& my rant. | fattirewilly
Apr 3, 2002 5:21 AM | | Even though 'The Greens' are non profit orgs, many people still make a living from them. Some do quite well I'm sure. Therefore issues will often be made where none should exist in the first place. People in these positions often need to "create" work in order to justify sitting around getting paid for something.
Think about this (I've seen it first hand).Government agencies are quick to study the environmental impact of these issues cause it costs money, ensuring that the respective agency spends all of its funding and can ask for even more funding in its next budget. Its wasteful and really pisses me off.
Note to self and others: more money to IMBA and vote for smaller govt. |
| maybe i wasn't clear... | zacho
Apr 3, 2002 7:05 AM | | i didn't deny that sierra club is lobbying against mountain bike access to trails...and i wasn't taking a shot at whoever posted on the site...what i was saying is that the person who wrote that article...is the polar opposite of this 'cult mentality' green guy you mentioned...a 'cult mentality' republican...and he's just as much an idiot...and point number two...the sierra club doesn't publish falsified environmental studies on the impact of mountain bike traffic...the only research i've found (and i've written papers on this) concludes that mtn bikes have no more impact than foot traffic and even less than horse traffic...which is why s.c. never mentions them...does that make more sense?
zach |
| re: maybe i wasn't clear... | fattirewilly
Apr 3, 2002 7:43 AM | | I beleive the article referenced the Fish and Wildlife Service, the Forest Service, and the National Academy of Sciences. My point about "Greens" causing issues where there shouldn't be issues is substantiated by the acknowledgement that horses cause more erosion than bikes, yet bikes (wheel chairs and hang gliders) are targeted instead (through the language of the Wilderness designation).
If the West had been settled via bicycle instead of horseback we wouldn't be having this conversation. Next thing the greens will want is for hikers to go barefooted....
PS. no need to bring slanders against political parties into this. |
| Sierra Club lies flat out | mtbredding
Apr 3, 2002 8:33 AM | | the sierra club has been falsifing studies for year, providing the US. Forest Service and BLM with false studies on endangered species. the article is so true, think about it if you lie for one cause why not lie about another. they may not speak directly against mt bike yet but just wait. They will only be happy when all forest roads(which were built by loggers not the government)are closed and the only access is by foot, no horses or bikes. Ask one of their reps.
they will tell you what you want to hear then do just the opposite. |
| Greens are not the problem | DCS
Apr 3, 2002 7:29 AM | | I think that you are confused about who is the villain here. It is not the environmentalists, but rather the money grubbing developers and their hardcore Republican lackeys, like the bozo who wrote the article. It's amazing how so many MTBers like yourself scream bloody murder about loss of access to a relatively few trails due to environmental restrictions, but are completely silent when far more land and access is lost every day, month and year to suburban sprawl and new housing developments. Wise up dude, the far bigger threat to your mountain biking is not environmentalists, but developers who want to turn the whole country into lookalike suburban developments, shopping malls, parking lots and highways to interconnect all of that sh_t. Your are a totally gullible fool if you don't realize that. Who do you think it is that has been slowly down the rampant paving over of America -- the environmentalists!!!! While the agendas of environmentalists and MTBers may differ from time to time, the differences pale compared to the differences between the interests of MTBers and developers -- which are just about always inconsistent. |
| Gail Norton is James Watt in drag-nm | Gary
Apr 3, 2002 7:39 AM | | |
| Greens are not the problem | fattirewilly
Apr 3, 2002 7:58 AM | | DCS- I AGREE with you that sprawl and development are big problems but these are issues conserning private land use not public land. If you don't want to recognize the fundamental American right of property ownership then that makes you a communist not a Democrat. |
| Greens are not the problem | DCS
Apr 3, 2002 9:17 AM | | So, you believe that it is appropriate that every piece of non-governmentally owned property should be developed and turned into a parking lot or housing development? Don't you realize that it is the developers and their hardcore Republican lackeys who have been pushing to close national parks and to sell off public land for private development? If you nonetheless agree with that agenda, it seems that you -- not the environmentalists -- are the problem. By the way, drop the McCarthyite bullsh_t, under which anyone who disagrees with you is a Communist. Grow up, dude. |
| Keeping myself civil... | fattirewilly
Apr 3, 2002 10:24 AM | | In my first reply to you I agreed that sprawl is a big problem. Of course I don't want every piece of non government land to be improved with whatever the moneymaker of the moment might be. You are reading this right? I just think the view you have expressed here is to one sided.
Taxes are a huge problem for farmers/land owners in developing areas where land value is rapidly increasing. If you know a land owner who is tring to keep his land natural, a "Conservation Easement" would be worth a look. This easement esentially gives away the right to develop the land,having the effect of lowering the property's taxable value in most cases. States have different policies on Conservation Easements, so research accordingly. |
| you should come to C'ville Virginia... | Shylock
Apr 3, 2002 11:36 AM | | ...look at what went on with the city council (completely Democrat) when a guy wanted to convert his farm to a mountainbike park instead of developing it into a multi-million dollar subdivision. |
| Any link on this?? I'm from Madison originally | fattirewilly
Apr 3, 2002 12:29 PM | | before moving to Atlanta (centerpiece of sprawl and home of not so wonderful ex-mayor Bill (D)). Anyway, family is sitting on 1,000+ acres near C-ville which won't be developed. C'ville hits close to home and I was just curious about it.
No trails on the land yet, but one day, if I have anything to do with it. |
| Amen willy | toad
Apr 3, 2002 9:46 AM | | The evil "republican" developers are not out developing State, or Federal land. They are developing Privately owned land that the "greenies" have little right to get involved in. The Democrat (socialistic) mind set would have you believe that all land regardless of ownership belongs to "the people" and that it should be regulated right down to the individual blades of grass growing on them. Just because a certain segment of society doesn't like the way "private" land is being used does not give them the right to force unconstitutional limits upon that land. Granted, urban sprawl and mis-use of private lands has been and always will be problematic. But that is why we elect local government bodies/municipalities. To help deal with these problems while preserving the rights of the property owners.
The extreme liberal "greenie" groups work in exactly the opposite manor! Public lands do belong to "the people". All of us. Yet special interest groups like the Sierra Club can cozzy up to the more liberal governing entities and undermine the constitutional rights of "the people" by forcing their agenda and opinions upon the rest of the population through legislative mutany, or dare I say, sometimes fraudulant information.
I will agree that there are false and exagurated claims on both sides of the fense. But the issue of public land use and conservation should not be decided by a few "special interest" groups be it the Sierra Club or IMBA. The decisions should be made by the very people who own that land.... Us.The voting public! |
| Here's where we ideologically disagree, | free-agent
Apr 3, 2002 10:24 AM | | and what typically separates us.
Public lands do belong to "the people".
Couldn't be further from what I believe to be the truth. Public lands do not belong to anyone. Land is yours to use in an appropriate manner, and that manner is dependent upon many factors. The interest groups step in to repersent those that cannot represent themselves (animals, plants, trees, etc). I am so tired of people believing that because they are a human they have "the right" as a citizen to use any public land as they see fit, without the slightest concern as to the impacts on others.
The evil "republican" developers are not out developing State, or Federal land. Are you sure? |
| I guess you don't live in Michigan | Ed H.
Apr 3, 2002 10:35 AM | | You shouldn't make such sweeping generalizations as, "The evil "republican" developers are not out developing State, or Federal land. They are developing Privately owned land that the "greenies" have little right to get involved in."
In Michigan there are several on-going cases where developers have been given unual (and often times illegal) access to develop public land. See: http://www.mlui.org/projects/enviropolicy/englerrecord/treasureisland.html
A more recent case in Novi pitted the city government against a developer. If it wasn't for interest groups, the city would have given the park away. The city council was afraid to face the voters. |
| Amen willy | bikejones
Apr 5, 2002 1:42 AM | | Right On!!!! Get involved and write your local, county/parish, state, and US representatives. Writing/typing a letter makes more of an impact than email. Be sure to put your name and address at the end of the letter along with your profession and the fact that your are a registered voter. And above all.....be sure to ask them to please "Protect the land For the people, not from the people"! |
| That is the funniest thing I have read... | free-agent
Apr 3, 2002 9:47 AM | | in a LONG time.
If you don't want to recognize the fundamental American right of property ownership then that makes you a communist not a Democrat.
I didn't want to enter into this conversation for the 1000th time, but damn that is a good one.
I love mtb'ing and believe that a good portion of land in this country should be closed to ANY human intrusion. What does that make me??
GO GREEN or GO AWAY!! |
| Whoa dude! | MPH
Apr 3, 2002 9:05 AM | | Developers & urban sprawl? I'm not concerned about "losing my access" to areas that aren't mine to begin with! Developers aren't building shopping malls & sub-divisions on our publicly owned lands. This is being done on land bought that is actually owned by individuals or corporations.
State & U.S. Government Parks & Forrests are MINE & YOURS! Private lands are somebody elses. And that private land ends up being where someone (like mountain bikers) actually live and shop (like bike shops). |
| Whoa dude! | DCS
Apr 3, 2002 9:29 AM | | Public lands are for you and me, but are also for wildlife and environmental conservation. Public lands, by statute and regulation, are supposed to take into account various needs, with certain considerations given greater emphasis in certain areas (such as where endangered species reside). While I might agree or disagree with restrictions on MTB use on public lands on a case by case basis, it is certainly contrary to commonsense to think that every piece of public land is nothing more than some sort of public playground, regardless of the environmental impact. Do you seriously believe that everyone should be able to use (and trash) public lands however they see fit? While some MTBers may complain about horseback riders or hikers, how would you feel if folks on ATVs were crowding all the singletrack trails and widening and trashing them all at high speeds? Things cannot be as black and white as one would like. Remember, an insistence on absolute ideological consistency is the bugaboo of small minds.
By the way, you ignore or don't realize that a vast amount of MTB trails are on private land, such as farms, ranches, etc. The owners frequently permit riders to use their land and don't want to sell it to developers, but are forced to do so because of real estate taxes that rise because the land is valued for what it would be worth if developed. |
| What color is the sky in your world? | MPH
Apr 3, 2002 1:15 PM | | Don't even think about twisting my words or adding something I didn't say. I never said that mountain bikes should be allowed in ANY or ALL government lands, and that wasn't the intent of thwe original thread. Nor did I imply that there aren't good reasons for some areas to be designated wilderness areas where restrictions should apply. My favorite backpacking area is Otter Creek in WV, and I'm glad there's no biking allowed there.
As far as bike trails on private lands. Sure I know there are. What's your point? If the owner of a trail on private land says "forget it, I don't want anyone on my property anymore", that's his perogative.
I don't want just anyone using the trails on my property, so I'd expect the same from any landowner. |
| So, what's the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge? | Philber
Apr 3, 2002 9:43 AM | | It's public land, to be sure, but good ole dubya has promised his oil buddies that they'll be allowed to drill for oil there. So much for your distinction about private and public lands and that environmental concerns should only affect the latter. And don't get me started on lakes, oceans and rivers - who do those belong to? |
| good point! nm | free-agent
Apr 3, 2002 10:11 AM | | nm |
| So, you don't mind paying $6.00 per gallon? | toad
Apr 3, 2002 10:11 AM | | I'm concerned about the wildlife and natural beauty of such places as the Artic National Wildlife Refuge. But not to point of allowing the suffering of the human population. Look what our oil policies have produced in the middle east! All because we (and most of the world) depend on oil from those countries. Dare I say that the "not in my backyard" policies of oil drilling have caused the deaths of thousands if not millions of human lives! But I guess that's ok if it saves a few animals and acres of land. |
| Not one teeny weeny bit ... | Philber
Apr 3, 2002 10:21 AM | | We should be paying $6.00 for gas. Think about it - we're paying more for clean water than we are for gas. One of the biggest reasons our environment is collapsing is because gas is so cheap. And it isn't because of the Arabs - it's because the artificially low price of gas means there's no incentive to embrace a cleaner, more sustainable form of energy. You've got to be kidding - why does the American public care what gas costs when they're all driving bloody SUV's? Isn't that basically saying "We don't give a damn what gas costs"?
I will lead the parade of those in favour of gas costing $6.00 (or more). It would be the best thing that could happen to the environment in 50 years. |
| I'm in, and I'll vote for it right now!! | free-agent
Apr 3, 2002 10:35 AM | | Amreicans are so damn spoiled it's sickening, and the impacts on the rest of the world are sad. |
| You joker | Locoman
Apr 3, 2002 10:56 AM | | You've bought that garbage hook, line and sinker.
If the US invested in alternative energy during the last energy crisis in the 70's, there would be no problem today. Most of the consumption is from cars, SUVs etc... We are in a word, inefficient. Look at our consumption to population ratios. Out of control. If our supply is in such a precarious position why did congress shut down the first proposal to make SUVs more efficient in like 20 years. Why? Because that's the way oil and auto lobby groups pull the strings. Simply making cars and SUVs and trucks more efficient with the technology that exists to do so today, we could save more than we could get from the Artic.
WAKE UP!
The oil in the Artic is only a stop-gap measure. It's quite finite and doesn't solve any of the issues. Even with that 'supply' we're still tied to Middle East oil. George W. is just trying to set up his energy friends once again.
And that BS about thousand/millions of human lives....crap.
It's business my friend. In the name of the auto and oil groups. This could have been avoided, but then how could we justify our military expenses?
Sorry if I'm coming down on you too hard. I shouldn't expect too much from the typical 'media fed' person. |
| Actually... | Ryan Prentice
Apr 3, 2002 2:03 PM | | Most of our fossil fuel consumption is for energy production, not cars. Also, while gas mileage sucks for most SUV's, and most people who buy them don't need them, the crappy old Volvo's, Subaru's, and VW Bus's that most of the hardcore "greenies" I know drive pollute far more than a brand new V-8 powered SUV.
I ride a bike every day, and I plan on building a solar powered house when I can afford it. I'm also a Veteran, and a Republican.
I'm sick of people bitching and pointing the finger when they are plugging their TV's and Computers, and Washer/Dryer combo's, etc. into the wall and sucking up all that "Evil Republican generated power"
Also, While the US does use a Huge percentage of the worlds fossil fuel, we pollute much less than most non-western countries, and more than a few western ones. Ever wonder why they close the beaches south of San Diego when it rains really hard in TJ? Could it be all that CRAP washing out to sea from Mexico?
How about those Taiwanese Drift netting fleets, or the slash and burn deforestation in the amazon basin? Is that the evil republicans too?
If you want to complain about Americans being spoiled fine, on some points I agree. But if you're enjoying all the benefits of our society while you cry then please, leave, go somewhere else where the government isn't raping the environment, and you can live in a recycled paper mache hut and eat only the nuts and berries that fall naturally, and not drive or use anything electrical, nor anything combustable, etc.
Sorry, had to say something |
| There's a standard trend... | Locoman
Apr 3, 2002 6:23 PM | | A poor country on it's way to industrialization will always pollute much more than more affluent countries. You can't point to poor countries and judge. p.s. Do you have a clue about the reasons behind slash and burn policies in the Amazon? Look it up, you might find it interesting.
And why so touchy with the republican thing? I might have made a G.W. comment, but I don't think I drew any lines in the sand about democrats & republicans. Also I don't have to blindly follow the status quo to stay in this country. -But thanks for giving me the option. As if it's yours to give.
Anyway...I'll sit in my room and solute the flag and try to forget questioning anything. |
| As a purported biker, you should be riding rathern than driving! | DCS
Apr 3, 2002 12:19 PM | | Anyway, I agree that gas prices are too low for people to give a damn about conserving. Look at all those wasteful SUV's driven by people who don't need them, while they pose a serious danger to other drivers in collisions, block intersections they are parked near to, and cause greater road wear (road wear increases 4X for a 2X increase in vehicle weight), thus wasting our tax dollars for costly and inconvenient additional road repairs. |
| What? | toad
Apr 3, 2002 8:23 PM | | So I have to be anti driving in order to be a biker heh?! You expect me too stop driving and ride the 1500 miles a month I travel. And do it when there is 16" of snow on the ground and -10 degrees out. Yeah right! You can fantisize all you want about a perfect "commuter" world, but it will never happen. Automobiles are a necessity whether you like it or not. And I'm not convinced that automobiles factor into the petrolium consumtion as much as we're lead to believe. Manufacturing and other transportation modes (air, rail, boat)consume more than personal automobiles. Why aren't people clammering to have these industries improve their efficiency (ie; MPG) by 25-35 percent and emit zero emissions at the same time?
"Look at all those wasteful SUV's driven by people who don't need them". Look, lots of people buy lots of wasteful things that they don't need (power-boats,10,000 square foot homes, big screen tv's, etc.). Should the government restrict these items to row-boats, 14'x40' trailer homes, and 12" B/W tv's? Of coarse not! It's called free enterprise.
As for wasting tax dollars; don't even start with that! There's so much tax revenue wasted every year on any number of things it's pathetic. I don't like having to pay higher and higher taxes anymore than you. But thats the system we're stuck with. Maybe if we all stopped paying our taxes for a while the government might start to give a damn about conserving. |
| Nope | GlowBoy
Apr 3, 2002 12:53 PM | | I agree with you about the misery our oil policies have caused around the world.
But failing to drill in ANWR will not raise gas prices to $6.00 per gallon.
And no I don't mind paying $6.00. As long as the money goes towards energy efficiency and transportation infrastructure improvements (roads, bike lanes AND mass transit), which will nearly pay for themselves down the road anyway. Actually, $6 is more than I'd like to see, but $3 or 4 would encourage greater responsibility and better reflect the external costs of fuel consumption that aren't accounted for by the market.
- Dan |
| excuse me while I vomit... | ohio
Apr 3, 2002 2:33 PM | | "But not to point of allowing the suffering of the human population. Look what our oil policies have produced in the middle east! All because we (and most of the world) depend on oil from those countries. Dare I say that the "not in my backyard" policies of oil drilling have caused the deaths of thousands if not millions of human lives! But I guess that's ok if it saves a few animals and acres of land."
How can you be SO close and COMPLETELY miss the point. Absolutely, our oil policies have caused thousands of deaths, poverty, mis-government, you-name-it in the middle East. This is because Americans have convinced themselves they have a right to gasoline at $1.25 a gallon, when the real cost is much much higher. And since Americans aren't happy unless they get their $1.25/gallon, the government has done everything in it's power to keep that stuff coming. Maybe so many people wouldn't die, if we pumped a little bit of that money into alternative energy sources, insulated our houses better, didn't keep our 64" TVs on 24 hours a day, and didn't insist on commuting for 2 hours every day, ALONE, in a land-yacht. |
| No, excuse ME.... | Shylock
Apr 3, 2002 3:01 PM | | blech!! Pew! |
| Inuendos + false statements = cult tactics. | MPH
Apr 3, 2002 2:50 PM | | Yep. Cult tactics, and they won't work here. Save it for the opressed and the paronoid. I've delt with those tactics for 6 yrs due to a relative's involvement in a cult, so they stick out like a sore thumb.
You said: "Bush has promised his oil drilling buddies they could use the artic area." I'm very non-political. If I were a country, I'd be Switzerland. I'm neither Dem or Rep, but I am a news-junkie, and I've never seen any credible report that would prove Bush made promises of that nature. Maybe he did. Maybe Clinton did inhale. Maybe Monica didn't swallow. Who knows? Unless you have proof, don't state it as fact.
You said "So much for your (meaning mine) concern about public and private lands and that environmental concerns should affect only the latter".
Now for some reason, you were saying that I said that? Why would you say that? I didn't say it or infer it. Do you by any chance work for Maxine Walters or Lyndon LaRouche? |
| Huh? | heff®
Apr 3, 2002 10:12 AM | | I think you have your undies on too tight, my friend.
First off, I've been in a position to see what the article is talking about first hand.
I've worked to maintain and re-open closed trails in the Northeast. Granted, the majority of "scouting troops" are bikers, but we also had State, City, and Federal land managers there. I remember one trail that we were walking, discussing cleanup and maintenance, and happened to notice a blue heron nest. We walked right back out, and closed the trail to everyone until we could reroute it.
That's responsible.
Now, what's NOT responsible, is this situation, also true. Local trail system, around two privately owned lakes. Trail access from not only the road, but from the surrounding housing backyards. Grumpy, non-bike loving landowners stringing thin-gauge wire across the trail at chest level, or, in the case of one landowner, demolishing his barn and using the scrap lumber, cement, gravel, and garbage to block three trailheads, illegally.
Point is, it's always somebody. Something you do, no matter how small, is going to offend somebody. Doing 75 on the interstate, in a 65 zone? The guy who wants to do 95 is most likely going to ride your bumper, unsafely, until you either move for him, or he gets impatient, passes you, and flips you off. And God forbid you have a price check at the grocery store at 5pm.
The issue is not "who gets to use the land", but how best to use it. I'll be the first to admit that there's trails that should NOT be used by bikers, horses, or ATV's. Only hikers. But we also have to agree that there's a safety factor involved for all of us. Ideally, a large trail system will have sections for each. What some people fail to realize is that bikers aren't the only thing that spook horses, and hikers.........somebody walking their Rottie without a leash (in a leash law area, to boot), is startling to ANYBODY. Hikers and horses both are worse for muddy trail systems than a conscientious biker. ATV's are just plain awful, period. Refuse? I pick up more hiker-related garbage than anyone else.
Wherever I was going with this.........
I agree with the article. Many of the findings in that article are true, and were falsified to bring money into a specific group. It's our job as residents, bikers, and citizens, to police our own areas, and maintain a good working relationship with municipality land managers. This way, when a Federal letter comes to your local F&P director, he can disprove it with his own, and your own, evidence. Take the time, walk the trails, pay attention.
heff® |
| Yea, the government should be in charge of all property. | Big Lib
Apr 3, 2002 6:11 PM | | They're so efficient at everything they do. An example might be where I live. The government, worse yet, an unelected quasi governmental multi state agency tells you what you can and cannot do with your land. So someone thinks there might be this bird called a goshawk in the area. When this apparent bird is spotted, land for miles cannot be developed. Even for something as noble as a bike path, which will eliminate a potentially dangerous car/bike situation. So, this "goshawk" turns up dead on the trail one day (big coincidence, right - right out of the lynx hair book). Problem solved - but no mon ami. Dead birds get federal protection too! While I might agree that a clean environment is essential, I do not agree that the ends justify the means. |
| Pretty horrible article | laffeaux
Apr 3, 2002 10:13 AM | | I guess articles written as "opinions" do not need to based in fact. The problem is that people always assume that they are facts. The "lynx hair" debacle is explained in the current issue of Outside Magazine. It's not quite the green "lie" that the far right would have you believe.
Most people are moderates. There is the "fringe" on both the right and left. The author of this opinion piece sits far to the right of center, and he complains about the people who are far left of center. If the moderates buy into the notion that all environmentalists are "fringe" members, then the author has been successful in dupping you. Realize that his word is little better than the greens he describes. |
| have a link to the article? | Shylock
Apr 3, 2002 11:28 AM | | ....can't seem to find it at the Outsidemagazine.com site....
thanks
Feel the gin |
| here it is | laffeaux
Apr 3, 2002 12:13 PM | | http://outside.away.com/outside/news/lynxgate_1.adp |
| yeah right | GlowBoy
Apr 3, 2002 12:48 PM | | Some great arguments made above on all sides, but rather than enter into the discussions about whether environmentalists/ism are "good" or bad", I'll just focus on the specifics of the article.
The 3 incidents reported at the beginning of this story were due to government ineptitude, not some hidden "green conspiracy".
1. The Lynx hair story, first reported in the Moonie (seriously) Washington Times, is such a paranoid scenario it boggles the imagination. It has since been VERY widely debunked, including in that Outside article. Here's what happened: The Forest Service had been having many problems with one of their labs returning incorrect results, so they sent them Lynx fur in a control sample, unknown to the lab. STANDARD SCIENTIFIC PRACTICE. Problem was, the fine print authorizing the study didn't authorize control samples - which was really inept - but it was even more inept to go against the stated rules of the study.
As far as the results of the study causing the entire Wenatchee and Gifford Pinchot national forests to be closed off to human access entirely, get real. Think about it. This is the federal government. They have processes for everything, and it would have taken years and a lot of additional studies and public hearings for this to happen. Which it wouldn't. These are heavily used national forests near heavily populated areas, covering millions of acres, and with millions of annual users. The outcry would be unbelievable. The WNF in particular is a major ORV destination and those guys spend lots of money to make sure they get trail access.
Besides, the widespread presence of lynx in WNF might be believable, but everyone knows the GPNF is hundreds of miles from any traditional lynx habitat. How could those two forests have lynx, and not Mount Baker-Snoqualmie, which is in between? For that matter, why not the Okanogan NF, which is between WNF and the Loomis State Forest (where we actually DID have a recent battle over lynx habitat)?
2. Yes it is true that a recent scientific review found that maintaining water levels last year in Klamath Lake may not have helped suckerfish. The studies used to support last year's decision was not based on malicious science, but rather inadquate science. Turns out the biggest threat to suckerfish isn't low lake levels but poor water quality, caused by algae blooms resulting from agricultural runoff in the upper Basin. Republicans often oppose environmental protection because they say the "science isn't there", but then also oppose adequate funding for scientific research. Probably because they often know they won't like the results. Thanks guys.
3. Overstated visitation figures in National Forests. Reported in the Oregonian many weeks ago. Could have been some ineptitude and could have been someone with an agenda, but that agenda wasn't to close off trail access. More like someone making themselves look important and deserving of more funding. Federal Government SOP, not some Green conspiracy.
When I see an inflammatory article like this, I try to consider the source. Pete DuPont. Maybe not everyone here is old enough to remember, but he ran for President a few years ago (lost the Repub primary, though) - at least in 1988 and I think maybe again in 1992. Guy is to the right of Steve Forbes.
I also noticed that this story was in the WSJ's editorial pages, not the news pages. While the WSJ is known for having a crack reporting team, it's also known for having a crackPOT editorial staff.
- Dan |
| Actually, the WSJ is known... | Shylock
Apr 3, 2002 1:39 PM | | ....for having left-wing reporters and right-wing editorial writers. I think that's a more objective assessment, don't you?
And yes, you are right about Pete DuPont's political stance, but then you aren't exactly unbiased either.
Feel the gin |
| Over here Shylock - got a link on C-ville dealings??? | fattirewilly
Apr 3, 2002 2:02 PM | | See my note to your first post. |
| i posted a reply but it got lost, I guess.... | Shylock
Apr 3, 2002 2:09 PM | | ....stupid new system!!! Anyway, email me and I'll give you the scoop. I don't have a link, but you can try going to C'ville weekly's website (if they have one) I know they did a write up. Not sure if they have a website. |
| As a completely neutral statement... | JtBl
Apr 3, 2002 10:08 PM | | This is by far one of the more interesting topics discussed here in a while. Its cool to see a little passion in debating something more meaningful than "riser vs flatbar." Too bad this thread has already been washed out by other fluff... :| |
| |
