Dave Milne wrote:

> Will the son of a bitch who managed to drive their Jeep up Everest
> and leave behind all manner of ----, please stand up.

Good point, but mountain climbers aren't exactly environmentalists
either. They seem to be more in it for the challenge of "beating"
nature, like Jeepers crawling over rocks. They use specialized
equipment but not gasoline. Many slopes have been desecrated with
permanent climbing hooks and notches carved into the rock. Dead bodies
are among the trash left behind on high peaks!. People who can't enjoy
nature as-is are always trying to open more of it to their favorite
sports. Recreational obsession triumphs over a weak land ethic.

I don't accept the whole idea that "wilderness" can remain viable when
so many elements of the city are brought in. Multiple use concepts go
too far. There are adequate places for motorsports and extreme sports
already. People pursuing those activities should blame overpopulation
if they don't like crowds. They can't keep expanding into wild places
or there won't be any left. Many national parks are already tainted by
too many visitors, even if they park their cars and hike.

R. Lander

 

R.,

Do you drive a car or live in a house heated or cooled by fossil fuels?


"R. Lander" <r_lander60@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1149274545.862617.279910@i39g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
> Dave Milne wrote:
>
>> Will the son of a bitch who managed to drive their Jeep up Everest
>> and leave behind all manner of ----, please stand up.
>
> Good point, but mountain climbers aren't exactly environmentalists
> either. They seem to be more in it for the challenge of "beating"
> nature, like Jeepers crawling over rocks. They use specialized
> equipment but not gasoline. Many slopes have been desecrated with
> permanent climbing hooks and notches carved into the rock. Dead bodies
> are among the trash left behind on high peaks!. People who can't enjoy
> nature as-is are always trying to open more of it to their favorite
> sports. Recreational obsession triumphs over a weak land ethic.
>
> I don't accept the whole idea that "wilderness" can remain viable when
> so many elements of the city are brought in. Multiple use concepts go
> too far. There are adequate places for motorsports and extreme sports
> already. People pursuing those activities should blame overpopulation
> if they don't like crowds. They can't keep expanding into wild places
> or there won't be any left. Many national parks are already tainted by
> too many visitors, even if they park their cars and hike.
>
> R. Lander
>

 

R.,

Do you drive a car or live in a house heated or cooled by fossil fuels?


"R. Lander" <r_lander60@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1149274545.862617.279910@i39g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
> Dave Milne wrote:
>
>> Will the son of a bitch who managed to drive their Jeep up Everest
>> and leave behind all manner of ----, please stand up.
>
> Good point, but mountain climbers aren't exactly environmentalists
> either. They seem to be more in it for the challenge of "beating"
> nature, like Jeepers crawling over rocks. They use specialized
> equipment but not gasoline. Many slopes have been desecrated with
> permanent climbing hooks and notches carved into the rock. Dead bodies
> are among the trash left behind on high peaks!. People who can't enjoy
> nature as-is are always trying to open more of it to their favorite
> sports. Recreational obsession triumphs over a weak land ethic.
>
> I don't accept the whole idea that "wilderness" can remain viable when
> so many elements of the city are brought in. Multiple use concepts go
> too far. There are adequate places for motorsports and extreme sports
> already. People pursuing those activities should blame overpopulation
> if they don't like crowds. They can't keep expanding into wild places
> or there won't be any left. Many national parks are already tainted by
> too many visitors, even if they park their cars and hike.
>
> R. Lander
>

 

R.,

Do you drive a car or live in a house heated or cooled by fossil fuels?


"R. Lander" <r_lander60@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1149274545.862617.279910@i39g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
> Dave Milne wrote:
>
>> Will the son of a bitch who managed to drive their Jeep up Everest
>> and leave behind all manner of ----, please stand up.
>
> Good point, but mountain climbers aren't exactly environmentalists
> either. They seem to be more in it for the challenge of "beating"
> nature, like Jeepers crawling over rocks. They use specialized
> equipment but not gasoline. Many slopes have been desecrated with
> permanent climbing hooks and notches carved into the rock. Dead bodies
> are among the trash left behind on high peaks!. People who can't enjoy
> nature as-is are always trying to open more of it to their favorite
> sports. Recreational obsession triumphs over a weak land ethic.
>
> I don't accept the whole idea that "wilderness" can remain viable when
> so many elements of the city are brought in. Multiple use concepts go
> too far. There are adequate places for motorsports and extreme sports
> already. People pursuing those activities should blame overpopulation
> if they don't like crowds. They can't keep expanding into wild places
> or there won't be any left. Many national parks are already tainted by
> too many visitors, even if they park their cars and hike.
>
> R. Lander
>

 

Of course, R.Lander is an environmentalist only when it's convenient
enough. ;)

billy ray wrote:
> R.,
>
> Do you drive a car or live in a house heated or cooled by fossil fuels?
>
>
> "R. Lander" <r_lander60@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1149274545.862617.279910@i39g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
>
>>Dave Milne wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Will the son of a bitch who managed to drive their Jeep up Everest
>>>and leave behind all manner of ----, please stand up.
>>
>>Good point, but mountain climbers aren't exactly environmentalists
>>either. They seem to be more in it for the challenge of "beating"
>>nature, like Jeepers crawling over rocks. They use specialized
>>equipment but not gasoline. Many slopes have been desecrated with
>>permanent climbing hooks and notches carved into the rock. Dead bodies
>>are among the trash left behind on high peaks!. People who can't enjoy
>>nature as-is are always trying to open more of it to their favorite
>>sports. Recreational obsession triumphs over a weak land ethic.
>>
>>I don't accept the whole idea that "wilderness" can remain viable when
>>so many elements of the city are brought in. Multiple use concepts go
>>too far. There are adequate places for motorsports and extreme sports
>>already. People pursuing those activities should blame overpopulation
>>if they don't like crowds. They can't keep expanding into wild places
>>or there won't be any left. Many national parks are already tainted by
>>too many visitors, even if they park their cars and hike.
>>
>>R. Lander
>>
>
>
>

--
Jerry Bransford
PP-ASEL N6TAY
See the Geezer Jeep at
http://members.***.net/jerrypb/

 

Of course, R.Lander is an environmentalist only when it's convenient
enough. ;)

billy ray wrote:
> R.,
>
> Do you drive a car or live in a house heated or cooled by fossil fuels?
>
>
> "R. Lander" <r_lander60@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1149274545.862617.279910@i39g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
>
>>Dave Milne wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Will the son of a bitch who managed to drive their Jeep up Everest
>>>and leave behind all manner of ----, please stand up.
>>
>>Good point, but mountain climbers aren't exactly environmentalists
>>either. They seem to be more in it for the challenge of "beating"
>>nature, like Jeepers crawling over rocks. They use specialized
>>equipment but not gasoline. Many slopes have been desecrated with
>>permanent climbing hooks and notches carved into the rock. Dead bodies
>>are among the trash left behind on high peaks!. People who can't enjoy
>>nature as-is are always trying to open more of it to their favorite
>>sports. Recreational obsession triumphs over a weak land ethic.
>>
>>I don't accept the whole idea that "wilderness" can remain viable when
>>so many elements of the city are brought in. Multiple use concepts go
>>too far. There are adequate places for motorsports and extreme sports
>>already. People pursuing those activities should blame overpopulation
>>if they don't like crowds. They can't keep expanding into wild places
>>or there won't be any left. Many national parks are already tainted by
>>too many visitors, even if they park their cars and hike.
>>
>>R. Lander
>>
>
>
>

--
Jerry Bransford
PP-ASEL N6TAY
See the Geezer Jeep at
http://members.***.net/jerrypb/

 

Of course, R.Lander is an environmentalist only when it's convenient
enough. ;)

billy ray wrote:
> R.,
>
> Do you drive a car or live in a house heated or cooled by fossil fuels?
>
>
> "R. Lander" <r_lander60@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1149274545.862617.279910@i39g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
>
>>Dave Milne wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Will the son of a bitch who managed to drive their Jeep up Everest
>>>and leave behind all manner of ----, please stand up.
>>
>>Good point, but mountain climbers aren't exactly environmentalists
>>either. They seem to be more in it for the challenge of "beating"
>>nature, like Jeepers crawling over rocks. They use specialized
>>equipment but not gasoline. Many slopes have been desecrated with
>>permanent climbing hooks and notches carved into the rock. Dead bodies
>>are among the trash left behind on high peaks!. People who can't enjoy
>>nature as-is are always trying to open more of it to their favorite
>>sports. Recreational obsession triumphs over a weak land ethic.
>>
>>I don't accept the whole idea that "wilderness" can remain viable when
>>so many elements of the city are brought in. Multiple use concepts go
>>too far. There are adequate places for motorsports and extreme sports
>>already. People pursuing those activities should blame overpopulation
>>if they don't like crowds. They can't keep expanding into wild places
>>or there won't be any left. Many national parks are already tainted by
>>too many visitors, even if they park their cars and hike.
>>
>>R. Lander
>>
>
>
>

--
Jerry Bransford
PP-ASEL N6TAY
See the Geezer Jeep at
http://members.***.net/jerrypb/

 

Hehehe, yeah, um okay, maybe you didnt check out my site on the first
link but I do exploration and preservation as a full time job. And I do
90% of it by vehicle, maybe you can pack all of your gear into a
backpack but when you are actually exploring there are a great many
things that you need and its way too much to put in a backpack. Do I
think it takes great skill to drive on a dirt trail?? More than you
obviously have any idea, there is a high degree of skill involved in
off road driving, granted many are just going by the seat of their
pants and that lends to a lot of people in ditches and dead down in
ravines.
The point here isnt your wilderness or nature, its that everyone in
this country has the freedom to do as they please, some abuse and some
dont. But your concept of nature doesnt do anything for me. Sure its
nice and peaceful, but to me, it doesnt hold a candle to coming into an
old indian site, or a nearly untouched mining camp or mine.
and "master of granite" seriously, is this the best you can come up
with. I understand that you are on the Cali side of things and you
really dont have much wild area to explore and document, but thats your
own fault. Laws have gotten worse and worse, to where there is not a
lot of freedom as to what we can do, maybe you would be happier in a
militaristic society where there is a rule for everything and no one
deviates, God knows we are heading that way, but for now, there are
still some freedoms.

But like I said in the last post, your really not doing anything about
what you concieve to be the problem, whining on the internet is about
as effective as a taking a subaru into the woods.

Enjoy the day,
Corey Shuman
www.goldrushexpeditions.com


R. Lander wrote:
> Corey Shuman wrote:
>
> > Just out of curiosity, how many people with opinions on both sides,
> > actually get out into the remote area, wander around, 4 wheel, hike,
> > etc... Cause my take on R. Lander is that he has probably never even
> > been to any of the areas he speaks of, but rather reads bits and peices
> > on the internet propaganda sites and then trolls for a place to spout
> > off...
>
> You assume a lot, don't you? You have some fantasy of a guy in a Jeep
> as the Lone Ranger on horseback. Do you think it takes some great
> effort to drive on a dirt road? Like hell it does. You can get much
> closer to nature by traveling silently through it on foot. You can't
> define wilderness knowledge as the sheer distance travelled through it
> in a given time frame. I also have a lot more respect for horseback
> riders that some fool trying to prove that he's the master of granite
> in a Jeep.
>
> I spend as much time as possible in remote areas (mostly the Sierra
> Nevada and Cascades). I even own a 4WD vehicle, which I take to
> trail-heads as needed. I don't drive in pristine areas and I don't
> think the Rubicon Trail should be open to vehicular traffic. It's just
> too crowded now. Convoys of partiers and gearheads make a mockery of
> the wilderness it passes through. Many go to test their vehicles, first
> and foremost. Nature just provides some scenery for the hoedown.
>
> The problem is that people keep wanting to invade more wild places with
> more roads and vehicles and it's already excessive. In North America,
> there's not much significant wilderness left, except for Canada and
> Alaska where it's too cold or remote to experience. Population growth
> drives the constant increase in land-use pressure (something you show
> no concern over). Cities in rural areas keep growing, creating more
> visitors within easy driving reach. Instead of admitting that they are
> overcrowding the land, they blame environmentalists for blocking
> access. All you want to talk about is your "right" to drive on more
> land. If you had real respect for wilderness you'd voluntarily leave it
> alone. There are places hikers don't need to be, either.
>
> And whether or not you choose to call it passive exploring, the only
> way to get a true picture of land usage IS to look at a map or photo.
> Many trails give a false appearance of being "wilderness" because trees
> or ridges are screening out a mine or highway on the other side. Rural
> dwellers suffer from the same delusion since they don't feel crowded
> conditions directly. The concept of Man's "ecological footprint" is
> what this is all about. Do a search on that topic to see why "plenty of
> land" is an illusion.
>
> > Dont get me wrong, there is trash here and there, but you cant
> > blame that on the 4 wheelers anymore than you can blame the clap on the
> > hippies. There is a random correlation with no proof.
> > If you are upset about something, do something, dont just sit around
> > and bitch....
>
> Cite these places where you claim hikers are doing an equal amount of
> littering. I don't buy it. Off-roaders as a group are less ecologically
> conscious and more likely to litter. It goes with the attitude and
> territory.
>
> R. Lander

 

Hehehe, yeah, um okay, maybe you didnt check out my site on the first
link but I do exploration and preservation as a full time job. And I do
90% of it by vehicle, maybe you can pack all of your gear into a
backpack but when you are actually exploring there are a great many
things that you need and its way too much to put in a backpack. Do I
think it takes great skill to drive on a dirt trail?? More than you
obviously have any idea, there is a high degree of skill involved in
off road driving, granted many are just going by the seat of their
pants and that lends to a lot of people in ditches and dead down in
ravines.
The point here isnt your wilderness or nature, its that everyone in
this country has the freedom to do as they please, some abuse and some
dont. But your concept of nature doesnt do anything for me. Sure its
nice and peaceful, but to me, it doesnt hold a candle to coming into an
old indian site, or a nearly untouched mining camp or mine.
and "master of granite" seriously, is this the best you can come up
with. I understand that you are on the Cali side of things and you
really dont have much wild area to explore and document, but thats your
own fault. Laws have gotten worse and worse, to where there is not a
lot of freedom as to what we can do, maybe you would be happier in a
militaristic society where there is a rule for everything and no one
deviates, God knows we are heading that way, but for now, there are
still some freedoms.

But like I said in the last post, your really not doing anything about
what you concieve to be the problem, whining on the internet is about
as effective as a taking a subaru into the woods.

Enjoy the day,
Corey Shuman
www.goldrushexpeditions.com


R. Lander wrote:
> Corey Shuman wrote:
>
> > Just out of curiosity, how many people with opinions on both sides,
> > actually get out into the remote area, wander around, 4 wheel, hike,
> > etc... Cause my take on R. Lander is that he has probably never even
> > been to any of the areas he speaks of, but rather reads bits and peices
> > on the internet propaganda sites and then trolls for a place to spout
> > off...
>
> You assume a lot, don't you? You have some fantasy of a guy in a Jeep
> as the Lone Ranger on horseback. Do you think it takes some great
> effort to drive on a dirt road? Like hell it does. You can get much
> closer to nature by traveling silently through it on foot. You can't
> define wilderness knowledge as the sheer distance travelled through it
> in a given time frame. I also have a lot more respect for horseback
> riders that some fool trying to prove that he's the master of granite
> in a Jeep.
>
> I spend as much time as possible in remote areas (mostly the Sierra
> Nevada and Cascades). I even own a 4WD vehicle, which I take to
> trail-heads as needed. I don't drive in pristine areas and I don't
> think the Rubicon Trail should be open to vehicular traffic. It's just
> too crowded now. Convoys of partiers and gearheads make a mockery of
> the wilderness it passes through. Many go to test their vehicles, first
> and foremost. Nature just provides some scenery for the hoedown.
>
> The problem is that people keep wanting to invade more wild places with
> more roads and vehicles and it's already excessive. In North America,
> there's not much significant wilderness left, except for Canada and
> Alaska where it's too cold or remote to experience. Population growth
> drives the constant increase in land-use pressure (something you show
> no concern over). Cities in rural areas keep growing, creating more
> visitors within easy driving reach. Instead of admitting that they are
> overcrowding the land, they blame environmentalists for blocking
> access. All you want to talk about is your "right" to drive on more
> land. If you had real respect for wilderness you'd voluntarily leave it
> alone. There are places hikers don't need to be, either.
>
> And whether or not you choose to call it passive exploring, the only
> way to get a true picture of land usage IS to look at a map or photo.
> Many trails give a false appearance of being "wilderness" because trees
> or ridges are screening out a mine or highway on the other side. Rural
> dwellers suffer from the same delusion since they don't feel crowded
> conditions directly. The concept of Man's "ecological footprint" is
> what this is all about. Do a search on that topic to see why "plenty of
> land" is an illusion.
>
> > Dont get me wrong, there is trash here and there, but you cant
> > blame that on the 4 wheelers anymore than you can blame the clap on the
> > hippies. There is a random correlation with no proof.
> > If you are upset about something, do something, dont just sit around
> > and bitch....
>
> Cite these places where you claim hikers are doing an equal amount of
> littering. I don't buy it. Off-roaders as a group are less ecologically
> conscious and more likely to litter. It goes with the attitude and
> territory.
>
> R. Lander

 

Hehehe, yeah, um okay, maybe you didnt check out my site on the first
link but I do exploration and preservation as a full time job. And I do
90% of it by vehicle, maybe you can pack all of your gear into a
backpack but when you are actually exploring there are a great many
things that you need and its way too much to put in a backpack. Do I
think it takes great skill to drive on a dirt trail?? More than you
obviously have any idea, there is a high degree of skill involved in
off road driving, granted many are just going by the seat of their
pants and that lends to a lot of people in ditches and dead down in
ravines.
The point here isnt your wilderness or nature, its that everyone in
this country has the freedom to do as they please, some abuse and some
dont. But your concept of nature doesnt do anything for me. Sure its
nice and peaceful, but to me, it doesnt hold a candle to coming into an
old indian site, or a nearly untouched mining camp or mine.
and "master of granite" seriously, is this the best you can come up
with. I understand that you are on the Cali side of things and you
really dont have much wild area to explore and document, but thats your
own fault. Laws have gotten worse and worse, to where there is not a
lot of freedom as to what we can do, maybe you would be happier in a
militaristic society where there is a rule for everything and no one
deviates, God knows we are heading that way, but for now, there are
still some freedoms.

But like I said in the last post, your really not doing anything about
what you concieve to be the problem, whining on the internet is about
as effective as a taking a subaru into the woods.

Enjoy the day,
Corey Shuman
www.goldrushexpeditions.com


R. Lander wrote:
> Corey Shuman wrote:
>
> > Just out of curiosity, how many people with opinions on both sides,
> > actually get out into the remote area, wander around, 4 wheel, hike,
> > etc... Cause my take on R. Lander is that he has probably never even
> > been to any of the areas he speaks of, but rather reads bits and peices
> > on the internet propaganda sites and then trolls for a place to spout
> > off...
>
> You assume a lot, don't you? You have some fantasy of a guy in a Jeep
> as the Lone Ranger on horseback. Do you think it takes some great
> effort to drive on a dirt road? Like hell it does. You can get much
> closer to nature by traveling silently through it on foot. You can't
> define wilderness knowledge as the sheer distance travelled through it
> in a given time frame. I also have a lot more respect for horseback
> riders that some fool trying to prove that he's the master of granite
> in a Jeep.
>
> I spend as much time as possible in remote areas (mostly the Sierra
> Nevada and Cascades). I even own a 4WD vehicle, which I take to
> trail-heads as needed. I don't drive in pristine areas and I don't
> think the Rubicon Trail should be open to vehicular traffic. It's just
> too crowded now. Convoys of partiers and gearheads make a mockery of
> the wilderness it passes through. Many go to test their vehicles, first
> and foremost. Nature just provides some scenery for the hoedown.
>
> The problem is that people keep wanting to invade more wild places with
> more roads and vehicles and it's already excessive. In North America,
> there's not much significant wilderness left, except for Canada and
> Alaska where it's too cold or remote to experience. Population growth
> drives the constant increase in land-use pressure (something you show
> no concern over). Cities in rural areas keep growing, creating more
> visitors within easy driving reach. Instead of admitting that they are
> overcrowding the land, they blame environmentalists for blocking
> access. All you want to talk about is your "right" to drive on more
> land. If you had real respect for wilderness you'd voluntarily leave it
> alone. There are places hikers don't need to be, either.
>
> And whether or not you choose to call it passive exploring, the only
> way to get a true picture of land usage IS to look at a map or photo.
> Many trails give a false appearance of being "wilderness" because trees
> or ridges are screening out a mine or highway on the other side. Rural
> dwellers suffer from the same delusion since they don't feel crowded
> conditions directly. The concept of Man's "ecological footprint" is
> what this is all about. Do a search on that topic to see why "plenty of
> land" is an illusion.
>
> > Dont get me wrong, there is trash here and there, but you cant
> > blame that on the 4 wheelers anymore than you can blame the clap on the
> > hippies. There is a random correlation with no proof.
> > If you are upset about something, do something, dont just sit around
> > and bitch....
>
> Cite these places where you claim hikers are doing an equal amount of
> littering. I don't buy it. Off-roaders as a group are less ecologically
> conscious and more likely to litter. It goes with the attitude and
> territory.
>
> R. Lander